Judgment Aftab Alam, J. 1. The four appellants before the Court are related to each other. Appellant No. 2 is the father of appellant No. 1 and brother of Appellant No. 3. Appellant No. 4 is one of their agnates. All of them stand convicted under Secs. 304-B, 498-A/ 34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sec. 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. For the offence of dowry death they are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life; for subjecting the victim to cruelty they are sentenced to R. I. for three years and fine of Rs. 2000.00 and on default in payment of fine to under go R. I. for six months; for causing disappearance of the evidence of the offences committed by them they are sentenced to R. I. for three years and fine of Rs. 2000.00 and on default in payment of fine R. I. for six months and finally for taking dowry they are sentenced to undergo R. I. for five years and fine of Rs. 20,000.00 and on default in payment of fine R. I. for three years. The sentences of imprisonment are directed by the trial Court to run concurrently. 2. The victim of the offences committed by the appellants was Tulsi Devi alias Bachia Devi who was married to appellant No. 1. 3. The case against the appellants was instituted on the basis of the F. I. R. lodged by Jagdeo Yadav (P. W. 8) at Paraiya P. S. on 13-3-1997 at 5 p.m. The informant, Jagdeo Yadav was the father of the victim Bachia Devi. In the F. I. R. he stated that the marriage of his daughter aged about twenty-twenty one years was solemnised according to the Hindu rites five years ago with Vijay Kumar Yadav (Appellant No. 1), son of Chhatradhari Yadav (Appellant No. 2) of village Kosdihra, P. S. Paraiya, in the district of Gaya and Gauna took place two years before the institution of the case. Since then his daughter lived at her Sasural with her husband where she gave birth to a son who was about eight months old at that time. After the Gauna his son-in-law Vijay Kumar Yadav and Samdhi started demanding in dowry money in cash, a motor cycle and a TV and frequently beat his daughter in connection with their demands. Since then his daughter lived at her Sasural with her husband where she gave birth to a son who was about eight months old at that time. After the Gauna his son-in-law Vijay Kumar Yadav and Samdhi started demanding in dowry money in cash, a motor cycle and a TV and frequently beat his daughter in connection with their demands. When the informant came to learn about it he went to them to sort out the matter. He alleged that his son-in-law Vijay Kumar Yadav, Samdhi Chhatradhari Yadav and their agnates Shall Yadav and Ram Chandra Yadav threatened him that in case he did not give the money, his daughter will not be allowed to live in peace. He then spent Rs. 40,000.00 for constructing a house for them, of which the roof was left to be cast at the time he made the statement. Even then the harassment continued since apart from money in cash the demand was also for a motor cycle and a TV and for that the accused continued to oppress his daughter. He further stated that in connection with their demand his daughter was beaten up on 11-3-1997 when she went to his house and narrated to him the entire story. But on the same day his son-in-law went to his (informants) village along with one of his friends and brought back his daughter to his home at village Kosdihra. He further stated that on 13-3-1997 (the date on which he was making the report) he was on duty at Railway Power House, Gaya when at about three in the afternoon his son Nand Kishore Yadav informed that his daughter was killed and was also cremated by her Sasural people. On getting the information he went to his Samdhis house at village Kosdihra but found that everyone was absconding from there. He went around the village and made enquiries on the basis of which he came to learn that in the previous night his daughter was killed by his (i) son-in-law Vijay Kumar Yadav, (ii) Chhatradhari Yadav, (iii) Shall Yadav, (iv) Ram Chandra Yadav, all sons of Bishun Yadav and (v) Kanhai Yadav son of Gobardhan Yadav, and was clandestinely cremated by them at the village cremation ground. On getting the information about the occurrence his son Nand Kishore Yadav went there but he fled away on seeing the five accused named above along with some other unknown people burning the body of his sister. The informant further stated that earlier also attempts were made to kill his daughter by pressing her neck. In conclusion he stated that his daughter was killed by her Sasural people in connection with their demand for money and a TV. She was killed by pressing her neck and in order to conceal the body, it was clandestinely burnt. In this regard he stated that his house was only at a distance of four kilometers but no information was given to him. The statement was read out to him and finding it correctly recorded he put his signature on it. (That was later marked in Court as Ext. 1). 3A. Though in the F. I. R. the name of Shall Yadav (one of the brothers of appellant No. 2 Chhatradhari Yadav) was also mentioned among the five accused, in course of investigation it was apparently found that at the material time he was not present in the village. Accordingly, charge-sheet was submitted only against the remaining four accused who were put on trial. 4. In support of its case the prosecution examined 12 witnesses. Jagdeo Yadav (P. W. 8), the informant of the case is the father of the deceased Bachia Devi. Nand Kishore Yadav (P. W. 9) is her brother and Bedamia Devi (P. W. 10) is her mother. P. W. 12 is the witnesses (P. Ws. 1 to 7 and 11) are all residents of village Kosdihra. Among them P.Ws.3 to 6 and 11 were declared hostile at the instance of the prosecution. Bhola Yadav (P. W. 4) is the son of Shall Yadav who though named as accused in the F. I. R. was not named in the charge sheet submitted by the police, that is to say, Bhola Yadav (P. W. 4) is the nephew of appellants 2 and 3 and the first cousin of appellant No. 1. I think it was quite naive to hope and expect that he will depose in Court with a view to secure life terms for his two uncles, a cousin and another relative. 