JUDGMENT & ORDER : N. Chaudhury, J. The judgment and order dated 19.04.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhubri in Sessions Case No. 194/2011 thereby convicting the appellants under Section 302 of the IPC and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 4 months each has been called in question in the present appeal. 2. The prosecution story in the present appeal is that one Msstt. Sobia Bewa lodged an ejahar with Officer In-charge, South Salmara Police Station on 25.10.2010 against present appellants and two others alleging that her daughter Surja Bibi committed suicide in the kitchen of Badamirchar L.P. School. She suspects that the accused persons had killed her daughter and kept her body hanging. South Salmara P.S. Case No. 170/2010 under section 302/34 of the IPC was immediately registered and investigation was started. The Investigating Officer arranged inquest and post-mortem of the dead body and upon receipt of the report and after recording statements of all witnesses filed charge sheet No. 11/2010 on 28.02.2011 before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Dhubri who having found that it is a case triable by Sessions, committed the same to Sessions under section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by his order dated 29.08.2011. Accordingly, Sessions Case No. 194/2011 of the court of learned Sessions Judge, Dhubri was registered. The learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 19.09.2011 framed charges under section 302/34 of the IPC against Samer Ali and Johirul Islam who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3. In course of trial, prosecution examined 8 witnesses, adduced 5 documents and defence accused 2 witnesses. Learned Sessions Judge examined the accused persons under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and thereafter passed the impugned judgment and order holding the appellants guilty under section 302/34 of the IPC and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 4 months each. 4. We have heard Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S Rahman for the appellants and Ms. S Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. We have perused the lower court records. 5. PW 1, Sobia Bewa is not an eye witness. 5,000/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 4 months each. 4. We have heard Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S Rahman for the appellants and Ms. S Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. We have perused the lower court records. 5. PW 1, Sobia Bewa is not an eye witness. She filed the ejahar accusing present appellants and two others of committing murder of her daughter merely on suspicion. She mentioned in her deposition that her daughter was married to Samer Ali 14/15 years prior to the incident and they had 4 children. Sukur Ali is the eldest son aged about 12 years. Nurina Khatun is aged about 9 years, Samaulla is aged about 7 years and youngest Narzina Begum is aged about 5 years. Out of them, Sukur Ali has been staying with her from the date of incident. 6. PW 2 Md. Abdul Basid, PW 3 Md. Abdul Karim, PW 4 Md. Muslimuddin Ali and PW 6 Md. Rupa Ullah were declared hostile by the prosecution and thereafter they were cross examined both by prosecution as well as defence. 7. PW 5, Md. Sukur Ali was aged about 12 years as on the date of his deposition. He stated that accused Samer Ali is his father who along with his uncle Johirul assaulted the deceased on the night of occurrence and then they dragged her to the school house and kept her at hanging stage. He was sleeping with his mother. In course of his cross examination, he stated that there were two rooms in their house and the door in between these two rooms was closed at that time. His father was sleeping in another room. Police recorded his statement. On the night of incident, his father came to house from place of business at about 8/9 P.M. while his uncle was working in Shillong. 8. PW 7, Dr. Harun Al Rasid held post-mortem over the dead body. He found rigor mortis of the dead body. There was one transverse deeply grooved ligature mark in the neck which was deficient on the back of the neck at the level of thyroid cartilage. In his opinion, cause of death is due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation injury sustained by the deceased which is ante-mortem in nature. The injuries are homicidal in nature. There was one transverse deeply grooved ligature mark in the neck which was deficient on the back of the neck at the level of thyroid cartilage. In his opinion, cause of death is due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation injury sustained by the deceased which is ante-mortem in nature. The injuries are homicidal in nature. He proved Exhibit 2 post-mortem report along with his signature appearing thereon. In course of his cross examination, he disclosed that he is an eye surgeon. He admitted that his postmortem report does not contain any opinion that the injuries sustained by the deceased were homicidal in nature. He did not find any mark of nail bite on the dead body and he did not measure of the finger marks on the neck of the deceased. It is to be noted that although he made a mention as to measurement of finger marks on the neck of the deceased in his cross examination, but his examination-in-chief does not disclose that there is at all any finger mark on the neck of the deceased. 9. PW 8, Jogendra Nath Deka was the Investigating Officer. He has been thoroughly cross examined by the defence when he stated that PW 5, Sukur Ali did not state before him that his father and uncle did not attend bichar. 