prosecution witnesses, noted above, and submitted that either they are hearsay or they have turned hostile during their examination. Learned Amicus Curiae also point out that the prosecution witness no. 1, 2 and 3 in Sessions Trial No. 110/2012 have deposed as hearsay witnesses, but in the analogous Sessions Trial No. 63/2013, they have been declared hostile on the request of the prosecution. PW-5 Kalam Hembrom has been declared hostile in both the sessions trial. Other prosecution witnesses are also hearsay witness. PW-4 Kishore Soren in Sessions Trial No. 110/2012 has been declared hostile, but surprisingly, prosecution has not declared him hostile and cited him as a hearsay witness in Sessions Trial No. 63/2013 as PW-11. If there is such inconsistency in the prosecution evidence in this case which depends upon the circumstantial evidence, it is not safe to convict the accused persons for the charges. Learned Amicus Curiae have, while summarizing their argument, also submitted that the conduct of the appellant Rabilal Murmu, husband of the deceased and son-in-law of the informant, as stated through the mouth of the informant in her fardbeyan and also in her testimony, is such that the onus to show circumstances of the death of Mariam in the house of the appellant, have also been duly explained. In any case, conviction could not have been recorded by the learned Trial Court only relying upon the provisions of section 106 of the Evidence Act. As such, appellants who have been convicted on practically no legal evidence by the learned Trial Court, deserve to be acquitted of the charges. Two of the appellants, Khepa Murmu @ Hembrom and Rabilal Murmu @ Hembrom are incarcerating since 27.09.2012 and 02.03.2013 respectively without any shred of evidence against them. 11. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Shekhar Sinha has placed the evidence on record and supported the findings rendered by the learned Trial Court. It is his submission that in such circumstances when a married lady dies in the house of her in-laws, it is unlikely that any eye witness could be found to support the case of the prosecution. The informant has found her daughter dead in the house of her in-laws and froth coming out of her mouth and nostrils. The coming of froth from mouth and nostrils itself created suspicion in the minds of the informant that the accused persons had administered poison to her daughter and caused her death. The accused persons / appellants herein restrained her from coming back to her home to inform her relative on 28.02.2012. However, she managed to come back to her home late in the evening and being a rustic lady she again ventured with her relatives and villagers to the matrimonial house of her daughter to take legal steps. However, the dead body of the victim was not found in the house of the appellants and only upon coming to know that they had
