ORDER : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. The sole appellant has been convicted and sentenced to R.I for life and fine of Rs.10,000/-under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of Kishore Sundi. 2. The informant of this case is father of the deceased. His fardbeyan was recorded on 30.07.2006 at 22.15 hrs. at village-Lonjo Sundisai. In his fardbeyan, he has stated that his son who was working with Ladu Gagrai had gone for ploughing his field. He came back home at about 2 p.m and thereafter he had gone to leave the oxen in the house of Ladu Gagrai and at that time Ladu Gagrai offered him drinks (haria). Thereafter, they were enjoying drinks in the courtyard of Ladu Gagrai and in the meantime a quarrel started between them. At about 5 p.m he saw from his window that Ladu Gagrai was assaulting his son with tangi whereupon his son fell on the ground and Ladu Gagrai closed the doors of his house. He has claimed that the occurrence has been seen by several villagers and inspite of their efforts Ladu Gagrai did not open the door and remained inside his house. The informant has been examined as P.W.4. In the court, he has narrated the incident of 30.07.2006 in a similar manner as has been described by him in his fardbeyan. He has spoken about his son working in the field of Ladu Gagrai, Ladu Gagrai offering drink to his son and a quarrel between them while they were taking drinks together. He has also claimed that he has seen the appellant assaulting his son and thereafter he closed the doors of his house. 3. P.W.1 is neighbour of the appellant and P.W.2 and P.W.3 are uncle of the deceased. P.W.3 has stated that information about the incident was given by one Thomas Sundi. But, Thomas Sundi has not been produced during the trial and P.W.5 who is a co-villager has turned hostile. P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 are not the eye-witnesses. They have deposed in the court that on the day of the occurrence Kishore Sundi had gone to plough the field of Ladu Gagrai, he came back in the afternoon and on invitation of Ladu Gagrai he was taking drinks with him in his courtyard. P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 are not the eye-witnesses. They have deposed in the court that on the day of the occurrence Kishore Sundi had gone to plough the field of Ladu Gagrai, he came back in the afternoon and on invitation of Ladu Gagrai he was taking drinks with him in his courtyard. These witnesses have heard hulla and by the time they reached the house of the appellant several other villagers had assembled there. But these witnesses have not said anything beyond this and none of the co-villagers, except P.W.5 who has turned hostile, has come forward to support the case of the prosecution. P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 have stated that the appellant had closed himself inside the room in which he has killed Kishore Sundi, but dead body of Kishore Sundi has been found lying in the courtyard of the appellant. The investigating officer has stated in the court that he has not recorded statement of any other co-villager and they have not been made witness in this case. 4. From the prosecution's evidence what we gather is that the only evidence laid against the appellant during the trial is that he was seen taking drinks with Kishore Sundi in the afternoon of 30.07.2006 and a quarrel had ensued between them. But no one has deposed in the court that he has seen the appellant assaulting Kishore Sundi. During his cross-examination, the informant has also admitted that at the time when the incident has taken place he was in the field and when he came back he has seen the dead body of his son in the courtyard of the appellant. No motive has been established by the prosecution for the crime and the doctor has found alcohol (haria) in the stomach of the deceased. P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 have stated that they have not seen the appellant committing murder of Kishore Sundi and how the incident has happened has remained a mystery. Therefore, only on the ground that dead body of Kishore Sundi has been found lying in the courtyard of the appellant and the prosecution witnesses have seen the deceased and the appellant taking drinks together, the appellant cannot be convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of Kishore Sundi. Therefore, only on the ground that dead body of Kishore Sundi has been found lying in the courtyard of the appellant and the prosecution witnesses have seen the deceased and the appellant taking drinks together, the appellant cannot be convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of Kishore Sundi. May be, the evidences laid by the prosecution against the appellant would raise grave suspicion on complicity of the appellant in the crime, but then, suspicion howsoever strong cannot take the place of legal evidence and only on suspicion he cannot be convicted for committing murder of Kishore Sundi. 5. Accordingly, we hold that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant and, therefore, his conviction for the said offence is set-aside. 6. Mr. S.K. Keshri, the learned APP, states that the appellant is in custody. 7. Accordingly, the appellant, namely, Ladu Gagrai shall be set free forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other criminal case. 8. In the result, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 685 of 2010 is allowed. 9. We appreciate the assistance rendered by Ms. Shaurya, the learned Amicus. 10. The Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee shall reimburse the learned Amicus on submission of bill(s). 11. Let a copy of the judgment be transmitted to the court concerned through 'FAX'. 12. Let the lower-court records be transmitted to the court concerned, forthwith.