Judgment C.M.Prasad, J. 1. The appeals are against the judgment of conviction dated 5.7.2005 of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur passed in Sessions Trial No. 427 of 2001 whereby each of the eight appellants has been convicted under Ss. 304(B)/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and respectively sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years and R.I. for five years. 2. The prosecution commenced with the fardbeyan of the informant Bishwanath Rai who came to Lalganj P.S. on 5.5.2000 at 3 P.M. along with his brothers and nephew and stated that he (informant) had married his daughter Meera Devi (deceased) aged about 25 years to the appellants Lagandev Rai in the month of Jyestha in the year 1995 and he had given in gift Rs. 25,000.00 and clothes etc. at the time of marriage and that after marriage his daughter (deceased) started living in her Sasural house. Thereafter, he (informant) further alleged the accused persons/appellants started demanding a cash of Rs. 25,000.00 for purchasing a tempo. He replied that he had no money with him hence, he was unable to fulfill the demand and that whatever was available he had already given to them at the time of marriage. He further alleged that due to non-fulfillment of the demand the accused persons/appellants started torturing and harassing his daughter (deceased). He stated that in that context a case had also been instituted earlier at Lalganj P. S. The informant further stated that that day (5.5.2000) at 2 P.M. Vinay Rai (not examined) came to his house and informed that the accused persons/appellants had killed his (informant) daughter that day at 10 A.M. by burning her with K.oil. Learning this he (informant) along with his co-villagers went to bank of river in village Balua Basanta and he found that the dead body was being burnt. He also stated that the in-laws of the deceased had absconded from deceaseds Sasural house. The informant claimed that due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry the accused persons/appellants killed his daughter by setting her on fire and cremated the dead body. On the basis of fardbeyan, F.I.R. for the offences under Ss. 304(B)/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code was instituted and investigation commenced. On completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted and the accused persons/appellants were put on trial. On the basis of fardbeyan, F.I.R. for the offences under Ss. 304(B)/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code was instituted and investigation commenced. On completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted and the accused persons/appellants were put on trial. On conclusion of the trial they have been convicted and sentenced as above. 3. As many as 14 witnesses were examined by the prosecution and a defence witness Indradev Rai was also examined by the defence. D.W.1 deposed about defence case that the deceased had died of diarrhoea and she was treated by doctor Praveen Kumar at Lalganj who had referred her to Patna for further treatment but she died in the way to Patna. But besides the oral testimony of the D.W. 1 the doctor who treated her has not been examined nor any prescription regarding her treatment has been filed. 4. Out of the prosecution witnesses P.W. 1 Anil Kumar Singh is a formal witness who has proved writings on the F.I.R. marked as ext. 1. P.W. 2 Laxmi Rai P.W. 3 Jhoom Rai and P.W. 5 Mahendra Rai are the uncles of the deceased. P.W. 4 Sunil Rai is the cousin brother of the deceased. P.W. 6 Manoj Rai is the brother of the deceased. P.W. 7 Gauri Shankar Rai, P.W. 8 Suresh Rai and P.W. 10 Aklu Paswan were examined as eye-wit-nesses on the point of occurrence but they have turned hostile and they have said be knowing nothing about the occurrence. On their attention being drawn by the learned A.P.P. towards their previous police statement these witnesses refused to have given any statements before police supporting the prosecution story. 5. P.W. 9 Ganesh Rai and P.W. 11 Shankar Rai are the seizure witnesses on the point of seizure of one gold plated ear ring, one burn Lahthi and one can of K. oil from the deceaseds living room and burnt Ganara and pieces of bamboo from the place where the dead body was burnt but these two witnesses have not supported the factum of seizure and they have stated in their evidence that seizure of these articles was not made in their presence and that police had obtained their signatures (Exts. 2 and 2/1) on blank paper. 2 and 2/1) on blank paper. Thus these two witnesses admit their signatures on the seizure list but they do not support the factum of seizure said to have been made in their presence. 6. P.W. 13 Binod Rai is the Mousera brother of the deceased. P.W. 12 Bishwanath Rai (informant) is the father of the deceased. P.W. 14 Bimal Kumar Singh is the I.O. of the case. 7. P.W. 2 Laxmi Rai deposed that he learnt from Vinay Rai that the deceased was killed by the appellants and the dead body was burnt. He also deposed in his examination-in-chief that husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased were demanding Rs. 25,000.00 for purchasing a tempo and that when his brother (informant) did not fulfill the demand they killed the deceased. He further deposed that when he had gone to deceaseds Sasural house he found blouse, sari and burnt earring from deceaseds living room and smell of K.oil was also found. But in cross-examination at para-3 he deposed that whatever he had deposed in the Court that was a hearsay matter which was heard from others. He also deposed that since last 25 years, he is separated from his brother (in-formant). Thus considering para-3 of the evidence of this witness it appears that this witness has no personal knowledge about the occurrence and whatever he has deposed in his evidence is a hearsay matter only. 8. P.W. 3 Jhumlal Rai deposed that when the informant (P.W.12) learnt that his laughter was burnt to death by her in-laws he (P.W. 3) with the informant went to deceaseds Sasural but any family member was not in the Sasural house. This witness further deposed that he learnt from others that the Sasural people had killed the deceased by burning her but this witness does not name any person from whom he had learnt this. Thus, whatever this witness says is a hearsay matter. This witness further deposed that in-law of the deceased were demanding Rs. 25,000.00 but he does not explain how he learnt this fact. There is nothing to show in his evidence that any demand was made in his presence or anybody told him about this. This witness accepted at para-2 of his cross-examination that he is separate from his brother (informant) in mess and residence. 