5. I think it was quite naive to hope and expect that he will depose in Court with a view to secure life terms for his two uncles, a cousin and another relative. 5. Before proceeding to examine the individual prosecution witnesses it will be useful to keep some broad feature of the case in mind. The informant lives in village Bangali Bigha under Chandauti P. S. in the district of Gaya, Village Kosdihra under Paraiya P. S. in the same district, to which the four appellants and a number of prosecution witnesses belong, is situate at a distance of 4 kms. towards west from the informants village. Towards the south of village Kosdihra runs a Railway line. On both sides of which lie the agricultural fields of the village. The Railway line is very busy (See P. W. 8, para-3). Since the parents and the brother (P. Ws. 8, 10 and 9) of the deceased Bachia Devi lived in a different village, they were naturally not in a position to see her actual death. They came to know about her death only on getting information. The F.I.R., therefore, does not disclose the manner of death and it is simply stated that she was killed by the accused. But according to the residents of village Kosdihra, examined as witnesses by the prosecution, she died as a result of being hit by a moving train on the Railway line passing through the village. From their evidence it would appear to be a case of accidental death and not homicide. 6. Ganesh Pandey (P. W. 1) in his deposition before the Court stated that on the date of occurrence at about 11 in the morning he was in his field. The wife of Vijay (Appellant No. 1) along with her family was (working) in their piece of land. At that time her father-in-law was with her. After some time he (father-in-law) went to his house. The wife of Vijay was harvesting the crops in his field. He then saw her going towards west for relieving herself. The witness further said that there was a Railway line close by. A train was coming from the west. It hit her (Bachia Devi) and as a result she fell down and her head was broken. People picked her up and took her to her house. He (the witness) stayed back in the field. The witness further said that there was a Railway line close by. A train was coming from the west. It hit her (Bachia Devi) and as a result she fell down and her head was broken. People picked her up and took her to her house. He (the witness) stayed back in the field. Later Vijays wife died. People cremated the dead body. In cross-examination he stated that after the incident her father-in-law and mother-in-law carried her to the hospital for treatment but she died on the way. After death she was cremated according to the rites. The relationship between the deceased and Vijay and his father and mother was cordial. 7. Krishna Prasad (P. W. 2) stated before the Court that Vijays wife died on 13-3-1997. On that day at about 12 in the noon he was going to Paraiya Bazar. As he was coming out of the village there was a hulla that Vijays wife was hit by a train. He too then ran to the spot and saw her body. There was a mark of injury on her hand. People took her to hospital on a Khaat. He then went to the Bazar. On returning from there he learnt that she died on the way to the hospital and was later cremated by the people. He further said that the relationship between the husband and the wife was quite good. In cross-examination he said that there was no quarrel between Vijay and his wife or between Vijays wife and his family members when there was the hulla over Vijays wife being hit by a train then the village people and Vijays family members went to the Railway line. She had gone by the side of the Railway line for picking up the Rabi crops. Then Vijays family members and the village people carried her for treatment on a Khaat. But she died on the way. Vijay Yadav had sent Bhola Yadav (P. W. 4) to inform his Sasural people about the death of his wife and the Girls (Bachia Devis) brother was present at the cremation. 8. Laldeo Yadav (P. W. 5) is another eyewitness of the occurrence. He stated that at the time of occurrence he was grazing cattle nearby. He saw Bachia Devi being hit by a moving train as a result of which she died. 8. Laldeo Yadav (P. W. 5) is another eyewitness of the occurrence. He stated that at the time of occurrence he was grazing cattle nearby. He saw Bachia Devi being hit by a moving train as a result of which she died. After she was hit by the train she was taken to the hospital but she died on the way. Thereafter she was cremated. He also said that the relationship between Vijay and his wife was quite good. He was declared hostile by the prosecution and on a suggestion made by it, he denied having stated before the police that the relationship between the husband and the wife was not good. 9. All other witnesses from village Kosdihra P. Ws. 3, 4, 6, 7 and 11 similarly stated before the Court that Bachia Devi died as a result of being hit by a moving train while she was picking the crop grown by the side of the Railway line. None of them said anything about any demand of dowry by the appellants or Bachia Devi being subjected to any harassment by them in connection with the demand. 10. P. W. 4 stated that after the death of Bachia Devi he had gone to her parents home to inform them about the matter. P.Ws.3 and 6 also stated that the information about the death of Bachia Devi was given to her people and her brother was present at her cremation. All of them further stated that the relationship between Bachia Devi and her husband appellant No. 1 and between her and other family members of appellant No. 1 was quite good and cordial. 