JUDGMENT : Both the criminal appeals, arises out of the same case, were heard together and are being disposed of by the common judgment. 2. Both the criminal appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction dated 15.09.2004 and order of sentence dated 20.09.2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-IV, Dhanbad in S.T. No. 62 of 2002, whereby both the appellants having been found guilty of the charges under Section 302, 328 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and directed to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and further they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the offence under Section 328 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and they have also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default thereof, the appellants have been further sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two months. However, all the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 17.7.2001 at about 6:05 a.m. the informant-Mahendra Nath Tiwari-S.I. of Kenduadih police station got information that the dead bodies of one male and one female are lying in the drain near Godhar. After receiving the information, he proceeded to the place of occurrence with the constable and found that the dead body of a male and female lying in the drain. Thereafter, he got the photographs through the photographer and the inquest reports were prepared. Both the deceased (female and male) were aged about 45 and 50 years respectively and bleeding was also detected from the face of the male dead body. The face and lips of female dead body had turned black from which it appeared that the dead bodies have been thrown after administering poison to them. Both the dead bodies were sent to the Central Hospital, Dhanbad for postmortem examination and the fard beyan (Ext. 4) was recorded. 4. On the basis of self statement of informant-Mahendra Nath Tiwari, Kenduadih P.S. Case No. 77 of 2001 (Ext.3) was registered under Section 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code against unknown persons. After registering the case, investigation was carried out and after preparing the inquest report (Ext. 4) was recorded. 4. On the basis of self statement of informant-Mahendra Nath Tiwari, Kenduadih P.S. Case No. 77 of 2001 (Ext.3) was registered under Section 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code against unknown persons. After registering the case, investigation was carried out and after preparing the inquest report (Ext. 2/2, 2/3, 2/4) of the deceased, the dead-bodies were sent for postmortem examination. 5. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants and cognizance of the offences under Section 302/201/328/34 of the Indian Penal Code was taken against the appellants and thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. It is pertinent to mention here that during investigation, the police recovered another dead body i.e. of Pushpa Devi, wife of Brij Nandan Sharma. No separate first information report was registered for that. 6. The plea of the defence is complete denial of the allegation. Thus they claimed to be tried. 7. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined as many as 14 witnesses, including the medical officer and the Investigating Officer, and exhibited three documents including the postmortem report. However, the defence has not examined any witness in support of their case. The trial court after appreciating the evidences of the prosecution witnesses and the materials available on record found the appellants guilty for committing murder of the deceased and accordingly recorded the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the appellants, which is under challenge. 8. Based upon the evidences of the prosecution witnesses, Mr. The trial court after appreciating the evidences of the prosecution witnesses and the materials available on record found the appellants guilty for committing murder of the deceased and accordingly recorded the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the appellants, which is under challenge. 8. Based upon the evidences of the prosecution witnesses, Mr. S.P. Roy, counsel for the appellants, has assailed the judgment of the learned court below on the following grounds: (I) There is no eye witness to the alleged occurrence; (II) The alleged confession of appellant-Brij Nandan Sharma before the police is inadmissible under the Indian Evidence Act; (III) In absence of Viscera chemical examination report from the Forensic Science Laborary, trial court could not have come to the conclusion that the deceased died on account of poison; (IV) There is no materials against the appellants of administering poison to the deceased and it might be possible that the deceased have themselves taken poison to commit suicide; (V) Appellant-Raghu Nandan Sharma was living separately from appellant-Brij Nandan Sharma and nothing has come in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses about his involvement in the commission