JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH) The sole appellant has been convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code ( for short ‘I.P.C.’) and section 201 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life in respect of both offences concurrently by the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 15.11.1990 by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya, in Sessions Trial No. 25 of 1988. 2. It may be noticed here that originally the appellant and three others, namely, Kishori Sao, Srichand Sao and Brij Sao were all tried and charged for offences punishable under sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the I.P.C., respectively, but the trial court acquitted the three other accused while convicted appellant Jainandan Prasad Singh as noticed above. 3. The charges, as noted above, were under two heads; firstly that the appellant and three others had on 10th of September, 1986 at village Kurkihar, Faudariya Pyne P.S. Wazirganj, District Gaya intentionally committed the murder of Bimla Sinha in furtherance of common intention and thereby committed offence punishable under section 302/34 of the I.P.C. and secondly that on the same day same month same year and same time having full knowledge that murder of Bimla Sinha had been committed, made disappearance of her dead body with an intention of screening the crime and evidence in furtherance of common intention and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 201/34 of the I.P.C. Bimla Sinha happened to be wife of the sole appellant. The accused persons had denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution set up story that the appellant having been married about two years earlier had not taken his wife Bimla Sinha to his matrimonial home as Bidai (second marriage) could not be performed. The marriage was without any dowry. One month after the marriage, he had come to the residence of his Sasural for one night but thereafter he demanded a motor-cycle and on not being able to get the same he did not come for Bidai (second marriage) of his wife. All of a sudden on 09.09.1986 at about 2P.M. he came from Nawadah, where he worked as an illiterate Chaprasi (Peon) in a school and disclosed that his wife was to appear in an interview for teacher at Ranchi, she being a matriculate and she should be allowed to go. All of a sudden on 09.09.1986 at about 2P.M. he came from Nawadah, where he worked as an illiterate Chaprasi (Peon) in a school and disclosed that his wife was to appear in an interview for teacher at Ranchi, she being a matriculate and she should be allowed to go. At 4P.M. the same day, he allegedly left with his wife for the said purpose. 5. On 11.09.1986 in the afternoon an unidentified dead body of a young lady was found in Faudariya Pyne of village Kurkihar about 10 K.Ms. from Wazirganj Police Station, for which Wazirganj P.S. Case No. 113 of 1986 was registered and after photograph being taken, the body was sent for post-mortem and as it could not be identified, the same was cremated. 6. On 13.09.1986 in the afternoon, the appellant was said to have gone to his co-brother-in-law (Sadhu) Mahendra Singh (P.W.6) at Nawadah Collectorate and informed him that Bimla Sinha, while being taken to Ranchi had terrible stomach pain and as such she was taken to Patna, where in course of operation being performed she died and she was cremated there and the father-in-law might be, accordingly, informed. Mahendra Singh (P.W.6), accordingly, came to the village of father-in-law, which was nearby and informed him about the incident on 13.09.1986 in the evening. On 14.09.1986 in the morning, one co-villager, also by the name of Mahendra Singh (P.W.8), came and informed the father in law Kapildeo Singh (P.W.9) that at Wazirganj, District Gaya on 13.09.1986 he heard that the Police had found an unidentified dead body of a lady and he went to Jugnu Photo Studio and saw the photo and identified it as the daughter of Kapildeo Singh and, accordingly, asked him (informant) to go to Wazirganj Police Station, whereafter on 14.09.1986 Kapildeo Singh went to Wazirganj Police Station and identified the photograph of his daughter and returned to Nawadah, whereafter on 16.09.1986 he gave a written statement at Nawadah Police Station, disclosing the fact aforesaid, which was forwarded to Wazirganj Police Station. Thereafter, on or about 18.09.1986 the appellant was arrested in the afternoon while sleeping in his house at Nawadah. 7. The trial court accepted the prosecution evidence and convicted the appellant while acquitting the three others solely on the basis of the evidence that the deceased was last seen with the appellant. 8. Mr. Thereafter, on or about 18.09.1986 the appellant was arrested in the afternoon while sleeping in his house at Nawadah. 7. The trial court accepted the prosecution evidence and convicted the appellant while acquitting the three others solely on the basis of the evidence that the deceased was last seen with the appellant. 8. Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel, who appeared in support of the appeal, firstly submitted that in view of the allegations the appellant first ought to have been charged for deceitfully taking possession of his wife for the purpose of killing her, thereby committed an offence under section 364 of the I.P.C. and then he could have been charged with murder. The first charge not having been levelled, the circumstances in relation thereto could not be used against the appellant by the prosecution and if that be so then all such evidence have to be discarded, as a consequence whereof, there would be no evidence for conviction as against the appellant. He then secondly submitted that the appellant having been charged along with others, with the aid of section 34 of the I.P.C. and that charge having failed, he could not be independently convicted under section 302 or 201 of the I.P.C. Thirdly he submitted that examination of the accused under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the Cr.P.C.’), without putting incriminating circumstances to the accused caused serious prejudice to him and those circumstances could not be used against him and as such the appellant was entitled to acquittal. Lastly he submitted that even otherwise the evidence as available on record taken as a whole was grossly insufficient for recording any conviction. 9. We would like to deal with each of the four submissions separately. In our view, the first two appear to be misconceived in law though attractive as a matter of argument. However, the last two deserve to be seriously considered. 10. The first contention would be that as per the prosecution version the appellant had deceitfully taken custody of his wife with an intention to kill her. This was a distinct offence punishable under section 364 of the I.P.C., but no charge was framed in this respect and that being so the facts in relation to such a charge could not be permitted to be recorded. This was a distinct offence punishable under section 364 of the I.P.C., but no charge was framed in this respect and that being so the facts in relation to such a charge could not be permitted to be recorded. Consequently the fact that the appellant took his wife and was last seen with her cannot be permitted to be brought on record as that would be contrary to the very concept of framing of charge. Mr. Thakur submitted that framing of the charge is to give notice to the accused of the case at hand and the accused is required to meet the same. In our view, Mr. Thakur, learned counsel, would be right in his submissions had the trial court first convicted the appellant under section 364 of the I.P.C. without there being a charge in that regard, but on the evidence, as would be discussed later, we find that the appellant was not taken unawares. He all along was aware of the facts being alleged against him and was defending the same. He was charged under section 302 of the I.P.C. and convicted thereunder. There was no prejudice caused to him. These aspects have been dealt by the Apex Court in case of W. Slaney vrs. State of Madhya Pradesh, being a Constitution Bench judgment, since reported in A.I.R. 1956 S.C.116. We may add that the answer also directly lies in section 213, Illustrations (e) of the Cr.P.C, which reads as follows :- “213. When manner of committing offence must be stated.- When the nature of the case is such that the particulars mentioned in sections 211 and 212 do not give the accused sufficient notice of the matter with which he is charged, the charge shall also contain such particulars of the manner in which the alleged offence was committed as will be sufficient for that purpose. Illustrations ……. (e) A is accused of the murder of B at a given time and place. The charge need not state the manner in which A murdered B. ………” 11. Illustrations ……. (e) A is accused of the murder of B at a given time and place. The charge need not state the manner in which A murdered B. ………” 11. We may, by way of illustration, further add that in a case where the allegation is that accused persons entered into a house, caught hold of the deceased, brought him on the road and killed him, the charge would be sufficient of section 302/34 or section 302/149 of the I.P.C., as the case may be, but surely separate charges of unlawful assembly, criminal house trespass, kidnapping and murder are not required to be framed. Thus, it cannot be urged that the evidence in relation to deceitfully taking away his wife for killing her cannot be looked into for the purpose of convicting the appellant. 