JUDGMENT D.G.R. Patnaik, J. 1. Both these appellants were tried and convicted for the offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 10 years by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Tract Court, II, Chatra in S.T No. 352 of 1996. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have preferred this appeal. The case relates to the unnatural death of the deceased Ishri Devi, the daughter of the informant Kishun Yadav (PW2) which had occurred on 26.4.1996 at 8.00 a.m. at village Chopey within Simaria Police Station in the district of Chatra. 2. The case was registered on the basis of the fard beyan of the informant (PW2) recorded by the officer in charge at village Chopey on 27.4.1996 at 6.30 p.m. The brief facts of the case is that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized with appellant No. 1 in the month of Vaishakh in 1995. The girl continued to live at her parents house even after her marriage and after about 8 months, during the period of Holi of the following year, she was taken by her husband to her matrimonial house after the ceremony of "Gauna". On Friday preceding the alleged date of the occurrence, one Dular Yadav (PW11) of the village Chopey came to the house of the informant asking about the whereabouts of the deceased, while stating that the girl had left her matrimonial house in the morning of 8.00 a.m. to dispose of a basketful of cow dung, but she did not return home. The informant (PW2) along with the younger brother Gobardhan Yadav (PW1) and a few other villagers went to village Chopey. They searched at several places for the girl, but not finding her, they returned to their own village. Later on in the morning, i.e. on 27.4.1996, the informant again went to village Chopey and on the way he met one Chhatriya Yadav (PW10) a resident of the village Chopey who informed him that the dead body of his daughter (deceased) was found in a well. On being pointed out, the informant went to the well situated by the side of a mango tree within the premises of the Mukhiya of the village namely Baijnath Singh and he found the dead body of her daughter lying on the ground. On being pointed out, the informant went to the well situated by the side of a mango tree within the premises of the Mukhiya of the village namely Baijnath Singh and he found the dead body of her daughter lying on the ground. He observed marks of injuries and black spots on her eyes with bleeding from her nostril. He was told by the villagers present there that the dead body of the girl was recovered from the well. The informant has claimed that the husband and father-in-law namely the present appellants had ill treated and subjected the girl to cruelty on account of which the girl had committed suicide by drowning in the well. The informant has added that on the occasion of last Holy when the son-in-law along with the informants daughter visited his house, he had expressed his displeasure on the poor quality of clothes presented to him and had refused to accept the clothes. Both the appellants have denied the charges pleading not guilty and have expressed their innocence and false implication in the case. 3. At the trial, the prosecution examined altogether 15 witnesses, including informant (PW2) and his brother Gobardhan (PW1) and also Doctor Nitya Nand Mandal (PW8), who had conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. The investigating officer of the case was not examined and both the fard beyan of the informant and the formal FIR was introduced and proved in evidence by the prosecution by formal witnesses namely, Brahmadeo Prasad (PW9) and Md. Alamgeer, (PW15). Out of the remaining witnesses, PW3 Jamuna Yadav, PW4 Kashi Sao, PW5 Bhawani Yadav, PW6 Basudeo Yadav and PW7 Jadu @ Jadubir Yadav were merely tendered for their respective cross examination. PW13 Dilchand Yadav, a resident of the village Chopey, was declared hostile by the prosecution since he had not supported the prosecution case. PW12 Sanjay Prasad is a witness to the inquest which was held on the dead body of the deceased by the police officer. 4. The trial court on considering the evidence on record, had placed reliance on the testimony of the informant (PW 2) and that of the informants brother (PW1) and on the evidence of the Doctor, PW8 and bad recorded its finding of guilt against both the appellants under Section 304 IPC. 5. 4. The trial court on considering the evidence on record, had placed reliance on the testimony of the informant (PW 2) and that of the informants brother (PW1) and on the evidence of the Doctor, PW8 and bad recorded its finding of guilt against both the appellants under Section 304 IPC. 5. Assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellants, learned Counsel submits that the impugned judgment of conviction of the appellants is against the evidence on the record and not sustainable both on facts and on law. It is submitted that the trial court has erred in placing implicit reliance on the testimonies of PWs. 1 and 2, despite the fact that both these witnesses deliberately indulged in contradictions and improvement in their respective depositions over what they had stated earlier under Section 161 Cr.P.C. before the investigating officer. Learned Counsel submits further that the learned court below has erred in ignoring the evidence of PW14 Tepa Yadav who has categorically explained that the deceased died on account of an accidental fall into the well while drawing water from the well. Referring to the depositions of the informant (PW2) and PW1, learned Counsel submits