Judgment Baldev Singh, J. 1. Yogesh Kumar, Smt. Shanti Devi, Smt. Nirmal Jain and Sushil Jain (appellants) had filed this appeal against the impugned judgment and sentence order, both dated November 25, 2003, passed by Sh. O.P. Garg, Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Patiala, in case First Information Report No. 411 dated November 19, 2002, under Sections 406, 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code), registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala. 2. Smt. Shanti Devi (appellant) died during the pendency of the appeal. The proceedings against her abated. 3. They were convicted under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Code. Each of them was sentenced to undergo R.I for seven years and to pay Rs. 2,000/- as fine and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I for six months under Section 304-B of the Code. Further, each of them was also fine sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay Rs. 500/- as and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for two months under Section 498-A of the Code. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. They were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Section 406 of the Code as this offence was not proved. 4. It was prayed that the impugned judgment and sentence order be set aside by way of acceptance of this appeal and they be acquitted of the charges framed against them under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Code. 5. The facts of the prosecution case are that Geeta Rani (deceased) was the daughter of PW-1 Shivla Ram. She was married with Yogesh Kumar (appellant) on November 16, 2001. Smt. Shanti Devi (deceased-appellant) was the mother-in-law of Geeta Rani (deceased), Smt. Nirmal Jain and Sushil Jain are sister and brother-in-law of Yogesh Kumar (appellant). It was a simple marriage. No dowry was given to Geeta Rani nor was there any demand for dowry before the marriage. However, after three/four months of the marriage, the appellants raised demand for dowry. Rs. 10,000/- were paid to them, which they converted into their own use. The appellants subjected Geeta Rani to cruelty in connection with the demand for dowry. No dowry was given to Geeta Rani nor was there any demand for dowry before the marriage. However, after three/four months of the marriage, the appellants raised demand for dowry. Rs. 10,000/- were paid to them, which they converted into their own use. The appellants subjected Geeta Rani to cruelty in connection with the demand for dowry. Geeta Rani came to her parents house and she disclosed that the appellants were harassing her and were compelling her to bring television set, fridge and other articles. They threatened that if their demands were not fulfilled, she would be killed. Parents of Geeta Rani came to the house of her in-laws and assured them that Geeta Rani was in family way and after delivery they would fulfil their demands. Then, on August 9, 2002, a telephonic message was received in which it was disclosed to Shivla Ram that Geeta Rani had died. He and other members of the family then reached the house of the in-laws of Geeta Rani. They saw that the dead-body of Geeta Rani was lying on a wooden plank. Yogesh Kumar and Smt. Shanti Devi (appellants) told the parents of Geeta Rani that she died on account of heart attack. The respectables of the locality, namely, Diwan Chand, Shiv Kumar, Suresh Kumar, Ramesh Rana, Jawahar Verma and Shanker Lal, Municipal Commissioner, assured them that Geeta Rani had died on account of heart attack, therefore, the dead body of Geeta Rani was cremated. No post mortem examination was conducted. No report was lodged with the police. Thereafter, Shivla Ram and his family members made enquiries, which revealed that Geeta Rani had not died due to heart attack, rather, the appellants had murderered her under a deep conspiracy. Shivla Ram then gave written application to the police on August 21, 2002, which is Exhibit P.A. The police, after due enquiry, registered the First Information Report on November 19, 2002. Exhibit P.C/2 is copy of the First Information Report. 6. The investigation was conducted by PW-6 Tejinder Singh, Sub Inspector. He on November 22, 2002, recorded statements of Om Parkash, Puran Chand and Shankar Lal, Municipal Commissioner. He arrested Sushil Jain (appellant) on December 17, 2002. PW-8 Sukhdev Rai, Assistant Sub Inspector, also conduct the investigation. He arrested Smt. Nirmal Jain on December 23, 2002. 6. The investigation was conducted by PW-6 Tejinder Singh, Sub Inspector. He on November 22, 2002, recorded statements of Om Parkash, Puran Chand and Shankar Lal, Municipal Commissioner. He arrested Sushil Jain (appellant) on December 17, 2002. PW-8 Sukhdev Rai, Assistant Sub Inspector, also conduct the investigation. He arrested Smt. Nirmal Jain on December 23, 2002. He arrested Yogesh Kumar (appellant) on May 8, 2003 and arrested Smt. Shanti Devi (appellant) on May 23, 2003. Statements of Rama Devi, Sadhu Ram and Sham Lal were recorded on June 2, 2003. Statements of Shivla Ram, Ram Piari, Kanta Devi, Nand Lal, Jagdish Chand etc. were recorded on June 25, 2003. 7. On completion of the investigation, the appellants were challaned by Shamsher Singh, Inspector. 8. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. Charge was framed for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 498-A and 304-B of the Code. The appellants did not plead guilty to the charge and claimed trial. 