JUDGEMENT Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The Appellants have been convicted under Section 201, 511 I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years by the judgment dated 18.5.1994 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in Sessions Trial No. 324 of 1990. 2. The prosecution case is that the deceased was married to the Appellant No. 1 and she used to reside in her mothers place but on the date of occurrence she was residing in the house of the in-laws and it was learnt by the informant that she had been murdered and the accused were ready to burn her dead body. At this the informant reached the cremation ghat where the Appellant No. 1 arrived but he fled away whereas the Appellant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 also fled away leaving the dead body when inquiry was made from them. The Appellant No. 1 is the husband of the deceased whereas the Appellant No. 2 is the brother-in-law and Appellant No. 3 is the co-villager and Appellant No. 4 plough man of Appellant No. 1. 3. The prosecution in all examined 9 witnesses out of whom P.W. 1 is the doctor who held the post mortem examination whereas P.W. 2 is the dafadar and the informant, P.W. 3, 5 and 7 have not supported the case of the prosecution whereas P.W. 4 is the brother of the deceased. P.W. 6 is merely on the factum of arriving at the burning ghat with the informant. P.W. 8 is the wife of Appellant No. 2 and P.W. 9 is the police officer who submitted the charge sheet but had not conducted any investigation. 4. The defence also examined two witnesses on the point that the Appellant No. 1 was not present in the village of the occurrence whereas P.W. 3 had only come on learning about the death of the deceased whereas Appellant No. 4 resided about 3 k.m. away from the P.O. village. 5. Initially the Appellants were charged under Section 302/34 I.P.C. along with 201/511 I.P.C. but they were acquitted of the charges under Section 302/34 since there was no direct evidence charges under Section 302/34 since there was no direct evidence against them. 6. The question that arises for determination is therefore, whether the Appellants had attempted to screen the offence of murder. However, since the Appellants have already been acquitted of the main offence. 6. The question that arises for determination is therefore, whether the Appellants had attempted to screen the offence of murder. However, since the Appellants have already been acquitted of the main offence. It is difficult to appreciate how they can be convicted for screening such an offence. More so, in absence of any cogent material as to which of the accused persons had committed the act of murder of the deceased. P.W. 8 who was not declared hostile had categorically stated that the husband of the deceased (Appellant No. 1) was not in the house on the night of occurrence and therefore, it is difficult to presume that the presence of the Appellants in the burning ghat was with a view to screen the offence of murder. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the Appellants by the learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in Sessions Trial No. 324 of 1990 by the judgment dated 18.5.1994 are hereby set aside and they are acquitted of their respective charges. The Appellants are discharged for the liabilities from their respective bail bonds.