of crime; (V) No specific question was put to the appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C., implicating them in the alleged offence. In the aforesaid backdrop, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned trial court has committed illegality and infirmity in convicting the present appellants under Sections 302/201/328/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, learned A.P.P. has vehemently opposed the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellants and submitted that the chain of circumstances has been completed in this case. He has further submitted that the cloths of the deceased were seized from the house of appellant-Brij Nandan Sharma and therefore a duty was cast upon him to explain that how that cloths came to his possession but he failed to explain the same. Learned counsel further submitted that the cloths of the deceased have been identified by P.W.12 and thereafter the same was recovered and handed over to P.W.12. He further submitted that the doctor has opined that this type of death may be caused due to poisoning by pesticides or by grain preservatives which proves the death of the deceased in unnatural circumstance. He further submitted that the doctor has opined that this type of death may be caused due to poisoning by pesticides or by grain preservatives which proves the death of the deceased in unnatural circumstance. He lastly submitted that this is a case of triple murder and the applicants being the in-laws are fully responsible for the death. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there being no infirmity in the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the findings arrived at by learned trial court do not require any interference by this Court. 10. We have heard learned counsel for both sides and perused the materials available on record and also gone through the evidences of the prosecution witnesses minutely. 11. Admittedly, both the appellants are the brothers and deceased-Pushpa Devi is wife of appellant-Brij Nandan Sharma and other deceased-Shiv Shankar Thakur and Ranjana Devi were the father-in-law and mother-in-law of appellant-Brij Nandan Sharma. 12. P.W. 1 is Dr. Shailendra Kumar who has conducted the postmortem of all the deceased and found no external and internal injury. He sent the viscera for chemical examination and has also proved the postmortem reports (Ext. 1, 1/1 & 1/2). In his cross-examination, he has admitted that only after receiving of the viscera report, he would confirm the cause of death. 13. P.W.2-Deepak Kumar is the inquest witness who has disputed his signature on the inquest reports (Ext.2 & 2/1). P.W.3-Bablu Kumar and P.W.8-Dr. Anil Kumar have been declared hostile. P.W.4-Parshuram Pandey (S.I.) has prepared the inquest report (Ext. 2 & 2/1) of deceased-Shiv Shankar Thakur and deceased-Ranjana Devi. P.W.5-Jai Prakash Singh (S.I.) prepared the inquest report (Ext. 2/2) of deceased-Pushpa Devi. P.W.6-Suresh Paswan and P.W.7-Ajay Kumar proved the inquest report (Ext. 2/3 & 2/4) of deceased-Pushpa Devi in the police station. 14. P.W.9-Dr. Narendra Kumar, who has examined deceased-Pushpa Devi before her death, deposed that on 17.7.2001 at about 7:50 p.m. she was brought to his hospital (Nutan Nursing Home) by the Sub Inspector of Police, Chowkidar and Armed Guard in unconscious condition, where she was admitted and at 5:15 a.m. she died. 15. 14. P.W.9-Dr. Narendra Kumar, who has examined deceased-Pushpa Devi before her death, deposed that on 17.7.2001 at about 7:50 p.m. she was brought to his hospital (Nutan Nursing Home) by the Sub Inspector of Police, Chowkidar and Armed Guard in unconscious condition, where she was admitted and at 5:15 a.m. she died. 15. P.W.10-Mahendra Nath Tiwari (S.I. of Kenduadih police station), who is the informant and Investigating Officer of this case, deposed that on 17.7.2001 at about 6:30 a.m. on receiving information that two dead-bodies (one male and one female) are lying in the drain near Godhar Gansadih, he on making entry in the station diary proceeded to the spot and recovered those dead bodies. He also got the photographs by the photographer of those dead bodies. He also took the statement of P.W.8 who told him that on the preceding night at about 1:30a.m. a person aged about 30 years took the deceased (male and female) to his hospital (Rajiv Nursing Home) by Ambassador Car bearing Registration No. WB F-3628 for their treatment and identified them as his father-in-law and mother-in-law and also identified a lady sitting in the car as his wife. He further deposed that when he got information that the said person had gone to Nutan Nursing Home with his wife, he went there. On 17.7.2001 at about 9:30 p.m. he caught appellant-Brij Nandan Sharma with deceased-Pushpa Devi and thereafter Pushpa Devi (deceased) was treated in Nutan Nursing Home. He also recorded the confessional statement of appellant-Brij Nandan Sharma. This witness also conducted the search of the house of appellant-Brij Nandan Sharma and seized