12. The second contention is that all four accused persons including the appellant were charged with the aid of section 34 of the I.P.C. both with regard to offences under section 302 and 201 of the I.P.C. and once the charge under section 34 of the I.P.C. failed or was not established, the charge independently under section 302 of the I.P.C., which was not there, could not be held to be proved and the appellant could not be convicted thereunder. The complete answer to this question is the case of W. Slaney (supra), wherein the Apex Court has examined this question in great detail and has held that the purpose of framing of charge is only to give notice to an accused of the case as required to be defended and all the allegations or the allegation that he is to meet and any such mistake, if any, cannot vitiate the trial unless serious prejudice caused to the accused is established. The charge was murder with common intention. It is murder nonetheless. We may refer to paragraph 93 of the AIR reports of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of W. Slaney (supra) as quoted hereunder : “93. The appellant was charged with murder and nothing short of it, although it was stated in the charge that the offence was committed by him in furtherance of a common intention. We may refer to paragraph 93 of the AIR reports of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of W. Slaney (supra) as quoted hereunder : “93. The appellant was charged with murder and nothing short of it, although it was stated in the charge that the offence was committed by him in furtherance of a common intention. If the evidence failed to prove that the offence committed by him was in furtherance of a common intention, it would be nonetheless his offence, namely, murder, if his act in law amounted to murder. The law does not require in such a case that a separate charge for murder should be framed, because the charge of murder was already on the record.” Therefore, the second submission of Mr. Thakur is also misconceived. 13. The third submission is based on section 313 of the Cr.P.C. It was rightly submitted that section 313 of the Cr.P.C is an important provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, where the Court gives an opportunity to the accused to personally explain the circumstances that have appeared against him in course of trial. It is now well-settled by catena of decisions that incriminating circumstances, if not put to the accused in his examination under section 313 of the Code, cannot be used against him because he was given no opportunity to explain the same or he was deprived of the opportunity to defend himself and give any explanation to the Court in this regard. That causes serious prejudice. Recently even the Apex Court has deprecated the casual manner, in which courts, especially in this State, dealt with this aspect of the matter. This would be evident from the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Sajjan Sharma vrs. State of Bihar, since reported in (2011) 2 S.C.C. 206 . 14. In the present case, our attention was drawn to the statement of the appellant under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. It is an apology for a statement. All that the accused was told as first question was that as per the evidence of the witnesses the accused persons with common intention had murdered on 10.09.1986 Bimla Sinha, wife of accused Jainandan Prasad Singh and her dead body was thrown to conceal evidence. In this regard, the reply of the appellant was, “It is not a fact”. All that the accused was told as first question was that as per the evidence of the witnesses the accused persons with common intention had murdered on 10.09.1986 Bimla Sinha, wife of accused Jainandan Prasad Singh and her dead body was thrown to conceal evidence. In this regard, the reply of the appellant was, “It is not a fact”. The next question was, “having heard the evidence of witnesses do you have to say anything”, his reply was “Nothing to say”. The third question was, “have you committed offence”, the reply was “it is denied”. The fourth question was, “do you want to defend yourself”, the answer was “Yes”. None of the circumstances of deceitfully taking his wife with an intention to kill her or having been seen taking away his wife has been put to him. This is a serious lacuna in the trial causing serious prejudice to the appellant. The circumstances, as appearing against the appellant that he had come to the village home of his wife and on the pretext of taking her for interview he had taken her custody and later was seen going with her, whereafter the dead body was found, were never put to him and he was never confronted with the same. The accused-appellant was denied his right to defend and explain those circumstances. As held by the Apex Court, compliance of section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is not an empty formality and the incriminating circumstances, which have not been put to the accused by the Court in course of examination under section 313 of the Cr.P.C., cannot be used against the accused persons. This being the settled proposition in law and the prejudice being writ large, we have no option but to hold that the incriminating circumstances of the appellant deceitfully taking away his wife with intention of killing her cannot be used against him nor consequently prosecution be permitted to rely on such evidence. If this be so, then the only evidence against the appellant is a mere allegation based on recovery of an abandoned dead body of his wife and nothing more. This is grossly insufficient for convicting much less upholding the conviction of the appellant. If this be so, then the only evidence against the appellant is a mere allegation based on recovery of an abandoned dead body of his wife and nothing more. This is grossly insufficient for convicting much less upholding the conviction of the appellant. While holding so, we would solely not rest our decision on this solitary issue, for upon close examination of the entire evidence we are of the view that on the basis of appreciation of evidence, conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained. 