1. - Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner has been charged for the offences under Sections 302/109, 302/114 and 201 of the IPC. After going through the evidence I find that it is difficult to sustain the order of charge against Smt. Rehmat Begum. There is no evidence to suggest that Rehmat Begum was present at the time of the crime or she had any knowledge to the effect that murder of Prem Devi had taken place. Gulam Samdani has been challenged on the basis of evidence that he was last seen with the deceased when she was alive. According to the prosecution story after the arrest of Gulam Samdani he gave some information and a Saree belonging to the-deceased was recovered from his house from the petitioner. Further, the allegation is to the effect that the cloths, stained with blood were washed by Smt. Rehmat Begum. As pointed out earlier there being no knowledge of the crime to Smt. Rehmat Begum simply washing of the cloths, even if such an evidence is available cannot implicate Smt. Rehmat Begum for offence under Section 201 of the IPC. Similarly, if Saree was brought by the principle accused Gulam Samdani to the house and then later it was recovered at his instance no inference can be drawn against Smt. Rehmat Begum.

3. There is no other evidence to implicate the petitioner. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The order of charge against the petitioner Rehmat Begum is set aside.Revision allowed.

*******