Judgment Aftab Alam, J. 1. These three appeals are filed against the same judgment and order passed by the trial Court. These were, therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. There are two appellants in each of the three appeals; each of them stands convicted under Secs. 304-B/34 and 201 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and two years respectively under two counts. All the appellants, excepting appellant No. 1 Ajay Kumar Mehta in Criminal Appeal No. 47/98 were also convicted under Section 498-A of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. The sentences were, however, directed to run concurrently. 2. Among the six accused Ajay Kumar Singh (Appellant No. 2 in Criminal Appeal No. 47/98) is the victims husband; appellant Yoganand Singh (Appellant No. 2 in Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 1998) and Vina Devi (Appellant No. 2 in Criminal Appeal No. 17/98) are the father-in-law and the mother-in-law respectively of the victim; Sanjay Kumar Singh (Appellant No. 1 in Criminal Appeal No. 17/98) and Kaushal Kumar Singh (Appellant No. 1 in Criminal Appeal No. 36/98) are the two brothers of the victims husband. The sixth appellant. Ajay Kumar Mehta (Appellant No. 1 in Criminal Appeal No. 47/1998) is family friend of the victims in-laws. 3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the first information report (Ext.3) lodged by Kameshwar Prasad Yadav (PW 13), the father of the victim girl on 22.11.1995 at Raniganj P.S. giving rise to Raniganj P.S. Case No. 211/1995. In the first inforrmtion report, it was stated that the informants daughter Anju Devi was married to Ajay Kumar Singh, son of Yoganand Singh in June 1994, according to Hindu rites. On 20.11.1995 the informant came to learn at his village home that his daughter was killed by her in-laws for non-fulfilment of their demand for dowry. On receiving this information, the informant along with his son Ashok Kumar Yadav (not examined) and some of his co-villagers went to his daughters Sasural in village Barhara and reached there at 2 p.m. on 22.11.1995. On receiving this information, the informant along with his son Ashok Kumar Yadav (not examined) and some of his co-villagers went to his daughters Sasural in village Barhara and reached there at 2 p.m. on 22.11.1995. There they made enquiries about his daughter and came to learn from Ram Charitra Yadav, the Mukhiya and the members of his family and other villagers, both male and female, that in the night of 18.11.1995 the accused persons, namely, Ajay Kumar Singh (the informants son-in-law), his brother Sanjay Kumar Singh, his father Yoganand Singh, his mother (whose name the informant could not learn) and his friend Ajay Kumar Mehta and Ajay Kumar Mehtas wife, killed his daughter by strangulating her with a piece of string in connection with their demands for dowry. He further learnt that on 19.11.1995 at about 9.10 p.m. they carried her body to the bank of a river and burnt it there by pouring kerosene oil over it. Making further enquiries they went to the place on the river bank where the body was said to have been burnt and found there burnt pieces of bones and fragments of bangles. The informant also came to learn there that shortly before she was killed, she was being oppressed by her Sasural people in connection with their demands for dowry. The informants Samdhi Yoganand Singh had also written him several letters in which demands for dowry were made. It was further stated in the first information report that on 19.11.1995 the informant had received by post a letter from her daughter in which she had expressed great sorrow and pain and had also stated that it was her last letter. In the past also he had received letters from her daughter stating that she was subjected to cruelty by her Sasural people in connection with their demand for dowry. At the time of lodging the first information report, he also produced before the police the burnt pieces of bones, pieces of bangles and two letters and this fact finds mention in the first information report itself. The contents of the first information report were read out to him and finding them to be correct he put his signature thereon. 4. The contents of the first information report were read out to him and finding them to be correct he put his signature thereon. 4. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the six appellants who were put on trial for offences under Sec. 304-B read with Sections 34, 201 and 498-A of the Penal Code and at the conclusion of the trial they were convicted and sentenced as stated above. 5. The prosecution in support of its case examined 15 witnesses. It also produced before the Court some documents which were marked as Exhibits. these included the first information report (Ext. 3), the production-cum-seizure list (Ext. 2/2), the seizure list (Ext. 1/1) and the post mortem report (Ext, 4). It is significant to note that the letters referred to in the first information report were not brought on the record. It further appears that the two letters one from the informants daughter and one from his Samdhi which find reference in the first information report and which were produced before the police at the time of the recording of the first information report were not the original letters but photo copies of the two inland letter cards; the photo copies of the two letters which were produced before the police are appended at the end of the case diary and their contents are copied out in the case diary. 6. Among the 15 witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution as many as eight were declared hostile. These are PWs 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 12 of the remaining seven, PWs 7 and 2 were tendered for cross-examination. PW 2 was examined to prove the signature on the seizure list and PW 15 is the Investigating Officer. This leaves PW 10, 13 and 14. P W 10 has also made only a show of supporting the prosecution case. PW 13 is the informant and remaining true to his deceased daughter he supported the prosecution case as best as he could. PW 14 is another prosecution witness who had tried to support the prosecution case. 7. This leaves PW 10, 13 and 14. P W 10 has also made only a show of supporting the prosecution case. PW 13 is the informant and remaining true to his deceased daughter he supported the prosecution case as best as he could. PW 14 is another prosecution witness who had tried to support the prosecution case. 7. Before proceeding to examine the prosecution evidence, it would be useful to have a look at Sec. 304-B of the Penal Code: 304-B. (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burn or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life. 8. It may further be noted that in Shanti V/s. State of Haryana -- , the Supreme Court explained that Sec. 304-B consisted of the following ingredients: (1) The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances; (2) Such death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage: (3) She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; (4) Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand for dowry. 