15. In order to establish the charge against the appellant and three other accused persons, who, as noted above, were charged under sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the I.P.C., prosecution examined twelve witnesses. The accused other than the appellant were acquitted. Through their witnesses, prosecution sought to establish that on 09.09.1986 the appellant came to his Sasural to take his wife Bimla Sinha to Ranchi for an interview for the post of Teacher and left within two hours with her. On 11.09.1986, a dead body, purporting to be of Bimla Sinha, was found abandoned, for which at Wazirganj Police Station, an F.I.R. was registered. On 13.09.1986 in the afternoon at Nawadah, appellant’s co-brother-in-law (Sadhu) Mahendra Singh (P.W. 6) was informed allegedly by the appellant that on way to Ranchi, Bimla Sinha had severe stomach problem and she was taken for treatment to Patna, where she died in course of operation and was allegedly cremated there. This information was to be conveyed to the father of Bimla Sinha i.e. Kapildeo Singh (P.W.9). On 13.09.1986 late in the evening Mahendra Singh (P.W.6) conveyed the same to P.W.9. In the morning of 14.09.1986, Mahendra Singh, a co-villager (P.W.8) informed the father of the deceased (P.W.9) that at Wazirganj Hat he had heard about recovery of an unidentified dead body of a girl and had gone to Jugnu Photo Studio and after seeing the photograph he identified the girl to be his daughter, whereafter, Kapildeo Singh (P.W.9) and others went to Wazirganj Police Station and from the photograph they identified the girl to be his daughter. On 16.09.1986 Kapildeo Singh (P.W.9) gave a written statement about the entire episode to Nawadah Police Station, which was then forwarded to Wazirganj Police Station as the case had been instituted there. 16. On 16.09.1986 Kapildeo Singh (P.W.9) gave a written statement about the entire episode to Nawadah Police Station, which was then forwarded to Wazirganj Police Station as the case had been instituted there. 16. The fact sought to be proved about the appellant having come to Nazardih, P.S. Nawadah, the place of his father-in-law and where his wife resided, for taking her away for interview to Ranchi, is sought to be first proved by examining Naresh Singh (P.W.2), the younger brother of Kapildeo Singh (father of the deceased). He resides in the same village Nazardih, P.S. Nawadah. In his examination-in-chief, he states that on 09.09.1986, the appellant had come and had asked to take his wife to Ranchi for an interview and had gone with her on the same day. On 13.09.1986, Mahendra Singh, elder son-in-law of the family (P.W.6), informed that Jainandan Singh had met him and told that on way to Ranchi Bimla Sinha had terrible pain in her stomach and she was taken to Patna for treatment, where she died in course of operation and was cremated there. On 14.09.1986 Mahendra Singh (P.W.8), a co-villager informed that at Wazirganj, District Gaya, he had heard about recovery of an unidentified and unclaimed dead body of a young girl and on that information Kapildeo Singh and others went to Wazirganj P.S., District Gaya and identified the dead from the photograph. 17. In his cross-examination, he admits that the marriage had taken place about two years back, but second marriage not having been performed, Bimla Sinha remained at her parental home. Once one month after the marriage for a short time on a day, appellant had come but never visited his Sasural again. He further states that on 09.09.1986 the appellant came at about 2P.M. to take his wife and left at 4P.M. within two hours. He admits that this was the second marriage of the appellant. He admits that in the marriage, no dowry was given nor was any Tilak given. 18. The next witness on this issue is Girja Devi (P.W. 7), the mother of the deceased. She states that her daughter was married to the appellant two years back and Bidai had not been performed. She had stayed with her parents. Appellant had come only once one month after the marriage for a short time. 18. The next witness on this issue is Girja Devi (P.W. 7), the mother of the deceased. She states that her daughter was married to the appellant two years back and Bidai had not been performed. She had stayed with her parents. Appellant had come only once one month after the marriage for a short time. On 09.09.1986, he came at 2P.M. to take his wife for an interview to Ranchi and left at 4P.M. on the same day. On 13th evening, Mahendra Singh (P.W.6), her elder son-in-law, informed that the appellant had told him at Nawadah that on way Bimla Sinha had stomach ache and was taken to Patna for treatment, where in course of operation she died. Next morning Mahendra Singh (P.W.8), a co-villager, informed that at Wazirganj an unidentified dead body of a young girl was found and from photographs he had identified it to be of Bimla Singh. The appellant had deceitfully taken her. She states that at the time of marriage, the appellant had asked for a motor-cycle, which could not be provided and that is why he was annoyed. In her cross-examination, she admits that she belongs to an educated family. She admits that after the marriage this was the second visit of the appellant and her daughter had not been sent to her matrimonial home but only for interview to Ranchi. She did not know whether it was the appellant’s second marriage or any Tilak was given. She states that her co-villager Bachchu Singh (P.W.4) had seen the couple being there. Bachchu Singh was Mukhiya. 