JUDGMENT : M.A. Ali, J. We have heard learned Sr. Counsel Mr. T.J. Mahanta assisted by Ms. P. Bhattacharya for the appellant and learned Addl. P.P. Mr. S. Jahan, for the state, who have taken us through the evidence and materials brought on record. 2. Both the appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 24.02.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Golaghat, in Sessions Case No. 201/2014. By the said judgment, learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant Babatu Borah @ Uttam Borah under Section 302/201 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation under Section 302 IPC and imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation under Section 201 IPC. The appellants Sri Chandra Kumar Borah and Smt. Junti Borah were convicted under Section 201 IPC and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for two years each and fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation. Both the appeal having arisen out of the same judgment are taken together for hearing and disposal. 3. As per the prosecution case, PW-1, Krishna Sonowal was wedded to the appellant Babatu Bora in the year 2009 and out of their wedlock, a female child was born on 03.09.2010. The appellants were torturing the PW-1 and also demanded Rs. 80,000/-. They also did not like the PW-1 giving birth to a female child. On 01.02.2011 in the morning, PW-1 went out from the house, for doing household works and taking bath, leaving the baby with her husband (Babatu Borah). While coming back at about 7.10 AM, she noticed that the baby was lying still without any movement. Immediately she took the baby to her in-laws and they broke down crying and told that she was no more, where upon the appellant Babatu scolded her (PW-1) and also assaulted her, alleging that she did not take care of the baby properly. After sometime the body of the baby was buried. Thereafter PW-1 went to her paternal home, where she had discussion with the various women organizations and members of the family, who suspected, that the baby might have been killed by her husband and in-laws and upon their advice, PW-1 lodged the FIR (Ext.1). On the basis of said FIR, police registered Golaghat P.S. Case No. 59/2011 under Section 498-A/302/201 IPC. On the basis of said FIR, police registered Golaghat P.S. Case No. 59/2011 under Section 498-A/302/201 IPC. In course of investigation, the body was exhumed, inquest report was prepared and postmortem examination was conducted by Dr. Pallavi Gogoi. 4. Dr. Pallabi Gogoi (PW-6), who conducted the postmortem examination found the following injuries on the body of the deceased. “Bluish purple colouration of size-1”x1” on the left side of the front of neck and towards the back of size-2”4” 5. In the opinion of the doctor, death was caused due to asphyxia. The doctor further deposed that asphyxia may also be caused due to certain diseases. 6. On completion of the investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the appellants under Section 498/302/201 IPC R/W Section 34 IPC and eventually all the three appellants stood trial before the court of Sessions. 7. In course of trial, prosecution examination 7 witnesses to establish the charge. Upon appreciation of evidence, learned trial court convicted the appellants under Section 302/201 IPC and awarded the sentences as indicated above. 8. The evidence of the doctor, who conducted the postmortem examination, revealed, that though, cause of death was stated to be asphyxia, no definite finding was recorded by doctor, as to whether the death of the victim was homicidal, inasmuch as, no injuries attributable to cause of asphyxia or death was detected on the body of the victim. 9. PW-1, deposed that their marital life was running smoothly for about 6 months and thereafter she was tortured by her husband and in-laws without any reason. She gave birth to a female child in the hospital and her in-laws demanded Rs. 80,000/-and stated, that unless she pay the money, she would not be allowed to stay in the matrimonial home. She was also not allowed to mix-up with other neighbouring people. On 01.02.2011 in the morning, she came out for work, keeping the child slept with her husband. While she came back after finishing the work and wanted to take the child in her lap, she found that the baby was no more. At that time, her husband and in-laws were in another room taking breakfast. Immediately she took the baby to her in-laws, who told that she was no more, whereupon her husband assaulted her alleging, that because of her negligence and lack of care, the baby met with death. Subsequently, the baby was buried. At that time, her husband and in-laws were in another room taking breakfast. Immediately she took the baby to her in-laws, who told that she was no more, whereupon her husband assaulted her alleging, that because of her negligence and lack of care, the baby met with death. Subsequently, the baby was buried. On the next day, she went to her paternal home. She further deposed, that the baby was suspected to have been killed. 10. PW-2, brother of PW-1 deposed, that after the birth of the baby, they brought PW-1 to their house, where she stayed for about one month and thereafter they left PW-1 in her matrimonial home and after few days they came to know that the baby died. According to PW3, he came to know from PW-1 that she went to take bath, leaving the baby and after coming back, found the baby dead. PW-4 pleaded ignorance about the cause of death of the baby. PW-5 stated in his evidence, that after death of the baby, the husband assaulted PW-1 and as such they advised PW-1 to lodge the FIR. 11. According to PW-1, she went out for work at 5.10, in the morning. When she came back after about 2 hours and found the baby dead, at that time, her husband and other members of the family were taking tea in a different room. After coming to know about the death of the baby, the husband of the PW-1 scolded her and also assaulted her alleging, that because of her negligence and lack of care, the baby met with death. It was also in her evidence, that after coming to know about the death of the baby, her in-laws broke down crying. Apparently there was no direct evidence to indicate that the baby was killed by the appellants. Only evidence of PW-1 was that she left the baby under care of her husband and when she came back after about 2 hours, completing her work, the baby was found dead and at that time no members of the family was near the baby. Admittedly, the FIR was lodged after four days, when the appellants allegedly did not take any care of PW-1, who left for her paternal home. Admittedly, the FIR was lodged only on suspicion of some foul play. 12. Admittedly, the FIR was lodged after four days, when the appellants allegedly did not take any care of PW-1, who left for her paternal home. Admittedly, the FIR was lodged only on suspicion of some foul play. 12. As already indicated above, medical evidence was inconclusive as there was no definite opinion, that the death was homicidal. Though, cause of death has been stated to be asphyxia, no ligature mark or any other injury was found on the body of the victim, except bluish purple colouration on the left side of the front of neck, which is attributable to burial of the body. Apparently, there was no evidence indicating, that death of the baby was homicidal, nor was there any evidence on record to show that death of the baby was caused due to any incriminating act of the appellant. The FIR was admittedly lodged merely on suspicion, after four days, that too, upon advice of the woman organization and parents of the PW-1. Admittedly, the relation between PW-1 and her in-laws was not very cordial. Therefore, the entire prosecution case apparently remains at the stage of suspicion. It is the settled position of law that the suspicion, however, strong may be, cannot take the place of proof and one cannot be condemned for a criminal charge on mere suspicion, unless the charge is proved beyond all reasonable doubt. In the instant case, even if the entire evidence brought on record is taken into account and accepted to be true, the same, in our considered opinion, is not sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt, that the death of the baby was caused by any incriminating act of the appellants. When homicidal death of the victim has not been proved, and there was also no legal evidence on record for attributing culpability to the appellants, in our considered view, prosecution evidence was hopelessly inadequate to bring home the charges under Section 302 or 201 IPC against any of the appellant and as such, the conviction and sentence of the appellant are not sustainable. Accordingly, we set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant. 13. Both the appeals are allowed. The accused appellants, if in jail, be set at liberty, if not required in any other case. 14. Registry shall issue release order. 15. Send down the LCR along with a copy of this judgment and order immediately.