Judgment Shyam Kishore Sharma, J. The appellant Anil Rai has challenged the judgment dated 15th of June, 1991 and order of sentence dated 17th of June, 1991 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Begusarai in Sessions Case No. 10 of 1990, convicting this appellant and Bishundeo Rai under Section 302, 201/34 of the IPC and sentencing both of them to undergo R.I. for life and for five years respectively and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. One Sabitri Devi who was 3rd accused of the case was spared. 2. The case has started on the basis of fardbeyan which led to registration of Muffasil P.S. Case No. 105 of 1987 under Sections 302, 201/34 of the IPC (Ext. 3). The informant Baleshwar Sao – as Chowkidar bearing his number 9/6 alleged that Anil Rai was married Sunita Devi. She was not being liked so she was killed and her dead body was thrown. The dead body was taken out and the accused persons were carrying it towards Gandak river for throwing it so that the accused persons could be screened from the fences. The FIR was investigated and after investigation charge sheet was submitted and the case was committed to the court of Sessions, where charge under Section 302, 201/34 of the IPC was explained to Bishundeo Rai, Anil Rai and Sabitri Devi. All the accused persons pleaded innocence so the trial proceeded. 3. The defence of the accused persons was of false implication. 4. Before the trial court the prosecution examined P.W. 1 Ram Jatan Yadav, P.W. 2 Baleshwar Sao, P.W. 3 Hare Ram Rai, P.W. 4 Ramjee Mohan Rai, P.W. 5 Dr. S.M. Haque, P.W. 6 Rabbi Rai, P.W. 7 Manoj Kr. @ Kari Rai, P.W. 8 Dr. Naveen Kr. Verma, P.W. 9 and 10 Indradeo Choudhary. The post-mortem was conducted by P.W. 9 which was observed by P.W. 5. 5. The trial court after considering the evidence on the record came to the opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge against both the appellants beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts and accused Sabitri Devi was acquitted. Accordingly, two persons were held guilty out of whom one Bishundeo Yadav died during pendency of the appeal. So appeal against appellant no. 1 is abated. The sole surviving appellant is before us. 6. Accordingly, two persons were held guilty out of whom one Bishundeo Yadav died during pendency of the appeal. So appeal against appellant no. 1 is abated. The sole surviving appellant is before us. 6. This Court has to see as to whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving the charge against the accused persons beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts or not. 7. The material witnesses of the case are P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7. All the material witnesses have become hostile and they have not supported fraction of charge and it has not even been proved that the deceased Sunita Devi was wife of sole surviving appellant Anil Rai or not. The relationship of the deceased with the appellant has also not been proved. None have claimed to have seen any part of the occurrence and the simple interpretation and wholesome reading shows that none of the prosecution witnesses has supported any part of allegation. The accused persons have been convicted only on the basis of doctor’s opinion as well as evidence of the I.O. 8. If in a case, the prosecution relies upon the testimony of the witnesses then the onus comes upon the prosecution to establish that it was a case which was seen and perceived by the persons who came to depose before the court. In the present case, the prosecution has definitely relied upon the witnesses who were put to witness box on its behalf but instead of supporting any part of allegation they have given another version before the court and that version was that they were totally ignorant with the facts and circumstances of the case. It was a case in which not even one witness has claimed that he has seen any part of the occurrence from beginning to end. It was a case in which order of conviction should not have been recorded. 9. In that view of the matter, we have no option at all but to annul the judgment and allow the appeal. In the result, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence is set aside. The appeal is allowed. The appellant is already on bail. Hence he is acquitted of the charges and discharged from the liabilities of his respective bail bonds. Appeal allowed.