10. Defence examined 2 (two) witnesses. Md. Abdul Aziz Sk. is DW 1 who deposed that he did not hear any trouble in the married life of the accused and there was no bichar in regard to matrimonial dispute. 11. DW 2, Msstt. Nurima Begum, was 11 years old at the time of deposition. She is also a daughter of the deceased and she was present in the house at the time of occurrence. She deposed on oath that the four brothers and sisters were sleeping along with their mother on the date of incident. Her father was sleeping in another room. A quarrel had taken place between her father and mother in regard to some domestic affairs for which her mother wanted to consume poison in the evening and also prepared a rope along with her. On that night, she woke up from sleep as her younger sister Narzina had urinated on the bed and asked her mother to help Narzina. A quarrel had taken place between her father and mother in regard to some domestic affairs for which her mother wanted to consume poison in the evening and also prepared a rope along with her. On that night, she woke up from sleep as her younger sister Narzina had urinated on the bed and asked her mother to help Narzina. She did not find her mother on bed when she shouted that she was going to respond to the call of nature but ultimately she did not return. Finally dead body of her mother was discovered from the veranda of the school. Since death of her mother, Sukur was living at the house of their maternal grandmother. 12. From the depositions of all the 8 prosecution witnesses it appears that except PW 5, Sukur Ali, who is a child, no other witnesses could furnish any proof in support of the prosecution story that the appellants had murdered deceased Surja Bibi and thereafter hanged her in the school premises. Sukur Ali is a child witness and admittedly he was staying with the informant PW 1 since the death of his mother Surja Bibi. It is thus probable that he was tutored to speak against his father. This is why, to test as to whether PW 5, Sukur Ali had deviated from his earlier statement recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, we have perused the same. In his statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, PW 5 Sukur Ali did not state that his father and the uncle had dragged his mother to school house. This is clearly an improvement of the prosecution story. DW 2 is also yet another child of the deceased who was also present with PW 5 in the bed where deceased was sleeping on the night of occurrence. This witness, on the other hand, categorically stated that his father was sleeping in another room and the last time she heard her mother to shout was at night when she said that she was going to respond to the call of nature but thereafter she did not return. This witness also disclosed that the deceased had attempted to consume poison in the evening of the date of occurrence and she had prepared a rope along with her. This witness also disclosed that the deceased had attempted to consume poison in the evening of the date of occurrence and she had prepared a rope along with her. True, there may be probability of tutoring this witness as well because she was under custody of her paternal relations. But even thereafter it is to be noticed that there are two conflicting views. In this regard, we have considered the post-mortem report Exhibit 2. There is a transverse ligature mark in the neck of the deceased and it is discontinued at the back side. This is ante-mortem in nature as stated by PW 7, Dr. Harun Al Rasid. According to the Medical Officer, death was caused due to asphyxia due to strangulation. In his examination-in-chief, he has not made mention of any mark of violence on the body of the deceased. In his cross examination, he disclosed that he did not find any nail injury even. The post-mortem report does not show that the injury was homicidal in nature. Moreover, the discontinuity of the ligature mark at the back side of the neck and transverse nature of the ligature mark itself shows that the death is a suicidal one. The deceased having attempted to commit suicide by consuming poison in the evening on the night of occurrence, might have committed suicide at night when all the family members were asleep. Considering the nature of the ligature mark at the neck of the deceased and on perusal of the evidence available on record, we do not find any reliable material to hold that the death was homicidal and that the appellants caused death of the deceased. Except version of the child witness who is in the custody of the informant, there is no other material whatsoever supporting the prosecution story. As pointed out above, the testimony of DW 2 yet another child witness is in support of the accused persons which makes the position yet more uncertain. An apprisal of the evidence in entirety goes to show that there is reasonable doubt in the culpability of the appellants in the present case. Possibility of suicidal death of the deceased cannot be ruled out. In view of what has been stated above, the appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt. 13. The appeal stands allowed. The impugned conviction and sentence of the appellants are hereby set aside. Possibility of suicidal death of the deceased cannot be ruled out. In view of what has been stated above, the appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt. 13. The appeal stands allowed. The impugned conviction and sentence of the appellants are hereby set aside. They shall be released forthwith from jail provided they are not required in connection with any other case. 14. Send down the lower court records.