JUDGMENT Vishnudeo Narayan, J. 1. This appeal has been directed by the appellants named above against the impugned judgment and order dated 27.3.1997, passed in Sessions Trial No. 609 of 1995 (T.R. No. 57 of 1995) by Shri Aloke Kumar Sinha, 6th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder all the appellants along with appellant Raj Kishore Shah (since dead) were found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and they were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each. However, all the appellants were not found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code and they were acquitted in respect thereof. 2. The prosecution case has arisen on the basis of the written report (Exhibit-3) of PW 1, Ram Chandra Prasad, the informant and said to be the father of Laxmi Devi, the alleged victim of this case lodged before Sukhdeo Nagar Police Station on 22.9.1992 at 21.00 hours regarding the occurrence which is said to have taken place on 10.9.1992 at 14.00 hours at Hesal Vikash Nagar in the town of Ranchi and the case was instituted against the appellants by drawing of the formal FIR (Exhibit-4) on that very day at 21.00 hours. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the marriage of Laxmi Devi was solemnized with appellant Umesh Kumar Shah on 22.9.1992 and she was leading her conjugal life with appellant Umesh Kumar Shah in her matrimonial home at Hesal Vikash Nagar and she was also blessed with a son, who is nine months old. It is alleged that all the appellants were residing with her in the said house and so long she lived in her matrimonial home, there was always a quarrel between her and her sister-in-law appellant Anjula Devi @ Anju on petty matters and the other appellants used to take the side of appellants Anju in the said quarrel and the behaviour of the appellants was also not cordial with her as a result of which she was under strain and stress. The prosecution case further is that the informant received a postcard on 18.9.1992 in which it has been stated that Laxmi Devi has, all of a sudden, left her matrimonial home on 10.9.1992 at 14.00 hours either for Biharsharif or Calcutta and on this information and Laxmi Devi having not arrived at Calcutta, he came to Biharsharif where he could also not find Laxmi Devi and thereafter a hectic search was made to locate Laxmi Devi and finding no way out he came to Ranchi where also search for Laxmi Devi was made but all in vain. It is also alleged that nine months old child of Laxmi Devi has been left in her matrimonial home and there is reasonable doubt that the appellants in conspiracy with each other have abducted Laxmi Devi. 4. The appellant have pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against them and they claim themselves to be innocent and to have committed no offence and they have been falsely implicated in the case on mere suspicion in view of the fact that Laxmi Devi has left her matrimonial home all of a sudden leaving her son there. 5. The prosecution has examined in all nine witnesses to substantiate its case PW 1 is the informant and lather of Laxmi Devi aforesaid. PW 5 Mahendra Sao, is a resident of Birsa Chowk, Police Station Jagannathpur District Ranchi and said to be the maternal uncle in relation of Laxmi Devi and their testimony is only material in this case. Rests of the prosecution witnesses such as PW 2 Ram Chandra Sahni, PW 3, Anandi Sahni, PW 4 Rabindra Prasad and PW 6 Pappu Prasad are the neighbours of the appellants and PW 7 Binod Kumar Sahu is the husband of appellant Anjula Devi and all these witness have turned hostile and they do not at all support the prosecution case. PW 8 Rajiv Ranjan Prasad is the IO of this case and he has only submitted charge-sheet whereas PW 9 Anil Kumar Mishra is the main IO who has investigated the case for a period of two years but surprising enough Laxmi Devi was not found dead or alive. No oral or documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of the defence. 6. No oral or documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of the defence. 6. Relying upon the evidence of PW 1, the informant read with the evidence of PW 5, the learned Court below found the appellants guilt for the offence punishable under Section 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted and sentenced them as stated above. The learned Court below also came to the finding that charge under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code framed against the appellants has not been proved beyond all shadow of reasonable doubts that the appellants have abducted the victim and they were, accordingly, acquitted for the offence under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that there is no iota of legal evidence on the record to substantiate the prosecution case that Laxmi Devi has been subjected to cruelty in connection with demand of dowry or for any other reason treating her with cruelty during her stay in her matrimonial home and she has voluntarily left her house, all of a sudden, leaving her nine months old son for the reasons best known to her. It has also been submitted that the evidence on the record does not at all establish the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code levelled against them and viewed thus, the impugned judgment is unsustainable. 8. The learned APP has submitted that suspicion goes against the appellant in this case in view of the fact that no step has been taken by the appellants to search out Laxmi Devi when she has disappeared from their house all of a sudden and this aspect of the matter gives an inkling of the fact that Laxmi Devi had left her matrimonial home due to torture perpetrated by the appellants on her during her stay in her matrimonial home and the learned Court below considering the circumstances appearing on the face of the record has rightly convicted the appellants. 9. 