the cloths of the deceased. He also proved the seizure list of the cloths (Ext.6). In his cross-examination, he deposed that he took the statement of Akbar Mistry and his son who told that on 15.2.2001 appellant-Brij Nandan Sharma along with his father-in-law and mother-in-law, wife and elder brother had come to his room by an Ambassador Car bearing Registration No. WB F-3628 but appellant-Raghu Nandan Sharma returned from there at 5:00-6:00 p.m. 16. P.W.11-Sanjay Kumar, who is the Headman of the village of the deceased, deposed that the deceased Pushpa Devi told him that appellant-Brij Nandan Sharma has illicit relationship with his sister-in-law (Bhabhi) who proved his signature on the search-cum-seizure list of articles of the deceased (Ext. 6/1). He also proved the receipt of writings (Ext. 6/2). P.W.11-Sanjay Kumar, who is the Headman of the village of the deceased, deposed that the deceased Pushpa Devi told him that appellant-Brij Nandan Sharma has illicit relationship with his sister-in-law (Bhabhi) who proved his signature on the search-cum-seizure list of articles of the deceased (Ext. 6/1). He also proved the receipt of writings (Ext. 6/2). In his cross-examination he deposed that the deceased-Pushpa Devi told him on 14.7.2001 and on earlier occasion also that appellant-Brij Nandan Sharma had illicit relationship with his sister-in-law (Bhabhi). He had also conducted a panchayati on which deceased-Ranjana Devi had put her signature but appellant-Brij Nandan Sharma had not put his signature. 17. P.W.12-Ravi Kumar Thakur, who is the son of deceased-Shiv Shankar Thakur and Ranjana Devi, deposed that on telephone he was informed by the police of Kenduadih police station that his father, mother and sister have been killed by appellant-Brij Nandan Sharma. He further deposed that he did not know about the relationship between his sister and brother-in-law (Jija) and he proved his signature on the seizure list of articles of the deceased and writing on receipt of articles (Ext. 6/3 & 6/4). 18. P.W.13-Bibhuti Bhushan, who is the co-villager, did not support the prosecution case. P.W.14-Basudeo Thakur, who is the uncle of the deceased-Pushpa Devi, deposed that after receiving telephonic message from Kenduadih police station he came with P.W. 12. 19. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and also perused the materials available on record. On scanning the evidences of the prosecution witnesses, it is crystal clear that the prosecution has not been able to prove the motive of causing murder of the deceased and has brought P.W.12 before the court who has not stated anything and he has not produced the document which was signed by appellant-Raghu Nandan Sharma. Thus, taking into account the evidences, it is clear that there is no material against the present appellants of administering poison to the deceased and the cause of death was not proved by the prosecution and viscera, which was sent for chemical examination, was not produced before the court nor proved by the prosecution and there is no material to show that the dead bodies of the deceased were thrown in the Nala near Godhar Gansadih by the present appellants and further there is also no material that the present appellants and the deceased were together before the occurrence. 20. The trial court has observed that the cloths of the deceased were recovered from the house of appellant-Brij Nandan Sharma but since the relationship between appellant-Brij Nandan Sharma and deceased-Pushpa Devi was there as husband and wife and father-in-law and mother-in-law and cloths were recovered, it could be presumed that the father-in-law and mother-in-law of appellant-Brij Nandan Sharma were staying together after coming to their house. Though cloths were recovered but no seizure was made by the prosecution. It was handed over to P.W.12 after obtaining signature in the police station and as such the said seizure list has no relevance. There is no iota of evidence to implicate the present appellants and the motive has also not been proved by the prosecution that the present appellants were the authors of crime. 21. Thus, this Court finds that the prosecution has not been able to establish any single circumstance with regard to death of the deceased caused by the present appellants and thereby the trial court was not justified in recording the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the present appellants. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the present appellants is hereby set aside. 22. Consequently, both the appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Appellant-Brij Nandan Sharma in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1769/04, who is languishing in jail custody since 18.7.2001, shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. 23. Since appellant-Raghu Nandan Sharma in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1764/04 is already on bail, he is discharged from the liability of bail bond. 24. In the result, both the criminal appeals stand allowed.