JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the informant appellant and learned counsel for the State. 2. The informant appellant is aggrieved by the impugned Judgment dated 2nd of June, 2017, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XIV, Dhanbad, in S.T. Case No. 466 of 2011, whereby, out of the three accused persons, facing the trial for the offences under Sections 302, 201/34, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, for the murder of the brother of the informant, two of them, namely, respondent No. 2 Kunti Devi and respondent No. 3 Vinod Rawani, have been acquitted of the charges. The co-accused Shankar Rawani has been found guilty, convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court below for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. According to the prosecution case, which is based on the fardbeyan of the informant appellant, recorded on 19.5.201, is that on the previous day, i.e., on 18.5.2011, at about 4.00 P.M., his younger brother Makru Rawani, the deceased, had left his house for shaving, but did not return till late night and next day in the morning, his dead body was found with ante-mortem injuries. In the fardbeyan, it is stated that about 2½ years ago, the father of the deceased, who was working in BCCL colliery, died due to cancer and subsequently, as decided by the villagers, the informant got the job in place of his father, and the amount of Rs. 9.15 lacs received from the colliery was deposited in the name of his deceased brother and his wife Kunti Devi. It is alleged in the fardbeyan that Kunti Devi was a lady of easy virtues and as the deceased brother of the informant was of impaired vision, he was not liked by his wife Kunti Devi and she did not like to live with him, and it was suspected by the informant that Kunti Devi got her husband murdered. The police case was instituted on the basis of the said fardbeyan and investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police submitted chargesheet against all the accused persons. 4. From the evidence discussed in the impugned Judgment, it appears that the witnesses, including P.W.-3 Sukra Rawai @ Sakru Rawani, the informant have stated about the alleged connection of the wife of the deceased with the co-accused Shankar Rawani and Vinod Rawani. After investigation, the police submitted chargesheet against all the accused persons. 4. From the evidence discussed in the impugned Judgment, it appears that the witnesses, including P.W.-3 Sukra Rawai @ Sakru Rawani, the informant have stated about the alleged connection of the wife of the deceased with the co-accused Shankar Rawani and Vinod Rawani. However, P.W.-3 Sukra Rawai @ Sakru Rawani has admitted in his cross-examination that he had never seen her in objectionable position, and to his knowledge, the husband had never complained against his wife. The only important evidence against respondent No. 2 is the evidence of I.Os. of the case. One of the I.O. Ram Kumar Verma, who has been examined as P.W.-14, has stated that he had recorded the confessional statement of Kunti Devi, in which, she admitted the involvement of Vinod Rawani and Shankar Rawani in the occurrence. On the basis of her confessional statement, two mobile phones, allegedly given to her by Shankar Rawani were also recovered. Thereafter, both the co-accused were also arrested and their confessional statements were also recorded by the police. On the basis of confessional statement of Shankar Rawani, the motorcycle, allegedly used in the murder and the piece of bed-sheet, by which, the deceased was strangulated to death have been recovered. Due to these recoveries on the basis of his confessional statement, and on the basis of the evidence against him, the accused Shankar Rawani has been found guilty and convicted for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The evidence of the other I.O. P.W.-15 Alakhdeo Prasad Singh, however, shows that in the case diary there is nothing to show that Kunti Devi and Shankar Rawani used to move with each other regularly, and Shankar Rawani was known to her since long. 5. The informant appellant is mainly aggrieved by the acquittal of respondent No. 2 Kunti Devi by the Trial Court below and has filed the present acquittal appeal. I.A. No. 6195 of 2017 has also been filed, seeking leave to appeal against the impugned Judgment of acquittal. 6. 5. The informant appellant is mainly aggrieved by the acquittal of respondent No. 2 Kunti Devi by the Trial Court below and has filed the present acquittal appeal. I.A. No. 6195 of 2017 has also been filed, seeking leave to appeal against the impugned Judgment of acquittal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the circumstances proved by the prosecution in the case are sufficient to rope in the respondent No. 2 Kunti Devi also, for the offences charged, but the Trial Court below has acquitted her of the charges, even though she is the prime suspect in the case. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the chain of circumstances against the respondent No.2, clearly pointing towards her guilt, are as follows:- (a) That the respondent No. 2 is legally wedded wife of the deceased. (b) She was not happy with the marriage as the deceased was visually impaired. (c) She is a lady of easy virtues/questionable character. (d) The accused Vinod Rawani and Shankar Rawani used to frequently visit the house of the deceased. (e) On the date of occurrence, the deceased was seen going with the accused Shankar Rawani on his motorcycle and on the next day, the dead body was found. (f) The F.I.R. was lodged against Kunti Devi only as the prime suspect, and on her confessional statement, the entire prosecution case was unfolded. (g) The recovery of two mobile phones have been made on the basis of confessional statement of Kunti Devi, allegedly given to her by Shankar Rawani. (h) On the basis of confessional statement of Shankar Rawani, recoveries of the motorcycle used in the crime, and the piece of bed-sheet, by which, the deceased was strangulated were made. Learned counsel has submitted that the chain of these circumstances, clearly point out only towards the guilt of the respondent No. 2 and not otherwise, and it is a fit case in which, the said respondent also ought to have been convicted and sentenced for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 7. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer. 8. 7. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer. 8. Having heard counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, we find the evidence of P.W.-1 Gaur Prasad Rawani, shows that he claims to have last seen the deceased going on the motorcycle along with Shankar Rawani, and thereafter, the dead body was found. P.W.-4 Raghunath Rawani claims to have seen the accused Shankar Rawani dropping something in the night from his motorcycle, which in the morning was found to be the dead body of the deceased. These evidences show that the motorcycle of Shankar Rawani was used in the commission of crime, and there is evidence on record that on the confessional statement of Shankar Rawani, the motorcycle was recovered. As on the basis of the confessional statement of Shankar Rawani, there is recovery of the piece of bed-sheet also, which is said to be used in strangulating the deceased, as also on the basis of the evidence against him, he has been found guilty and convicted for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. So far as the culpability of respondent No. 2 Kunti Devi is concerned, the first circumstance against her is that she is said to be a lady of easy virtues and it is alleged that she had illicit connections with Vinod Rawani and Shankar Rawani, who were in visiting terms with her. However, on the date of occurrence, the deceased himself was seen going on the motorcycle of Shankar Rawani. This clearly shows that there were friendly terms between the deceased and the accused Shankar Rawani, who might be in the visiting terms, but by no stretch of imagination this evidence can lead to the only conclusion that there was illicit connection between respondent No.2 and the accused Shankar Rawani. There is no evidence to show that the respondent No. 2 Kunti Devi was also seen going on the motorcycle along with them. The informant P.W.-3 Sukra Rawani @ Sakru Rawani, has also admitted that he had never seen her in objectionable position, nor the deceased had ever complained against his wife. In that view of the matter, it cannot be held only on the basis of her confessional statement, that there was some illicit relationship between respondent No. 2 Kunti Devi and the accused Shankar Rawani. 10. In that view of the matter, it cannot be held only on the basis of her confessional statement, that there was some illicit relationship between respondent No. 2 Kunti Devi and the accused Shankar Rawani. 10. The other circumstance against the respondent No.2 is the recovery of two mobile phones, said to be given to her by Shankar Rawani. The impugned Judgment shows that no call details of these mobile phones had been brought on record. Thus, except the confessional statement of respondent No. 2 Kunti Devi, there is nothing on record to show that those two mobile phones were actually given to her by Shankar Rawani and no call details have been brought on record to show that there was any conversation between Shankar Rawani and respondent No. 2 Kunti Devi. Thus, there is no legal evidence to prove the fact that the mobile phones recovered from respondent No. 2 Kunti Devi, were given to her by the accused Shankar Rawani. 11. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view that only on the basis of the recovery of two mobile phones on the basis of her confessional statement, the respondent No. 2 Kunti Devi cannot be found guilty for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. We find from the impugned Judgment that respondent No. 2 Kunti Devi has been rightly acquitted by the Trial Court below. 12. Learned counsel for the informant appellant, during course of arguments, very fairly submitted that the informant appellant is not aggrieved by the acquittal of respondent No. 3 Vinod Rawani. 13. Since, we do not find any illegality in the acquittal of respondent No. 2 Kunti Devi by the Trial Court below, we do not see any valid reason for granting any leave to appeal against the impugned Judgment of acquittal dated 2nd of June, 2017, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XIV, Dhanbad, in S.T. Case No. 466 of 2011. Accordingly, the I.A. No. 6195 of 2017, filed for seeking leave to appeal against the impugned Judgment of acquittal, stands dismissed. 14. Consequently, the acquittal appeal is also hereby, dismissed in limine, being bereft of any merit.