9. If the prosecution evidence in this case is to be examined in the light of the four essential ingredient of Sec. 304-B as indicated by the Supreme Court, it is to be found that though the first two ingredients stand fully established, there is hardly any evidence in support of the third and fourth parts of the section. 10. From the evidence on record, it appears indisputable that Anju Devi was married to Ajay Kumar Singh (appellant No. 2 in Cr. 10. From the evidence on record, it appears indisputable that Anju Devi was married to Ajay Kumar Singh (appellant No. 2 in Cr. Appeal No. 47/1998) in June, 1994 and her second marriage took place in June, 1995, It is also undeniable that she died, otherwise than under normal circumstances in November, 1995 at her in-laws place and her body was cremated without giving any information either to the local police or to her parents. These two aspects of the matter are fully established not only by the evidence of PWs 13,14 and 10 (who said that according to the Mukhiya and the villagers she had committed suicide) but also by some of the witnesses who were declared hostile e.g. PWs. 1 and 4. This gives rise to a strong suspicion regarding the guilt of the appellants but as is well known suspicion, however, strong cannot take place of proof. 11. As regards the other two parts of the section concerning the demand for dowry and subjecting the deceased to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband in connection with their demands, there appears hardly any satisfactory evidence. 12. PW 10 stated in cross-examination that Anju Devi had cordial relations with her husband and her other in-laws; that at the time of marriage the informant had given some articles in dowry but later the accused did not make any demand for dowry. PW 14 has not said any thing in this regard. Thus the only witness left to be considered on these two questions is PW 13. 13. In para 2 of his deposition PW 13 stated that he received a letter from her daughter Anju on 19.11.1995 in which she had stated that she was subjected to atrocities for not bringing dowry from her parents home. Before that his son Ashutosh had gone to his daughters Sasural and Anju Devi had told him that her husband Ajay Kumar Singh used to make demands for a motor cycle, a gold chain and Rs. 10,000.00 in dowry. The son (Santosh) on return from Anjus Sasural had given this information to his father, PW 13. It may be noted here that neither the letter said to have been, received by the witnesses was produced in Court nor Santosh Kumar was examined as a witness on behalf of the prosecution. 10,000.00 in dowry. The son (Santosh) on return from Anjus Sasural had given this information to his father, PW 13. It may be noted here that neither the letter said to have been, received by the witnesses was produced in Court nor Santosh Kumar was examined as a witness on behalf of the prosecution. In course of his cross-examination in para 6 of the deposition, he stated that his son Santosh Kumar had gone to see his daughter twice, once during Dasahra and the second time on the occasion of Chath. After the second marriage of Anita Devi he (Santosh Kumar, her brother) had gone to her twice within a period of three months. On return from his sisters place he informed his father (PW 13) that she was being subjected to atrocities in connection with the demand for dowry. Santosh also said that the demand for dowry was made by her in-laws too. PW 13 further stated that on the occasion of the marriage his samdhi had taken a very rigid stand on the question of dowry. He, however, expressed his inability and after great difficulty the marriage could be fixed. At that time his son Ashok Kumar (not examined) and Satyanarain Yadav, PW 10 were also here. The marriage was performed with difficulty. PW 13 further said (in para 8) that 4-5 months after the marriage he had met his Samdhi at Barhara when his Samadhi said that though he faced some difficulty at the time of the marriage, now at least he should give the dowry. The witness, however, expressed his inability to give any dowry. It was thereafter that the second marriage took place. The other children (of his Samadhi), excepting his son-in-law did not make any demand for dowry. 14. From the above, it is evident that whatever PW 13 came to learn about daughter being subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with the demand for dowry was through his son Santosh Singh. In my view, therefore, it was imperative to examine Santosh Kumar and his non-examination leaves gaping holes in the prosecution case. 15. 14. From the above, it is evident that whatever PW 13 came to learn about daughter being subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with the demand for dowry was through his son Santosh Singh. In my view, therefore, it was imperative to examine Santosh Kumar and his non-examination leaves gaping holes in the prosecution case. 15. I may further state here that though the two letters that find reference in the first information report and one of which is also mentioned in paragraph 2 of the deposition of PW 13 have not been brought on record of this case, for my own satisfaction I perused their photostat copies appended at the end of the Police case diary. The letter said to have been written by Anju Devi to her father is on an inland-letter-card. There is no date on the letter but an endorsement received on 9.11.1995 has been made, presumably by the addressee. Although this letter urgently asked the father to come and it further stated that this would be perhaps her last letter, there is no whisper of any demand for dowry by the husband or any relatives of her husband and it is possible to interpret the contents of this letter in several other ways. 16. As noted above, even this letter is not on the record and Santosh Kumar to whom Anju Devi allegedly confided regarding the demand for dowry has not been examined on behalf of the prosecution. Thus the third and fourth ingredients of Sec. 304-B cannot be said to have been duly established. 17. At this stage, I cannot help expressing my feeling that the case does not appear to have been conducted with proper care by the prosecution and a little care and application of mind perhaps would not left such loophole as indicated herein above. But on that ground the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained and I am, therefore, constrained to find and hold that charges under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Penal Code cannot be sustained against the appellants. Similarly, there is no direct evidence to uphold the charge of Sec. 201 of the Penal Code and in that regard whatever has come on the record is nothing more than hearsay evidence. 18. Similarly, there is no direct evidence to uphold the charge of Sec. 201 of the Penal Code and in that regard whatever has come on the record is nothing more than hearsay evidence. 18. In my considered view, therefore, the trial Court was not justified in convicting and sentencing the appellants as indicated above and their convictions and sentences are liable to be set aside. 19. In the result, these appeals are allowed and the judgment and order passed by the trial Court is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges. Let them be released forthwith, it they are not wanted in any other case.