9. The prosecution, at the trial, examined eight witnesses, namely, PW-1 Shivla Ram, PW-2 Shankar Lal, PW-3 Sham Lal, PW-4 Nand Lal, PW-5 Ram Piari, PW-6 Tejinder Singh, Sub Inspector, PW-7 Kanta Devi and PW-8 Sukhdev Rai, Assistant Sub Inspector. They proved various documents on the file. 10. Statements of the appellants were recorded on the conclusion of the prosecution evidence under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They stated that they are innocent. The case against them is false. They adduced no evidence in defence. 11. Arguments of Mr. P.S. Bhangu, Ld. Counsel for appellant Nos. 1 and 2, Mr. Dinesh Ghai and Mr. Hitesh Ghai, Ld. Counsel for appellant Nos. 3 and 4 and of Mr. Pawan Sharda, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, were heard and the evidence was scrutinised with their help. 12. The Ld. Counsel for the appellants argued that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence. It erred in convicting the appellants, therefore, the impugned judgment and the sentence order are liable to be set aside. 13. The prosecution examined PW-1 Shivla Ram. He is father of Geeta Rani (deceased). He deposed as under :- "My daughter did not tell me anything regarding mal-treatment and demanding dowry by the accused from her. My daughter died in her in-laws house and I doubt that she was murdered by the accused for dowry demand. 13. The prosecution examined PW-1 Shivla Ram. He is father of Geeta Rani (deceased). He deposed as under :- "My daughter did not tell me anything regarding mal-treatment and demanding dowry by the accused from her. My daughter died in her in-laws house and I doubt that she was murdered by the accused for dowry demand. When my daughter died I was informed on a phone that my daughter Geeta Rani has expired on 9.8.2002. That telephone was received by us from one P.C.O. Then I along with other respectables of the village went to the house of the accused. All the accused persons were present including the respectables of the locality in the house of the accused at Tripuri. I was told by the accused and the respectables of the locality that my daughter Geeta Rani expired due to heart attack. We did not insist the accused to get the post mortem examination of Geeta Rani. She was cremated thereafter at our instance in the presence of police and other respectables. When my daughter was cremated it was the talk of the town that the proof has been destroyed. Then I requested to the Panchayat to verify the cause of death of my daughter, but they did not hear us afterwards. Then I moved the application." 14. His deposition reveals that Geeta Rani did not tell him anything regarding mal-treatment and demand of dowry by the appellants. It was his suspicion that the appellants had murdered her. Suspicion, howsoever grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof. He moved written complaint (Exhibit P.A) on August 21, 2002. Geeta Rani expired on August 9, 2002. No post mortem was conducted. Geeta Rani was cremated in his presence, in the presence of his family members and respectables of the locality. No report was lodged at the time of cremation with the police. Death of Geeta Rani was accepted on account of heart attack. Written complaint (Exhibit P.A) was filed after twelve days merely on the basis of suspicion. If Geeta Rani was actually harassed in connection with dowry, she must have disclosed this fact to P.W. Shivla Ram, some time between November 16, 2001 (the date of her marriage) and August 9, 2002 (the date of her death). Written complaint (Exhibit P.A) was filed after twelve days merely on the basis of suspicion. If Geeta Rani was actually harassed in connection with dowry, she must have disclosed this fact to P.W. Shivla Ram, some time between November 16, 2001 (the date of her marriage) and August 9, 2002 (the date of her death). P.W. Shivla Ram was confronted with portions A to A-1, B to B-1 and C to C-1 of his complaint (Exhibit P.A). He made improvements and denied what he had stated in his complaint He was got declared hostile by the prosecution. He admitted in cross-examination, "nothing was ever demanded at the time of marriage or after the marriage by any of the accused nor anything was given by me. Application Exhibit P.A. was not given at my free will." 15. So, from the statement of P.W. 1 Shivla Ram the entire edifice of the prosecution tumbles down. The trial Court erred in relying upon his testimony to convict the appellants. 16. The prosecution examined P.W. 2 Shankar Lal. He is related to deceased Geeta Rani. According to him, he had seen signs of injuries on the body of Geeta Rani, when she was taken for bath before cremation. According to him, he came to know after two/three days that Geeta Rani had been murdered. No reliance could be placed on his testimony. He did not tell anybody about the injury marks on the body of Geeta Rani before she was cremated, which he had allegedly seen. He did not give any information to the police when he came to know that Geeta Rani had been murdered. His evidence reveals that he was in the court yard when Geeta Rani was taken inside the bath room for bath. He could not see injury marks on her body. The deceased was a female. Her body was not exposed to the male relatives. 17. The prosecution examined PW-3 Sham Lal. He is the brother of deceased Geeta Rani. His deposition reads as under :- "My sister Geeta Rani was got married with Yogesh Kumar in the month of November, 2001. No dowry article was demanded by the in-laws of my sister. The accused did not demand any dowry from us neither she was mal-treated nor tortured by the accused for demand of dowry. His deposition reads as under :- "My sister Geeta Rani was got married with Yogesh Kumar in the month of November, 2001. No dowry article was demanded by the in-laws of my sister. The accused did not demand any dowry from us neither she was mal-treated nor tortured by the accused for demand of dowry. On 9.8.2002 we came to know that my sister had expired due to heart attack. I had not seen any injury mark on the neck of Geeta deceased." 