JUDGMENT : Pritinker Diwaker, J. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.04.2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Baikunthpur, District Korea in Sessions Trial No. 08/2004 convicting the accused/appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-, plus default stipulation. 2. Name of the deceased in the present case is Ramdas – the brother-in-law of the accused/appellant herein. According to the case of the prosecution, on 20.10.2003 body of the deceased was found in a public well and allegedly it is the accused/appellant who committed his murder and then threw the body into the well. Merg Ex. P-1 was recorded on the same day at the instance of Ram Prasad (PW-2) and after making inquest Ex. P-2 the body was sent for postmortem examination which was conducted by Dr. Ashish Karan (PW-10) vide report Ex.P-8. On the basis of merg inquiry, unnumbered FIR Ex. P-12 was registered against the accused/appellant on 23.11.2003 for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC followed by numbered one Ex. P-9 which came to be registered on 24.11.2003. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed by the police under Section 302 IPC followed by framing of charge by the Court below accordingly. 3. In order to prove the complicity of the accused/appellant in the crime in question, the prosecution has examined 16 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was also recorded in which he denied his guilt and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. 4. After hearing the parties, the Court below has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned above. 5. Counsel for the accused/appellant submits as under: (i) That there is no eyewitness to the incident and the conviction of the accused/appellant is based only on the statement of Indra Kunwar (PW-1) and Kashi Ram (PW-4) – the so-called witnesses to last seen whereas none of them, in fact, has supported the case of the prosecution. (ii) That the most important witness namely Phulmati (PW-15) – the wife of the deceased has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. 6. State counsel however supports the judgment impugned and submits that the findings recorded by the Court below are based on due appreciation of the evidence on record and there is no infirmity in the same. 7. 6. State counsel however supports the judgment impugned and submits that the findings recorded by the Court below are based on due appreciation of the evidence on record and there is no infirmity in the same. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Indra Kunwar (PW-1) though said to be the witness of last seen, has nowhere stated that she saw the accused and the deceased together. According to this witness, in the previous night she had heard some commotion in the house of the accused/appellant but taking it as usual she went to sleep and in the morning, she saw the body of the deceased having been taken out of the well. She has stated that the relations between the deceased and his wife were cordial. Another witness who is said to have last seen the accused and the deceased together is Kashi Ram (PW-4) but he too has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. Dr. Ashish Karan (PW-10) is the witness who conducted postmorten examination on the body of the deceased and gave his report Ex. P-8 stating that the cause of death was asphyxia due to drowning. According to this witness, no injury was noticed by him on the dead-body. This witness has not even given his opinion whether the death was homicidal or otherwise. Ram Prasad (PW-2), Ramadhar (PW-3), Sumit Kumar (PW-5) and Shankar (PW-6) are the witnesses to inquest. Jagguram (PW-7) has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. Shyamlal Mishra (PW-8) is the Patwari who prepared spot map Ex. P-7. Parvatia Bai (PW-9) has stated that when in the morning she went to the nearby well, body of the deceased was seen by her floating therein. I. Tirki (PW-11) and Vishnu Singh (PW-13) are the witnesses who assisted in the investigation. Bhakti Prakash (PW-14) and Phulmati (PW-15) – the wife of the deceased have also not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile. Mohd. Jamal Firdoushi (PW-16) is the investigating officer who has duly supported the case of the prosecution. 9. We have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record carefully. Bhakti Prakash (PW-14) and Phulmati (PW-15) – the wife of the deceased have also not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile. Mohd. Jamal Firdoushi (PW-16) is the investigating officer who has duly supported the case of the prosecution. 9. We have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record carefully. It is reflected from the evidence of the witnesses that on 20.10.2003 in the morning hours when Parvatia Bai (PW-9) had been to the nearby public well one dead-body was noticed by her floating therein and that on seeing this she lost her nerves and disclosed the same to Kashiram – the father of the deceased and that after the body being taken out from the well it was found to be of the deceased. However, there is not even a single piece of evidence on the basis of which the complicity of the accused/appellant in the commission of murder of the deceased and then throwing the body into the well could be established. Though Indra Kunwar (PW-1) and Kashiram (PW-4) are said to be the witnesses to last seen but their evidence does not spell even a word that the deceased was last seen by them in the company of the accused/appellant. One of the so-called witness to last seen i.e. Kashiram (PW-4) has even turned hostile. Even the doctor (PW-10) who conducted the postmortem examination on the body of the deceased has not noticed even a single injury thereon. He has also not given the opinion whether the death was homicidal or what. So mere recovery of the dead-body from the well cannot inculpate the accused in the crime in question particularly when there is not even a single piece of paper speaking of the directly or indirectly involvement of the accused in the commission of murder of the deceased. 10. Court below has thus fallen into a serious legal error in convicting the accused/appellant under Section 302 IPC even in the absence of any cogent and reliable evidence against him, and being so the findings so recorded cannot be allowed to stand and are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, judgment impugned is set-aside and the accused/appellant is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. Since the accused/appellant is already on bail, no order to set him free etc. is necessary.