learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the record, it is evident that the first information report was lodged against unknown persons regarding missing of the deceased Videhi Sharan. However, subsequently during course of investigation, the Investigating OfÏcer has recorded the statement of Ramakant, brother-inlaw of the deceased in which it is stated that he alongwith her sister, Shiv kumari, wife of the deceased, Bablu alias Niranjan, brother-in-law have killed the deceased by throttling. On the basis of which the charge sheet was submitted against the applicant alongwith three other coaccused. After conclusion of the investigation, the charges were framed against the applicant and three other co-accused and the statements of the witnesses were recorded. P.W.1, Smt. Rajrani who is mother of the deceased, in her examination in chief has stated that her son was a habitual drunkard and on 5.10.2021 had left without informing the inmates and despite all efforts to trace him out nothing could be disclosed. Eventually, when stinking smell spread from well of the village then the villagers called the police who had drawn out the cadaver and from his clothes he was identified to be Videhi Sharan. After recovery of the dead body, the F.I.R. was lodged. In her cross examination she has stated that her son Videhi Sharan was never abducted nor was murdered rather in a drunken state he fell down in the well and his dead body was recovered. She has further categorically stated that the applicant, Ramakant and others were not responsible for death of his son. However, on false instigation of one Mathura they have been falsely implicated. P.W.2, who is daughter of deceased has also not supported the prosecution story at all and on her attention been drawn to her statement shown to be recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. she has categorically stated that she has not given any such statement to the police as such she has been declared hostile. Even in cross examination she has not supported the prosecution story at all. On her attention been drawn to her statement shown to be under section 161 Cr.P.C. she has categorically stated that her father was never abducted and has completely denied the suggestion that his father was killed by Shiv