11. It is noted above, that some of the prosecution witnesses from Kosdihra (P. Ws. 3 to 6 and 11) were declared hostile at the instance of the prosecution. In order to see how far the witnesses had reneged on their previous statements recorded u/s. 161, Cr. P. C. I looked into the case diary and found that the witnesses depositions in Court was practically the same as their statements before the police. All the witnesses from Kosdihra in their statements before the police had said that Bachia Devi died as a result of being hit by a moving train on the Railway line passing through the village. At that time she was working in the field. All the witnesses from Kosdihra in their statements before the police had said that Bachia Devi died as a result of being hit by a moving train on the Railway line passing through the village. At that time she was working in the field. None of the witnesses supported the allegations with regard to the demand of dowry or her being subjected by her sasural people to any kind of harassment in connection with the demand. Some of the witnesses definitely said that there was no demand for dowry. The only difference in the two statements of the witnesses is that in their statements before the police they had said that sometimes there used to be some quarrel between the husband (appellant No. 1) and the wife and further that a quarrel had taken place between them just two days before the occurrence and Bachia Devi had gone away to her parents home but appellant No. 1 had gone and brought her back by the same evening. The witnesses from Kosdihra did not state this fact in their depositions are quite consistent with their earlier statements made before the police; 12. P. W. 8 the father of the victim strongly supported his case in the Examination-in-Chief. He gave details with regard to the appellants demand for dowry and the manner in which his daughter Bachia Devi was harassed and beaten by them in connection with their demand. He also stated that at a cost of Rs. 40,000.00 he got a house constructed for the appellants in village Kosdihra, the roof of which was left to be cast when the occurrence took place. He also said that even after the construction of the house they persisted in their demand for a motor cycle and a TV. His Examination-in-Chief took place in 28-5-2001 and after some perfunctory questions the cross-examination was adjourned for 2-6-2001. From the record it appears that the cross-examination proceeded on 6-6-2001 instead of 2-6-2001. On that date too it remained incomplete and proceeded further on 7-6-2001. It was next adjourned to the following day (8-6-2001) but actually proceeded further on 16-6-2001 when it was finally concluded. On the last date of cross-examination P. W. 8 strangely turned around and stated that her daughter never told him anything about any demand of dowry. On that date too it remained incomplete and proceeded further on 7-6-2001. It was next adjourned to the following day (8-6-2001) but actually proceeded further on 16-6-2001 when it was finally concluded. On the last date of cross-examination P. W. 8 strangely turned around and stated that her daughter never told him anything about any demand of dowry. He further stated that he came to learn that her daughter was run over by a train in a mishap and her body was cremated by her people. He further said that he had lodged the case as a result of some misunderstanding. He also said that he had a grand child (Naati) from his daughter who lived with his grand father (Dada); that he used to go to see his grand child who was being properly looked after by his Dada. Finally on a Court question he said that what he had stated before the Court during the previous three days of his examination was true. 13. After the father P. W. 8 (sic) came the brother (P. W. 9) and the mother of the deceased (P. W. 10). They also denied that there was any demand of dowry by the Sasural people of the deceased Bachia Devi. 14. Going through the evidence of P. Ws. 8, 9 and 10 one gets the distinct impression that P. W. 8 was gained over in course of his examination, spread over several dates and once he was compromised, both the brother and the mother of the victim also gave up and did not support the prosecution allegations. But even if one discards the statement made by P. W. 8 on the final day of his cross-examination and accepts the statement made by him on the previous dates and in his examination-in-chief the position remains that he alone supports the allegations of demand of dowry by the appellants and the harassment and oppression of Bachia Devi by them in that connection. As against this, there are the evidences of eight other prosecution witnesses (leaving aside the brother and the mother of the deceased) according to which, there was never any demand for dowry by the appellants and the relationship between the deceased and the appellants was quite good and cordial. 15. As against this, there are the evidences of eight other prosecution witnesses (leaving aside the brother and the mother of the deceased) according to which, there was never any demand for dowry by the appellants and the relationship between the deceased and the appellants was quite good and cordial. 15. In these circumstances, I find it very unsafe and imprudent to sustain the conviction of the appellants on the single testimony of a witness who is not only highly interested but is also not above being gained-over. In the facts and circumstances of the case the appellants clearly appear to be entitled to the benefit of doubt. I thus find that the two basic ingredients of sec. 304-B i.e. (i) the demand for dowry, and (ii) the subjection of the wife to cruelty and harassment by the appellants in connection with that demand remain unproved. The conviction u/s. 304-B, therefore, cannot be sustained nor the convictions u/s. 498-A or u/s. 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 16. Coming to sec. 201 of the Indian Penal Code there is evidence on record that information with regard to the death of Bachia Devi was sent to her parents home and her brother was present at her cremation. Therefore, the conviction under sec. 201 also cannot stand. 17. In the result, the appellants are acquitted on all charges. The judgment and order passed by the trial Court is set aside and this appeal is allowed. Appellants 2 to 4 are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds. Appellant No. 1 who is in custody is directed to be released forthwith unless he is required in any other case.