JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Ajit Singh, J. The sole appellant Mustt. Afia Begum has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation. 2. The victim of the incident was Habibur Rahman. 3. The appellant did the business of making school bags. This she did in one of the rooms taken on rent from Tarulata Talukdar. She also used one adjoining room as kitchen. In that room, Habibur also resided as an employee of the appellant. Habibur assisted the appellant in her business of making bags. On 11.8.2011, around 1 a.m., Habibur was found hanging from a ceiling fan in the room used as kitchen. It was the appellant, who first saw him hanging in the night, when she woke up to attend nature’s call. The appellant then made ejahar exhibit 1 at Police Station Morigaon, wherein she mentioned that the door of Habibur was forcibly opened with the help of her landlady and co-tenants whereupon Habibur was found hanging. 4. Dr. ATM Eusuf (PW-4) conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Habibur. According to his finding, Habibur was stout young man, aged about 30 years. The doctor also found sign of bleeding in the mouth and nostril and presence of cyanosis like appearance on the face and interior aspect of the chest. He even found a transverse circular continuous ligature mark low down on the neck as well as poor visible mark of knot in front of neck. On these findings, Dr. ATM Eusuf opined that Habibur died due to asphyxia following strangulation by soft cloth and subsequently hanged. The post mortem examination report of the doctor, in this regard, is exhibit 4. 5. After about eight days on 19.8.2011, Md. Musharaf Hussain (PW-2) made another ejahar exhibit 2 in the same Police Station alleging that appellant had married to Habibur and she in furtherance of common intention with six other persons named therein committed his murder. Investigating Officer–Dhiren Kakoti (PW-6) during investigation did not find any evidence against the suspected accused persons named in ejahar exhibit 2 by Md. Musharaf Hussain. He, therefore, mainly on the basis of post mortem examination report arrested and charge sheeted the appellant for her prosecution under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. Investigating Officer–Dhiren Kakoti (PW-6) during investigation did not find any evidence against the suspected accused persons named in ejahar exhibit 2 by Md. Musharaf Hussain. He, therefore, mainly on the basis of post mortem examination report arrested and charge sheeted the appellant for her prosecution under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. During trial, the appellant pleaded false implication and denied her marriage with Habibur. She stated that Habibur lived in the adjoining room, which was used as kitchen, as an employee and he was found hanging from ceiling fan whereafter, she made the ejahar about the incident. 7. Admittedly, there is no witness, who claims to have seen the appellant strangulating Habibur and thereafter, hanging him from the ceiling fan. There is thus no eye witness to the incident. The rooms taken on rent by the appellant were part of a house, which had as many as six rooms and all the rooms were occupied by different persons including the landlady. The sketch map exhibit 7 reveals that the room in which the incident took place was interconnected with other rooms and it even had an exit door. It is, therefore, difficult to hold that only appellant had access to the room of Habibur. Bhuban Poddar (PW-1) was co-tenant in one of the rooms. He in his cross examination has admitted that appellant and Habibur resided in separate rooms. According to his evidence he saw the appellant cutting the rope by which Habibur was seen hanging. Md. Musharaf Hussain (PW-2) says that he was informed by one Mofidul Islam (PW-3) about appellant getting married to Habibur. He also says that one Jakir Hussain told him that Habibur had committed suicide. This witness has no personal knowledge about appellant having married to Habibur. There is nothing in his evidence to suggest that he saw the appellant and Habibur living together in one room. Md. Mofidul Islam (PW-3) has testified that on the previous day of occurrence when he visited Habibur he saw the appellant picking up quarrel with him and had even threatened that in the night it will be finalized whether she or he would live. According to his evidence, on the next day, he came to know from Md. Musharaf Hussain that Habibur had committed suicide. He does not say that appellant must have murdered Habibur. 8. According to his evidence, on the next day, he came to know from Md. Musharaf Hussain that Habibur had committed suicide. He does not say that appellant must have murdered Habibur. 8. It is true that in the post mortem examination report, Dr. ATM Eusuf has opined that Habibur was hanged after strangulation. But yet in the absence of any reliable and cogent evidence to establish that appellant alone had the access to the room of Habibur, it is difficult to hold that she was the perpetrator of crime. It is also to be noted that Habibur was a healthy man and it would be extremely difficult for the appellant, who is a woman, to single handedly first strangulate him and then hang his body from a ceiling fan. The prosecution has not examined the landlady of appellant to prove that appellant and Habibur were either married or that they lived together in one room or but for appellant, no other person had access to his room. 9. For these reasons, we find it more safe to give benefit of doubt to the appellant. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned conviction and sentence of the appellant and acquit her of the charge by giving her benefit of doubt. She is reportedly in jail and hence, she be released forthwith. The appeal is allowed.