1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. APP (DB) No.78 of 2011 GOPAL LAL SINGH, Son of Jamil Lal Singh, resident of village – Kachan, Police Station – Kochadhaman, District – Kishanganj. ………… Appellant. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ………… Respondent. ----------- 06/ 13.05.2011 Though the matter has been placed for consideration of prayer for bail of the appellant but we have called for the lower court records which have been received. After perusal of the lower court records, it appears that the appeal itself requires to be disposed of at this stage in view of nature of evidence that surfaced in course of the trial. This appellant was put on trial for committing offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and it was alleged that on 15th June, 2006 at village Angarh the accused/appellant has caused the death of the wife. The prosecution case related to fardbeyan of Sotilal Singh the father of the deceased, who alleged that his daughter and son-in-law came to his house one month before from Delhi and on 15.06.2006 when his daughter and son-in-law, namely, the accused were sleeping in his 2 room and in the following morning, when the informant sent his son Rintu Kumar, aged about 12 years to wake-up them but he saw that his sister, namely, Bitaul Devi, was lying dead and the accused was not there. The informant and his son went inside the room and found that his daughter was gagged. She was carrying pregnancy of six months. The informant noticed ligature mark and the case was lodged vide Rauta (Angarh) P. S. Case No. 31 of 2006 dated 16.06.2006 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused/appellant. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted. The charges were explained to the appellant who preferred to face the trial. In course of trial the prosecution has examined eight witnesses. P.W. 8, Dr. Vinay Bhushan Gupta, has conducted the post-mortem report and has opined that death was due to asphyxia due to throttling. P.W. 1 is the mother of the deceased. She identified the accused in the court. She has stated about the marriage of her daughter with the accused in cross- examination. She has stated that on the date of death of her daughter accused/appellant was not present in the house. P.W. 2 Sadul Lal Singh has stated in his 3 evidence that he went to the house of occurrence and saw the dead body. The persons were found weeping there. He is witness to the inquest and he is not the witness of the occurrence. P.W. 3 Bhulan Prasad Singh is another witness who has signed the inquest report and he has not seen any part of the occurrence. P.W. 4 is the father of the deceased and he is informant of the case. He has stated that his daughter was issueless but she died. This witness has not been able to explain as to how his daughter died. In his evidence even he has stated that though the police came to his house but he did not narrate about the cause of occurrence. The police took his L.T.I. This witness has stated that he has not even lodged the case and he did not know as to why his daughter died. P.W. 5 is brother of the deceased. He has identified the victim but has not stated that the appellant has caused death to his sister. P.W. 6 is sister of the deceased. She has stated about marriage of her deceased sister with the appellant. She has also stated that her sister has died but she did not 4 know that the time of occurrence was day or night. She has stated that she came to the house after she was informed about the occurrence and only then saw the dead body. Therefore, this witness is not witness of the occurrence. P.W. 7 is the Investigating Officer. Because all the witnesses have been declared hostile, the evidence of the Investigating Officer loses its significance. To sum up, though the prosecution has examined the witnesses but not even one witness including the informant/father of the deceased has supported the allegation that it was the appellant who has caused death of the deceased. In view of non-availability of any evidence linking the appellant with the offence, this case is fit to be disposed of at this stage. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the State, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge at all. Considering this, instead of granting bail to the appellant the appeal itself is fit to be allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the appellant are set aside. The appeal is allowed. 5 The appeal is allowed. The appellant is directed to be released from the custody forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. Kundan (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.) (Gopal Prasad, J.)