that both these witnesses have indulged in making improvements over their previous statements by deliberating adding that the appellants used to demand dowry and subject the deceased to cruelty, ill treatment and torture over non fulfillment of the demand. Learned Counsel adds further that no such statement was made by the informant in his original fard beyan or even in his statement before the investigating officer. It is further stated that the learned court below has erred in failing to appreciate that it was the present appellants who sent information to the informant regarding the fact that the deceased was found missing from their house since after she had left their house in the morning on 26.4.1996 at 8.00 a.m. and likewise, it was the appellants who had also conveyed the message about the recovery of the dead body of the deceased. Learned Counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that the evidence of the informant (PW2) and PW1 (informants brother) are trust-worthy and reliable and they being the parents of the deceased are the best persons to depose in respect of the strained relations between the appellants and the deceased and the reason for such strained relation. Learned Counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that the evidence of the informant (PW2) and PW1 (informants brother) are trust-worthy and reliable and they being the parents of the deceased are the best persons to depose in respect of the strained relations between the appellants and the deceased and the reason for such strained relation. Learned Counsel adds that the circumstance, namely the fact that the unnatural death of the deceased occurred within one year of the date of her marriage under suspicious circumstances while living in the house and company of these appellants attracts the offence under Section 304B IPC. The prosecution has brought on record all the circumstances in evidence in respect of the ingredients of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and the appellants, on whom the onus had shifted to explain the cause of death of the deceased have not discharged their onus, and this leads to a reasonable inference of guilt against both these appellants. 6. From perusal of the evidence on records, it appears that the entire case of the prosecution rests on the testimony of the informant PW2 and that of the informants brother (PW1). In his deposition at the trial, the informant (PW2) while stating that the marriage of his daughter (deceased), with the appellant No. 1 was solemnized in Baisakh in 1995 has claimed that after the ceremony of gauna, the appellant No. 1 had taken the informants daughter (deceased) to his matrimonial house, where she lived in the company of her husband and father-in-law (appellant no 2). He also mentions about the visit of his daughter and son in law to his house on the occasion of holi of the following year after their marriage. He also reiterates in consonance with his earlier statement in the fard beyan that a day prior to the occurrence, a resident of Village Chopey had come to his house searching for the deceased and had informed that the deceased was missing from her matrimonial house since morning of that day after she had left the house with a basket of cow dung to dispose of the waste material and had not returned home. On his visit to the house of these appellants, he got information from his Samdhi (appellant No. 2) that the girl had left home in the morning with cow dung but had not returned since thereafter. On his visit to the house of these appellants, he got information from his Samdhi (appellant No. 2) that the girl had left home in the morning with cow dung but had not returned since thereafter. The informant adds that he went back to his house and came again on the following day to his daughters matrimonial village where he was informed about the recovery of the dead body of his daughter from a well. He saw the dead body and found marks of injuries on her face. This witness adds further that at the time of negotiating the marriage, the appellants had demanded a sum of Rs. 14,000/- (rupees fourteen thousand) as dowry out of which the informant could pay Rs. 7000/- and it was for non payment of the balance amount of Rs. 5000/-that the husband and the father-in-law of the deceased used to subject her to ill treatment and cruelty. He further adds that on the occasion of her last visit during holi to his house, the deceased had requested that the balance amount of Rs. 5000/- be paid immediately since she was suffering ill treatment at the hands of the husband and father in law. On going through the evidence of PW1, it appears that though he and his brother namely PW2 live separate in mess and residence, but he claims of having information derived from his brother (PW2) and the deceased herself that the appellants ill treated the girl for non fulfillment of demand of Rs. 5000/- by way of dowry. It is significant to note that the statements of both these witnesses wherein they have alleged that the appellants used to ill treat the girl on account of non fulfillment of purported demand of rupees five thousand by way of dowry are improvement on their previous statement made in the informants fard beyan and in their respective statements made before the police officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The attention of the informant (PW2) was invited by the defence in course of his cross examination to his previous statement recorded in his fard beyan and a suggestion was put to both these witnesses that they had not made any allegation whatsoever against either of the appellants regarding any demand of dowry or ill treatment because of non fulfilment of the alleged dowry demand. It is relevant to note that in his fard beyan, the informant has stated that his son-in-law namely the appellant No. 1 had expressed his anger on account of poor quality of clothes gifted to him on the occasion of Holi festival and he had even refused to accept the same and this was the reason for the alleged ill treatment to the deceased by her husband (appellant No. 1). Apparently, there appears therefore a vital contradiction in the statement of the informant (PW2) and that of his brother (PW1) on their evidence regarding the reason for the alleged ill treatment of the deceased by the appellants. 