Judgment Abhijit Sinha, J. 1. The sole appellant alongwith his father Rajendra Singh were put on trial in Sessions Trial No. 453 of 1994 (arising out of Sheikhpura PS. Case No. 105 of 1994) for offences under Sections 498A, 302/34 and 201/34 I.P.C. However, as Rajendra Singh the father expired during the pendency of the trial, the proceeding so far as he was concerned was dropped vide order dated 17.12.1997. Later on Sri Paras Nath Sinha, the learned Presiding Officer, Additional Court (Fast Track), Munger, who was in seisin of the trial by his judgment dated 28.8.2003 convicted Bipin Kumar Singh under Sections 304B, 498A and 201 I.P.C. and was accordingly by order dated 29.8.2003 sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years for offence under Sec.304B I.P.C. and R.I. for 2 years and a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 in default whereof to undergo S.I. for 6 months for the offence under Sec. 498A I.P.C. However, no separate punishment was imposed for the offence under Sec.201 I.P.C. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order the appellant has preferred the instant appeal. 2. The prosecution case is founded on the written report (Ext. 2) submitted by one Ram Sewak Singh on 11.5.1994, inter alia, stating that the marriage of his Phupheri Bahan (cousin), Baby Devi, was solemnized with Bipin Kumar Singh, son of Rajendra Singh, of village Berma within Sheikhpura RS. some 3 years back at his instance, as Baby Devis parents had expired when she was still a child. It is said that the Gauna ceremony of Baby Devi was performed about a year back and ever since then me husband started demanding a TV. set which the informant assured to give as and when he had sufficient funds. It is further said that on 2.5.1994 the informant received a letter from his cousin through an unknown person wherein she revealed that she was abused and assaulted by her husband and parents-in-law Rajendra Singh and Uma Devi, who apart from castigating her for not bringing sufficient dowry also extended threats of getting Bipin Kumar Singh married else where after killing her. The informant on the receipt of the letter sent Surendra Singh and Satyanarayan Singh to village Berma to reason with and appease the husband and parents-in-law of Baby Devi and as they were leaving Baby Devis Sasural to return home, Baby Devi allegedly showed them the marks of assault on her body. It is the further case of the informant that when on 11.5.1994 he himself went to village Berma to reason with and appease Bipin and his parents he found the house locked and the inhabitants thereof absent. It is alleged that on inquiry from his neighbours the informant learnt that his cousin was strangulated to death and her dead body having been disposed of surreptitiously the husband and his parents had fled from his house. On the basis of the said written report Sheikhpura P.S. Case No. 105 of 1994 was registered against Bipin Kumar Singh, Rajendra Singh and Uma Devi under Sections 304B and 201/34 I.P.C. 3. After due investigation the police submitted a charge sheet against Bipin Kumar Singh and Rajendra Singh, who were in custody and showing Uma. Devi wife of Rajendra Singh as an absconder. Subsequently the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial vide order dated 22.8.1994. At the trial only 3 witnesses Ram Sewak Singh, the informant (P.W.3), Surendra Kumar Singh (PW 1) and Satyanarayan Kumar Singh (PW 2) the two persons, who had visited the Sasural of Baby Devi at village Berma were sought to be examined by the prosecution in support of its case. Certain documents were also filed in evidence to bolster the prosecution case. 4. The defence plea is one of innocence and false implication. The defence case as unfolds from the trend of cross-examination is that Baby Devis parents having expired during her childhood, she and considerable landed property at village Nimi had fallen under the guardianship of the informant who overwhelmed with evil intentions to usurp all the property had forcibly got Bipin Kumar Singh married to his cousin, Baby Devi, without paying any farthing to him and had also sold the landed property and out of the sale proceeds surreptitiously purchasing a house for himself at Lakhisarai assiduously misrepresented to Baby Devi that he had put the sale proceeds in a fixed deposit scheme which on maturity would be made over to her in-laws to tide over the aashirbadi ceremony. It is also the case of the defence that Baby Devi after her marriage had never come to her marital home and had continued to stay with the informant and that when she learnt of the fraud played upon her by the informant she committed suicide at the informants house by consuming poison and as a matter of fact it was the informant who disposed of the dead body and falsely implicated the accused persons. 5. It was also the defence case that a Panchayati was convened for amicable settlement of the matter whereat the informant had demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000.00 from the accused and had in fact accepted an advance of Rs. 15,000.00 with a promise to withdraw the criminal case but had not complied with the promise. The further case of the defence is that Baby Devi was illiterate and that the two letters purported to be written by her were sham and fabricated. It was also the defence plea that the non-examination of the Investigating Officer was prejudicial to their case as the objective findings recorded by him in course of investigation were not available before the trial court. That apart the defence was also critical of the non-examination of any independent witnesses by the prosecution since RWs. 1 and 2 being related by blood with the informant were highly interested witnesses. In support of its case the defence examined two witnesses, namely Takko Singh (P.W.1), the Chowkidar of village Barma, and Chandra Shekhar Singh (D.W. 2). 6. The learned trial Court on an appraisal of the evidence available on record held the appellant guilty of the charges under Sections 498A, 304B and 201 I.P.C. and sentenced him accordingly. In doing so the learned trial Judge appears to have been heavily influenced by the two letters (Ext. 1 and 1/1) purportedly written by Baby Devi from village Barma. 