9. It is relevant to*mention here at the very outset that the word "cruelty" in relation to the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code means any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. The averment in the written report is that the behaviour of the appellants was not congenial and cordial with Laxmi Devi when she was living in her matrimonial home and there were quarrels between her and her sister-in-law appellant Anju on petty matters in which the other appellants used to take the side of appellant Anju which had caused stress and strain to her. It is relevant to mention here that there is no specific allegation against the appellants averred in the written report of any physical or mental torture to Laxmi Devi by or at the instance of the appellants or treating her with cruelty or vexing or harassing her for meeting any unlawfully demand of dowry. There is also no averment in written report of the informant against the appellants that there were any aberrations in the conjugal relationship between Laxmi Devi and her appellant husband during the period of her stay in her matrimonial home. There is also no averment in the written report that appellant Umesh Kumar Shah, the husband of Laxmi Devi had even assaulted, tortured, vexed or harassed her or had treated her with cruelty for any demand of dowry. 11. In this background, we have to scan the evidence on the record. PW 1 in para 2 has deposed that all the appellants used to quarrel with Laxmi Devi on petty matters and the behaviour of appellant Umesh Kumar Shah was not congenial or cordial with her. He has also deposed that Umesh Kumar Shah used to assault her. 11. In this background, we have to scan the evidence on the record. PW 1 in para 2 has deposed that all the appellants used to quarrel with Laxmi Devi on petty matters and the behaviour of appellant Umesh Kumar Shah was not congenial or cordial with her. He has also deposed that Umesh Kumar Shah used to assault her. The evidence of PW 1 that the appellant Umesh Kumar Shah used to assault Laxmi Devi is in conflict with the averment made in respect thereof in the written report aforesaid. The evidence of the informant that all the appellants used to have quarrel with Laxmi Devi is equally inconsistent with the averment made in the written report. It is made clear here that according to the FIR there was only quarrel between Laxmi Devi and her sister-in-law, appellant Anju and other appellants had taken the side of appellant Anju which means that the other appellants have not sympathized with Laxmi Devi in the said quarrel. PW 1 has further deposed that when he came to Ranchi he had met appellant Raj Kishore Shah (since dead) twice and there was a cordial talk between them. The only grievance of PW 1, the informant is that appellant Raj Kishore Shah did not take active interest for making search of Laxmi Devi. His evidence is that appellant Umesh Kumar Shah has also not taken much interest in the search of Laxmi Devi and due to that the he had suspicion that all the appellants have committed the murder of Laxmi Devi. In paragraph 13 of his cross-examination PW 1, the informant has categorically deposed in the most clear and unequivocal terms that Laxmi Devi is literate and she had written several letters to him during the period she was living in her matrimonial home leading her conjugal life with Umesh Kumar Shah but none of the letters has been brought on the record to establish the fact that she has reported to him about any harassment or torture meted to her as well as regarding any aberrations in her matrimonial life. Therefore, the evidence of PW 1 is of no help to the prosecution to support the charge under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the evidence of PW 1 is of no help to the prosecution to support the charge under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. PW 5, a distant relative of Laxmi Devi has deposed that on interval of one and half or two months he used to visit the house of appellant whenever he happens to go to Pandara and Laxmi Devi used to tell him about the quarrels and assault perpetrated on her by the appellants and they also Used to make demand for dowry and for that she was subjected to cruelty. In paragraph 9 of his cross-examination, PW 5 has deposed that never a quarrel had taken place in his presence between Laxmi Devi and the appellants. The conduct of the witness is such that being the maternal uncle by relation he has not attended the marriage of Laxmi Devi which was performed at Biharsharif and further more even after getting the information that Laxmi Devi is missing he has not ventured at all to trace her and in the backdrop of this conduct he has come before this Court to take oath and to say that Laxmi Devi was treated with cruelty by the appellants for demand of dowry whereas PW 1, the father of the informant does not whisper at all in respect thereof in the written report. It is, therefore, established from the evidence on the record that Laxmi Devi was never treated with cruelty in her matrimonial home by the appellants which may drive her to commit suicide or to any grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health. There is also no legal evidence that she was harassed and treated with cruelty for any demand of dowry. Quarrel in a family consisting of mother-in-law, daughter-in-law and sister-in-law is a natural phenomenon and if such quarrel causes any strain and stress, then in that case it shall definitely not fall under the category of cruelty as explained under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The other appellants who had simply sympathized Anju in her quarrel with Laxmi Devi cannot be held liable for committing any offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. PW 7 Binod Kumar Sahu, the husband of appellant Anju, has deposed that he lives with his wife in a separate house. The other appellants who had simply sympathized Anju in her quarrel with Laxmi Devi cannot be held liable for committing any offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. PW 7 Binod Kumar Sahu, the husband of appellant Anju, has deposed that he lives with his wife in a separate house. PW 7 is a prosecution witness and his evidence in respect thereof cannot be discarded in the facts and circumstances of this case. Therefore, there is no iota of any legal evidence on the record to connect or implicate the appellants for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Court below did not meticulously consider the evidence on the record in proper perspective and has committed a manifest error in coming to the finding of the guilt of the appellants and viewed thus the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. 13. There is merit in this appeal and it succeeds. The appeal is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment of the learned Court below is set aside. The appellants above-named are not found guilty of the charges levelled against them and they are, accordingly, acquitted and discharged from the liability of their pail bonds.