Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 194 OF 1994 ******** Against the judgment and order of conviction dated 2.6.1994 passed in Sessions Trial No. 147/1992/183/1992 by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Siwan. ****** JULUM PANDIT S/O CHANDRAMA PANDIT R/O VILLAGE-BARWA KALA, P.S. BASANTPUR, DISTRICT- SIWAN ……..….. Appellant Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …..………. Respondent ************ For the Appellant : Mr. Raghav Pd. Adv. For the State : Mr. Suresh Prasad APP. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ********* Anjana Prakash, J. The appellant has been convicted under Section 304 B, 201 I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and 1 year respectively by the judgment dated 2.6.1994 in Sessions Trial No. 147/1992/183/1992 by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Siwan. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the informant’s daughter was married to the appellant and on 6.1.1992 he heard about the death of his daughter so he went to the village where he heard from the co-villagers that the deceased was murdered by administering poison and her dead body was cremated. 3. The prosecution has examined 9 witnesses in all to prove its case but P.W.1,3 and 6 had been declared hostile where as P.W. 2,4,5 have been tendered and P.W.7 is the informant, P.W. 8 is the nephew of the informant and P.W. 9 is Investigating Officer. 4. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that apart from oral allegation that the deceased had been poisoned to death there is no cogent proof of the same and in fact even P.W. 7 during cross-examination had stated that when he reached the P.O. village on being informed by others he had instituted the present case. 5. Further submission is that no witness has been examined to testify as to whether in fact the deceased had been poisoned to death and therefore the entire allegation is oral. Moreover, the witness named in the First Information Report who had given the information about the deceased having been murdered by her in-laws have also not been examined during trial. 6. On going through the evidence on record, I find that apart from an oral allegation that the appellant had poisoned his wife to death there is no cogent proof of the same and therefore, it is unsafe to maintain the conviction of the appellant. 7. In view of the discussions above, the appeal is allowed and conviction and sentenced of the appellant by the judgment dated 2.6.1994 passed in Sessions Trial No. 147/1992/183/1992 by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Siwan, is hereby set aside and the appellant is discharged from the liabilities of his bail bonds. Patna High Court, ( Anjana Prakash, J. ) Patna Dated the 31th March, 2011 NAFR/ Fahad.