7. Non examination of the investigating officer has resulted apparently in serious prejudice to the defence since vital contradiction in the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 could not be exposed. 8. As regards the unnatural death of the deceased, no controversy has been raised by the defence. The evidence of PW8, Dr. N.N. Mandal who had conducted post mortem on the dead body of the deceased indicates that the death was caused on account of asphyxia due to drowning. Though the doctor (PW8) had found some marks of bruises on the face of the deceased, but has acknowledged that the injuries could have been caused when the deceased fell into the well. There was no other marks of ante mortem injuries observed on the dead body of the deceased. 9. The earliest statement of the informant as recorded in the fard beyan suggests that according to his own information, the deceased died on account of her drowning into the well. He has suspected that the deceased had committed suicide on account of ill treatment and cruelty meted out to her by her husband and the father-in-law. In this case, the evidence of PW 14 Tupo Yadav is significant. It is in the evidence of this witness that the deceased while drawing water from the well fell into the well and on being informed, he along with several co-villagers went to the well where the dead body of the deceased was found floating in water in the well. This witness has not been declared hostile by the prosecution and it is obvious that the prosecution had intended to rely on the evidence of this witness also, besides the evidence of other witnesses who were examined. This witness has not been declared hostile by the prosecution and it is obvious that the prosecution had intended to rely on the evidence of this witness also, besides the evidence of other witnesses who were examined. Thus, on the one hand, is the evidence of PW14, an independent witness, and on the other hand, is evidence of father PW2 and uncle ((PW1) of the deceased; though the above witnesses PWs 1 and 2 claim that the appellants used to subject the deceased to cruelty and torture on account of non fulfilment of their alleged demand of dowry, this portion of their evidence is clearly an improvement over their respective statements made before the police and constitutes a vital contradiction in their statements. In view of such contradiction, the testimony of these witnesses becomes untrustworthy and unreliable and not worth placing implicit reliance. The trial court appears to have drawn its inference of guilt against both these appellants on the basis of conjectures and surmises from certain undisputed facts appearing in the evidence namely that the death of the deceased had occurred within seven years of her marriage while living in her matrimonial house and accepting the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 that the deceased was subjected to cruelty over non fulfilmnent of demand of dowry, the learned trial court has recorded its finding of guilt against these appellants. Apparently, the trial court has totally ignored the evidence of PW 14 and also the fact that the portion of evidence of Pws 1 and 2 wherein they have alleged cruelty against the appellants over their purported demand of dowry, is totally a new introduction made for the first time in course of the trial. The trial court also appears to have ignored the fact that non examination of the investigating officer has caused serious prejudice to the defence. The trial court also appears to have ignored the fact that the place of occurrence is not the house of the appellant. Rather, it is a well of the mukhiya of the village from where the dead body of the deceased was recovered. The circumstances under which the deceased had fallen into the well accidentally has been explained by PW14. 10. From the evidence on record, I find, that the ingredients of Section 304B IPC are essentially lacking. Rather, it is a well of the mukhiya of the village from where the dead body of the deceased was recovered. The circumstances under which the deceased had fallen into the well accidentally has been explained by PW14. 10. From the evidence on record, I find, that the ingredients of Section 304B IPC are essentially lacking. The prosecution has not been able to bring all the necessary and relevant circumstances for constituting the essential ingredients of offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal code. 11. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I find merit in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Both the appellants are acquitted of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence as imposed by the trial court is hereby set aside. Both the appellants are absolved from the liabilities of their bail bonds.