7. It would only be appropriate to test at the initial stage the veracity of the two letters. The informant (RW. 3) in his written report (Ext. 2) submitted to the police stated of having received only one letter on 2.5.1994 from his cousin through an unknown person wherein she disclosed of being abused and assaulted by her husband and parents-in-law for not bringing adequate dowry and of being extended threats of her husband again getting married elsewhere after killing her. 3) in his written report (Ext. 2) submitted to the police stated of having received only one letter on 2.5.1994 from his cousin through an unknown person wherein she disclosed of being abused and assaulted by her husband and parents-in-law for not bringing adequate dowry and of being extended threats of her husband again getting married elsewhere after killing her. However, this very informant has a different story to tell during his testimony in Court. Here he speaks of having received two letters from Baby Devi, one through Janki Devi (Ext. 1) and the other through post (Ext. 1/1). As against this the testimony of the two other witnesses, who admittedly are closely related to the informant and who reportedly had visited Baby Devi at village Barma, is otherwise. Surendra Kumar Singh (RW. 1) the Chachera Bhai of the informant stated in Court of only one letter having been received from Baby Devi and Satya Narain Singh (RW. 2), the uncle of the informant and a postman by profession also spoke of only one letter having been received through unknown sources and was specific in stating that no letter had been received through post. Curiously, these letters were not annexed with the written report (Ext. 2) nor handed over to the Investigating Officer later on or in course of investigation. They were also not seized by the police and appear to have been produced in Court at the time of deposition of RW. 3. These letters were also not shown RWs. 1 and 2. There is another aspect of the matter. Whereas RW. 3, the informant states that Baby Devi was slightly educated, RW. 1 specifically states of Baby Devi being illiterate. In these circumstances and with the non-examination of the Investigating Officer genuine doubts are created regarding the bona fides of the aforesaid letters. On this premise the plea of the defence that the said letters were fabricated later on to lend credence to the written report may perhaps be a reasonable and acceptable proposition. 8. In these circumstances and with the non-examination of the Investigating Officer genuine doubts are created regarding the bona fides of the aforesaid letters. On this premise the plea of the defence that the said letters were fabricated later on to lend credence to the written report may perhaps be a reasonable and acceptable proposition. 8. Now coming to the offence under Sec.304B I.P.C. This special provision applies where the death of woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of marriage and it is shown that soon before the death of the woman she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relations in connection with any demand for dowry. The section postulates that the initial burden of proving the circumstances envisaged by Sec.304B I.P.C. rests on the prosecution. 9. Let us now examine the evidence adduced by the prosecution in this regard. The informant (RW. 3) in his examination-in-chief stated that Baby Devis marriage was solemnized in the year 1990 and the gauna took place two years later when she went to her marital home. He also speaks of having received letter from Baby Devi wherein she informed of her husband and parents-in-law demanding a TV. However, he does not say anything regarding Baby Devi being subjected to any abuse, assault or threat. He has identified the two letters he received from Baby Devi; one through Janki Devi (Ext. 1) and the other through post (Ex. 1/1). As against this RW. 1 in his examination-in-chief has stated that the letter that the informant had received from Baby Devi complained of her being assaulted by her husband and parents-in-law. By way of a passing reference he stated that it was Rajendra Singh who had demanded the TV. but there is no mention of the assault being in connection with the demand fa TV. D.W. 2 also speaks of a letter being received from Baby Devi wherein she complained of being assaulted by her husband and parents-in-law. He merely states that there was a promise of a TV. being given. From the evidence it cannot be said with certainty that Baby Devi was subjected to assault and abuse for non-fulfillment of the demand for a TV. He merely states that there was a promise of a TV. being given. From the evidence it cannot be said with certainty that Baby Devi was subjected to assault and abuse for non-fulfillment of the demand for a TV. If one takes into consideration the testimony of D.W.1, Takko Singh, the Choukidar of village Berma, to the effect that Baby Devi had never visited her sasural the entire prosecution case falls through. To the same effect is the deposition of D.W. 2. In this regard one may notice another very important factor. Both P.Ws. 1 and 2 state of Baby Devi having shown the marks of violence but none of them has given any details thereof nor they state of taking Baby Devi to a doctor for treatment. 10. Another aspect which needs immediate attention is that whereas the charge was framed under Sec.302/34 I.P.C. The conviction is under Sec.304B I.P.C. This is neither possible nor permissible. The words "it is shown" in Sec.304B I.P.C. postulates that initial burden of proving that circumstances envisaged by Sec.304B I.P.C. did exist is on the prosecution. It is only when this is shown or established that the question of presumption under Sec.113B of the Evidence Act would arise. D.Ws. 1 and 2, the two inhabitants of village Berma, the village where the marital home of Baby Devi was located, one of them being the village Choukidar have testified that Baby Devi had never come to her marital home. Nothing in material particulars has been drawn from them by the prosecution to discredit their testimony. The conviction under Sec.304B I.P.C. against a charge under Sec.302/34 I.RC. cannot be sustained in law. 11. Having given my anxious consideration to the matters in issue I am of the view that the prosecution has not been able to bring home the charges beyond all reasonable doubts. Accordingly, the appellant, in all* fairness, is entitled to a benefit of doubt and acquitted. 12. In the result the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order are hereby set aside. The appellant who is in custody is directed to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.