ORAL JUDGMENT (Per:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA) 1. Jageshwar @ Jago Yadav @ Jageshwar Yadav was one of the two co-appellants of this Cr.Appeal No. 347 of 1990(DB). It was reported at bar on 03.09.2012 that Jageshwar @ Jago Yadav @ Jageshwar Yadav son of Garbhu Yadav has died. To ascertain this, a report was called for from the Superintendent of Police, Banka who reported that Jageshwar @ Jago Yadav @ Jageshwar Yadav has died in the year 1998 and thus by order dated 27.11.2012, the appeal filed on behalf of the appellant Jageshwar @ Jago Yadav @ Jageshwar Yadav has abated. Now Ram Bilas Yadav is the sole appellant in this appeal. 2. The judgment under challenge has been passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Banka on 19th July, 1990 in Sessions Trial No. 23 of 1990/467 of 1990 convicting the appellant under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 3. Altogether four accused persons were put on trial. Other two accused namely, Bundeli Yadav and Rabindra Yadav were acquitted after giving them benefit of doubt and the two persons were convicted. 4. The law set in motion on the basis of fardbeya (Ext.2) given by Chaukidar Md.Hafiz (P.W.9) on 12.05.1989 at 8.15 A.M. before the Officer-in-charge, Shiv Das Singh (not examined) of Fullidumar Police Station. The Chaukidar stated in the fardbeyan that he received information by Umesh Chandra Yadav (P.W.4, a formal witness) and Rajendra Yadav (P.W.7, tendered by the prosecution) that preceding 4.00 A.M. Nandika Devi, daughter of Jago Yadav, sister of Ram Bilas Yadav, aged 20 years has burnt herself to death. She was married earlier to Pratap Roy (not examined). She was to go her in-law’s house on next Sunday or Monday. She was not willing to go to her in-law’s house but her parents and other family members including her brothers Ram Bilas Yadav (appellant), Bundeli Yadav (acquitted), Ravindra Yadav (acquitted) and Ashok Yadav were forcing her to go to her in- law’s house. Being aggrieved, she preferred to burn herself and her dead body in burn condition was found in southern room of courtyard. Villagers Jagdish Yadav (P.W.3, a hostile witness), Ganesh Yadav (P.W.2, a hostile witness), Kaushal Kishore Yadav (P.W.1, a hostile witness) have affirmed that she has died as she was persuaded to go to her in-laws house. Being aggrieved, she preferred to burn herself and her dead body in burn condition was found in southern room of courtyard. Villagers Jagdish Yadav (P.W.3, a hostile witness), Ganesh Yadav (P.W.2, a hostile witness), Kaushal Kishore Yadav (P.W.1, a hostile witness) have affirmed that she has died as she was persuaded to go to her in-laws house. The said fardbeyan resulted into Amarpur P.S.Case No. 92 of l989 for offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter formal F.I.R. (Ext.2/1) was prepared and investigation commenced. The inquest report (Ext.5) was prepared. The Investigating Officer prayed to the Court for converting Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code into Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the court permitted to do so on 23.06.1989. The post mortem report (Ext.4) was prepared and statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded and after completion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted. Cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions where charges 302/34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code were explained to the accused persons namely, Jageshwar alias Jago Yadav alias Jageshwar Yadav (died in course of appeal), Ram Bilas Yadav (appellant), Bundeli Yadav (since acquitted) and Rabindra Yadav (since acquitted) who pleaded innocence. Hence trial proceeded. 5. The defence of the accused persons was of false implication and they had no motive at all as they were the own family members of the deceased. They were not responsible for the death of deceased Nandika Devi. 6. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined nine witnesses. They are : P.W.1 Kaushal Kishore Yadav, P.W.2 Ganesh Yadav, P.W.3 Jagdish Yadav, P.W.4 Umesh Chandra Yadav, P.W.5 Janardhan Pandey, P.W.6 Dr.Ram Peyare who held post mortem over the dead body of the deceased, P.W.7 Rajendra Yadav, P.W.8 Jagdish Yadav and P.W.9 Md.Hafiz who is informant of the case. There is no defence witness. 7. The trial court after considering the evidences on record and after hearing the arguments of the parties opined that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges only against the appellant and his father who is now dead beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts and has passed the order of conviction and sentence and given the benefit of doubt to two co-accused, as stated above. 8. 8. This Court is required to reappraise the evidences on record and to see as to whether there were materials on record to prove the charge against the appellant beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubt or not. 9. P.Ws 1,2 and 3 were declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.4,5 and 8 were formal witnesses. P.W.7 has been tendered by the prosecution. Though P.W.5 has been examined as official witnesses by the prosecution but he had not participated in the investigation. He has merely submitted chargesheet. 10. P.W.3 has identified his signature on the application given to the Officer-in-charge seeking permission for cremation of the dead body of Nandika Devi but he denied that he had given such application. So he was declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.4 has identified his signature on the inquest report but he has stated that nothing was written in his presence. So he was declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.5 has proved some paragraphs of the case diary. P.W.6 is the doctor who held post mortem over the dead body of the deceased and found a large number of injuries. P.W.7 has been tendered by the prosecution. P.W.8 is another formal witness who has identified the signature on the inquest report. 11. P.W.9 is the last witness who is informant as well as Chaukidar of the Mahal under whose jurisdiction the occurrence took place. This witness has stated that he heard rumour that daughter of Jago Yadav has committed suicide by burning herself but he could not say in his evidence that as to who informed him about this occurrence. He went to the house of Jago Yadav and found Nandka Devi dead on account of burn injury. She was married lady. The informant has stated that he does not know the reason of burning. Though this witness has not been declared hostile but the prosecution has suggested that he was knowing the reason of burning. This witness has denied the suggestion given by the prosecution. 12. From scrutinizing the evidences on record it is apparent that there was nothing which could have warranted conviction of the accused persons. Not even one witness has stated anything that the informant had knowing about the murder of the deceased by the accused. Not only that there is no specific attribution against this appellant, his father and others who have been acquitted. Not even one witness has stated anything that the informant had knowing about the murder of the deceased by the accused. Not only that there is no specific attribution against this appellant, his father and others who have been acquitted. It does not appear from the evidence as to why this appellant as well as his father was convicted. 13. Thus, we are of the view that there was no material on record to prove any charge against the appellant. As such, the appellant deserves acquittal. 14. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence is set aside. The appellant is acquitted. As the appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the liability of his bail bond.