19. The next witness is the father of the deceased girl Kapildeo Singh (P.W.9). He admits that marriage had taken place two years earlier. On 09.09.1986 at 2P.M., appellant had come to take his daughter Bimla Sinha for interview and left at 4 P.M. on the same day for Ranchi. On 13.09.1986, Mahendra Singh, his elder son-in-law (P.W.6) informed that appellant had met him at Nawadah and informed that Bimla Sinha on way to Ranchi had stomach pain and was taken for treatment to Patna, where in course of operation she died and was cremated there. On 13.09.1986, Mahendra Singh, his elder son-in-law (P.W.6) informed that appellant had met him at Nawadah and informed that Bimla Sinha on way to Ranchi had stomach pain and was taken for treatment to Patna, where in course of operation she died and was cremated there. On 14.09.1986, villager Mahendra Singh (P.W.8), who stays at Ghura Gaon, P.S. Wazirganj , District Gaya, came and informed about the recovery of an unidentified dead body and its identification from photographs, whereafter, on 14.09.1986, he along with his younger brother Naresh Singh (P.W.2) and his wife (P.W. 7) went to Wazirganj P.S., District Gaya and identified from photographs and clothes to be that of their daughter, whose dead body had been recovered. He states that Jainandan Singh, after the marriage, had demanded motor-cycle, which they were unable to provide. He states that having returned from Wazirganj, he gave written statement to Nawadah Police Station, which is Exhibit- 2. In his cross-examination, he states that his daughter had passed matriculation examination in 1985 i.e. after the marriage. He states that from 09.09.1986 to 13.09.1986, he had no suspicion. It is only when in the night of 13.09.1986 Mahendra Singh, his son-in-law (P.W.6), informed that he suspected that his daughter had been killed, but he did not take any step to contact his son-in-law (appellant) the same night. In the morning also, he did not go there, instead on 14.09.1986 he went to Wazirganj Police Station. He admits that no one could have seen the appellant and his daughter going as his house is on the edge of the village. 20. These are three witnesses, who are co-related, who have deposed in support of story that the appellant came and within two hours left taking his wife for an interview at Ranchi. From their evidence, we find that all of them have admitted that the marriage had taken place about two years back i.e. in the year 1984. As per the statement of the father (P.W.9), the deceased had completed her matriculation in 1985. Appellant had never been in contact with them and/or had ever visited their village after the marriage except for a short time one month after the marriage, which would be in 1984. The question is how then and who applied for any job for the deceased. Appellant had never been in contact with them and/or had ever visited their village after the marriage except for a short time one month after the marriage, which would be in 1984. The question is how then and who applied for any job for the deceased. If she had applied on her own then how the appellant, who was not in touch with the family, got knowledge of the interview, which not even the deceased wife (Bimla Sinha) or any one of her family members knew. If the appellant had applied, how could he do so when he was not in touch with the family at all and she had done her matriculation much after the marriage. The prosecution fails to establish any of these elements and in such a situation, we are unable to persuade ourselves to believe that when the relationship was so estrange, how could they easily and immediately agree to let their daughter go with virtually a stranger. It does not stand to reason. When was the interview and how long they would be gone is not stated by any prosecution witness. Further the girl having been permitted to go with the appellant in the afternoon on 09.09.1986 and when they had no further news for return of the girl, they took no steps to make any enquiry. These are all extremely unnatural conduct of parents and create grave doubt about the story set up by the prosecution. 