18. He did not support the prosecution version, therefore, he was got declared hostile and was confronted with his statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He is no avail to the prosecution. 19. The prosecution examined PW-4 Nand Lal. He is also the brother of deceased Geeta Rani. His deposition reads as under :- "My sister Geeta Rani was got married with Yogesh Kumar in the month of November, 2001. She was happily residing with Yogesh Kumar and she died due to heart attack. She was never mal-treated or tortured by the accused present today in the Court." 20. He did not also support the prosecution case, therefore, he was got declared hostile and was confronted with his statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He is also of no avail to the prosecution. 21. The prosecution examined PW-5 Ram Piari, mother of Geeta Rani (deceased). According to her, there were injury marks on the body of Geeta Rani. All the appellants except Yogesh Kumar, husband of Geeta Rani (deceased), demanded dowry. No implicit reliance could be placed on her testimony. She did not raise any finger when she found injury marks on the body of Geeta Rani. If there were injury marks, she would have insisted for medical examination. She accepted the information of the appellants that Geeta Rani had suffered heart attack on account of which she died. She admitted that she visited the house of Yogesh Kumar (appellant) only once after marriage. So, she could not see the conduct and treatment of the appellants towards Geeta Rani. The trial Court erred in relying upon her testimony and in coming to the conclusion that soon before her death Geeta Rani was subjected to cruelty in connection with the demand of dowry. 22. So, she could not see the conduct and treatment of the appellants towards Geeta Rani. The trial Court erred in relying upon her testimony and in coming to the conclusion that soon before her death Geeta Rani was subjected to cruelty in connection with the demand of dowry. 22. The prosecution gave up P.Ws Puran Chand, Sadhu Ram, Rama Devi and Jagdish Chand on the facile plea of their having been won over by the appellants. They were material witnesses who could throw light on the relevant facts. For their non-examination, a dent was caused to the prosecution case. This fact was not noticed by the trial Court. 23. PW-6 Tejinder Singh, Sub Inspector and PW-8 Sukhdev Rai, Assistant Sub Inspector, proved statements of the prosecution witnesses recorded by them under Section 161 of the Code Criminal Procedure. These witnesses were not examined by the prosecution. Their statements recorded by the police, which were not converted into legal evidence, do not advance the prosecution case. 24. PW-7 Kanta Devi is the sister of Geeta Rani (deceased). Her statement is not credible. She was confronted with her statement (Exhibit D-1) recorded by the police under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She admitted that she did not disclose in her statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that there were injury marks on the body of the deceased. The trial Court not justified in relying upon her statement. 25. Smt. Nirmal Jain (appellant) is sister of Yogesh Kumar (appellant), husband of Geeta Rani (deceased). Sushil Jain (appellant) is husband of said Smt. Nirmal Jain. Smt. Nirmal Jain was married some fifteen years back. Both these appellants lived separately, away from Yogesh Kumar (appellant). They had nothing to do with the dowry allegedly demanded by Yogesh Kumar (appellant). They were roped in because of their close relationship with Yogesh Kumar (appellant). 26. The trial Court convicted the appellants relying upon the testimonies of PW-1 Shivla Ram, PW-2 Shankar Lal, PW-5 Smt. Ram Piari and PW-7 Smt. Kanta Devi. As has been discussed above, their testimonies are not reliable. The appellants could not convicted on the basis of their evidence. The view, which was favourable to the appellants, was to be accepted. The trial Court (sic) have been adopted. 27. As has been discussed above, their testimonies are not reliable. The appellants could not convicted on the basis of their evidence. The view, which was favourable to the appellants, was to be accepted. The trial Court (sic) have been adopted. 27. After appreciating the evidence of all the witnesses, mentioned above, I have come to the conclusion that the trial Court has not properly appreciated their evidence which resulted into conviction of the appellants which is liable to be set aside. The case of State of Haryana v. Inder Singh and others, 2003 Supreme Court Cases (Cri.) 1239, is referred here. The prosecution case of demand of dowry and harassment by the deceaseds father-in-law and husband was based solely on the testimony of deceaseds father. Deceaseds brother and uncle did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile. The trial Court convicted the accused relying upon the sole testimony of deceaseds father, but this Court, on re-appreciation of evidence, taking the view that conviction could not be based on the sole testimony of deceaseds father as the same stood contradicted in material particulars, as deposed by him before the Investigating Officer and thereafter in Court, acquitted the accused. It was held by the Apex Court that this Court was not wrong in taking that view. It was observed that when two views are possible, one favourable to the accused was to be accepted. 28. As a sequel to the above discussion, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and sentence order are set aside. The appellants are ordered to be set at liberty forthwith from the jail wherein they are confined.