21. We then come to the evidence of brother-in-law Mahendra Singh (P.W.6). He was, admittedly, not present when allegedly the appellant came to the village and took Bimla Sinha for the interview. He gets associated with this episode when on 10.09.1986 i.e. a day after she was taken, he had allegedly seen the appellant and deceased girl by chance at Nawadah Bus Depot, boarding a bus for Ranchi. That again appears doubtful because the couple had left the village, which is about 5 K.Ms. from Nawadah Town, at about 4 P.M. on 09.09.1986.Where they were for one whole day because they were seen boarding bus on 10.09.1986 in the evening is not explained. Looking to the background of estranged relationship, P.W.6 was not at all curious to see the couple together. This is incongruous. from Nawadah Town, at about 4 P.M. on 09.09.1986.Where they were for one whole day because they were seen boarding bus on 10.09.1986 in the evening is not explained. Looking to the background of estranged relationship, P.W.6 was not at all curious to see the couple together. This is incongruous. P.W.6 then states that while he was working in Nawadah Collectorate in the afternoon at about 12.30P.M. the appellant came to the Collectorate and told him about stomach pain, operation, death and cremation of the girl Bimla Sinha at Patna. Still such a shocking event being there, he did not immediately go to the village. He went to the village to inform his father-in-law only late in the evening. He admits that he was married to the daughter of Kapildeo Singh in 1986 and after marriage he had never gone to the village, except on this occasion. He further admits that his father-in-law or for that matter the deceased had never visited him at Nawadah. This witness, though informed his father-in-law about the death of the deceased, did not stay back at the Sasural nor did he accompany them to Wazirganj Police Station the next morning even though in the next morning itself they were informed by co-villager Mahendra Singh (P.W. 8) about the death and recovery of dead body of Bimla Singh by Wazirganj Police Station, District Gaya. To us, his conduct is again extremely suspicious. He had been to his Sasural only once at the time of his marriage and had not been in touch with that family thereafter. He was aware that the appellant had been married earlier and had not taken his wife after the marriage, yet he found nothing curious after seeing them at Nawadah Bus Depot going to Ranchi even without Bidai, of which he had no information. He states that seeing them on 10th, whereas, they had left the village on 9th itself, when on 13th in the afternoon he came to know about death of his sister-in-law, who had gone only a few days back, he has no anxiety to immediately go and inform his father-in-law about the death of his daughter. He comes only in the evening. He does not accompany them next morning to Wazirganj Police Station, where contrary to the story allegedly set up by the appellant the dead body is recovered. He comes only in the evening. He does not accompany them next morning to Wazirganj Police Station, where contrary to the story allegedly set up by the appellant the dead body is recovered. He does not go back to Nawadah to confront the appellant even after having come to know that the story set up by him was false. These are his wholly unusual, highly suspicious and unnatural conduct. 22. Now we may discuss the evidence with regard to recovery of unclaimed and unidentified dead body and its identification. That dead body of Bimla Sinha was recovered by Wazirganj Police Station District Gaya on 11.09.1986 apparently cannot be disputed, but what follows does not inspire confidence. The news of the dead body being recovered and from the photograph being identified to be that of Bimla Sinha is first introduced by the co-villager of the father of the deceased, namely, Mahendra Singh (P.W.8). He states that he works in Wazirganj town, District Gaya, where on 13.09.1986 he heard about death of Bimla Sinha. This itself is questionable; inasmuch only Mahendra Singh, the son-in-law (P.W.6), knew of the death of Bimla Sinha at Nawadah in the afternoon of 13th, which fact he disclosed to Kapildeo Singh, his father-in-law and father of the deceased on 13th evening at their village in the district of Nawadah. Thus this opening statement of P.W. 8 Mahendra Singh, the co-villager, itself is doubtful and does not appear to be correct. It is not true or correct. He then connects it to what he heard about recovery of an unclaimed body of a young lady and goes to Jugnu Studio at Wazirganj and has a look at the photograph and confirms the identify. This again is unexplainable. How he connects the unclaimed dead body and its photograph at Jugnu Photo Studio to be of Bimla Sinha is anybody’s guess as by then no one had heard about the death of Bimla Sinha. Who directed him to Wazirganj P.S. or for that matter Jugnu Photo Studio is any body’s guess. He then states that he comes to village Nazardih of the girl on 13.09.1986 itself to inform Kapildeo Singh, father of the deceased girl, but does not inform them in the evening. He waits for the whole night in the village itself and informs them only in the morning. This is again wholly unusual in the circumstances. He then states that he comes to village Nazardih of the girl on 13.09.1986 itself to inform Kapildeo Singh, father of the deceased girl, but does not inform them in the evening. He waits for the whole night in the village itself and informs them only in the morning. This is again wholly unusual in the circumstances. He has clearly been set up to spin a story. As noted above, he could not have known about the death of Bimla Sinha because no one, apart from P.W.6, knew of it till the evening of 13.09.1986, but by then he had already seen the photograph. P.W.6 came to know of it at Nawadah and he came to the village Nazardih in Nawadah District in the evening. This witness (P.W.8) was at Wazirganj in the district of Gaya all along at that time. Surely he owed an explanation, which has been withheld and his entire conduct is wholly suspicious and lacks confidence creating grave doubt of its truthfulness. 23. These are major events in the chain. There are two other minor events, which we may take note of. Two witnesses have been examined to establish the fact that they had seen the appellant, taking his wife Bimla Sinha from the village to Ranchi. They are chance witnesses and learned counsel for the appellant showed to us that from the place they were supposed to be, it would not be possible for any one, much less for them, to see the appellant and his wife move from the house of Kapialdeo singh (P.W.9) to outside the village. The other event, which is again very unusual, is that P.W. 9 Kapildeo Singh (father of the deceased), P.W. 7 Girja Devi (mother of the deceased) and P.W. 2 Naresh Singh (uncle of the deceased) went to Wazirganj Police Station on 14.09.1986 and allegedly identified from the photograph their daughter, but no statement is recorded. Nothing is disclosed there about any event at all. They come back to Nawadah and then they on 16.09.1986 handed over a detailed written statement giving out the entire story for the first time to Nawadah Police Station, which is then forwarded to Wazirganj Police Station, where the case is instituted. Nothing is disclosed there about any event at all. They come back to Nawadah and then they on 16.09.1986 handed over a detailed written statement giving out the entire story for the first time to Nawadah Police Station, which is then forwarded to Wazirganj Police Station, where the case is instituted. Thus, seen having come to know of the unnatural death of their daughter, on 13.09.1986 from their son-in-law Mahendra Singh (P.W.6), then having identified the dead body on 14.09.1986 at Wazirganj Police Station, he took no step and the whole story is then unfolded for the first time in their written statement given to Nawadah Police Station, not Wazirganj Police Station at the first instance, only on 16.09.1986 i.e. two days after discovery of the murder of their daughter. This remains unexplained and creates a grave doubt on the whole prosecution story. The icing of cake is that after receiving this statement from Nawadah Police Station, the Wazirganj Police goes on a look out for the appellant, who is then arrested from his room while sleeping in the afternoon, which again creates doubt. If, in fact, the photograph had been identified by the parents on 14.09.1986 itself, surely the Investigating Officer ought to have taken the statements of the parents and they ought to have disclosed the whole episode then and there. This was not done. Police ought to have immediately tried to arrest the appellant but that was not done. The statement comes two days later and, thereafter, the appellant is arrested and that too sleeping in his room. That would not be the natural conduct of a person, who is alleged to have killed his wife and thrown her dead body. 24. We may note that there were three other accused persons, who were tried. The trial court has rightly acquitted them because there is only evidence of elder son-in-law (P.W.6) that those three were also seen in the bus on 10.09.1986 when the appellant and his wife were going to Ranchi. Beyond this there is nothing else against them. 25. Thus, taking holistic view of the facts as noted above, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution case is full of unexplained and unnatural conduct at every level. It creates serious doubts about its authenticity. Beyond this there is nothing else against them. 25. Thus, taking holistic view of the facts as noted above, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution case is full of unexplained and unnatural conduct at every level. It creates serious doubts about its authenticity. We are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the prosecution evidence as conclusive nor are we persuaded to apply the last seen theory to hold the appellant guilty because the very evidence of last seen together is doubtful. The prosecution has concealed the true story and has built upon a very unnatural story, which it had not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt. The tragedy is, who killed Bina Sinha, remains a mystery. 26. In the result, this appeal has to succeed. Accordingly, we allow this appeal, set aside the judgment and order of conviction of the appellant as passed by the trial court and he is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. The appellant is discharged from the liability of his bail bond.