25,000.00 but he does not explain how he learnt this fact. There is nothing to show in his evidence that any demand was made in his presence or anybody told him about this. This witness accepted at para-2 of his cross-examination that he is separate from his brother (informant) in mess and residence. Thus this witness has no personal knowledge about the occurrence and he has deposed a hearsay matter in his evidence. 9. P.W.4 Sunil Ram merely deposed that the in-laws of the deceased had killed her by burning her and that thereafter they absconded from Sasural house. He also deposed that the Sasural people were demanding Rs. 25,000.00 and due to non-fulfillment of the demand, the deceased was killed. This witness does not disclose from whom and how he learnt about the demand of money by in-laws of the deceased and there is nothing to show in his evidence that the demand was made from him or from any body else in his presence. In his examination-in-chief itself he stated that on the date of occurrence he had not met the accused persons/appellants. Thus this witness has also no personal knowledge of the fact of the demand nor was he is a witness on the point of killing as alleged. 10. P.W. 5 Mahendra Rai, the brother of the informant deposed that he learnt from informant that in-laws of the deceased had killed her and thereafter, they burnt the dead body. This witness is a hearsay witness and he says to have learnt about the occurrence from deceaseds father Bishwanath Rai i.e. the informant. 11. P.W. 6 Manoj Rai is the brother of the deceased. He also deposed that he learnt from Binay Rai (not examined) that the in-laws of the deceased (whom he named as the appellants) had killed the deceased by burning her. He further deposed that the deceased had lived in her Sasural for six months and when the returned to her Maika he learnt from her that the Sasural people were demanding Rs. 25,000.00 for purchasing a tempo. He continued to depose that when money was not paid the Sasural people started torturing her and killed her by burning with K. oil. This witness also deposed that when he had gone to deceaseds Sasural he had learnt from the village people there that the appellants had killed the deceased by burning her. 25,000.00 for purchasing a tempo. He continued to depose that when money was not paid the Sasural people started torturing her and killed her by burning with K. oil. This witness also deposed that when he had gone to deceaseds Sasural he had learnt from the village people there that the appellants had killed the deceased by burning her. This witness does not name any village people from whom he learnt about the burning of the deceased. Thus this witness is a hearsay witness on the point of alleged killing by burning. This witness says about demand of Rs. 25,000.00 by the in-laws of the deceased but he does not say that any demand was made from him or in his presence but he simply says that the deceased had told her about the demand made by her in-laws. This witness is the brother of the deceased, if such demand of dowry was to be made it would have been made from deceaseds father who is normally considered to be responsible for the fulfillment of the demand. 12. Curiously at para-3 of the his cross-examination this witness (P.W. 6) deposed that his brother-in-law (husband of the de-ceased) and his brothers live jointly and the family is affluent and that the demand of Rs. 25,000.00 was never made from him. This evidence of this witness discredits the prosecution story on the matter of demand of Rs. 25,000.00 by in-laws of the deceased. 13. P.W. 13 Binod Rai stated in a omni-bus manner that demand of Rs. 25,000.00 was made by in-laws of the deceased and due to non-fulfillment of demand the deceased was killed by in-laws. But in para-2 of his cross-examination this witness deposed that the deceased had never told him that any dowry was being demanded nor the deceased had told him about any act of torture and harassment to her. This witness also deposed that any money was not demanded as dowry in his presence. He further deposed that he had no personal knowledge about the occurrence and that whatever he had heard from other he stated in his evidence. Thus, this witness has no personal knowledge about the occurrence of the demand of dowry and he has adduced a hearsay evidence before the Court. 14. He further deposed that he had no personal knowledge about the occurrence and that whatever he had heard from other he stated in his evidence. Thus, this witness has no personal knowledge about the occurrence of the demand of dowry and he has adduced a hearsay evidence before the Court. 14. P.W. 12 Bishwanath Rai (informant), the father of the deceased deposed that he had married his daughter to appellant Lagandeo Rai on 5.5.1995 and that when his daughter (deceased) went to her Sasural after marriage her in-laws demanded Rs. 25,000.00 as dowry and due to non-fulfillment of demand they started torturing and harassing her. He further deposed that he learnt from Vinay Rai (not examined) that the appellants killed the deceased by buringing her with K.oil. This witness, being the father of the deceased is the most important witness stating about demand of dowry but in para-3 of his evidence he deposed that any money was not demanded from him and that he had learnt about the demand from his son Manoj Rai (P.W. 6) who used to go to deceaseds Sasural to meet her. Thus any money was not demanded from this witness who being the father was responsible for making the payment. So, the demand, if any ought to have been made from this witness but this witness says that any demand of money was not made from him and he says that he learnt about demand from his son Manoj Singh (P.W.6). But the son Manoj (P.W. 6) himself deposed at para-3 that in-laws of the de-ceased had never demanded any money from him. Thus in support of the story of demand of money i.e. Rs. 25,000.00 there does not appear to be any reliable evidence to establish demand of Rs. 25,000.00 as dowry. Curiously at para-3 of his evidence the in-formant (P.W. 12) deposed that he had learnt from Manoj Singh the fact of torture and harassment to the deceased but he further deposed that the deceased had never herself complained him about any torture to her or demand of dowry by the in-laws. This witness being the father of the deceased says that the deceased had never complaint to him about any torture and harassment committed on her by the in-laws or any demand of money made by them. This witness being the father of the deceased says that the deceased had never complaint to him about any torture and harassment committed on her by the in-laws or any demand of money made by them. Since these facts were not ever communicated or complained to the inform-ant by the deceased it goes against the prosecution story of demand of dowry and the torture and harassment due to non-fulfillment of the demand. 15. P.W.14 Bimal Kumar Singh is the I.O. of the case who recorded the F.I.R. and took up the investigation and inspected the P.O. i.e. the Sasural house of the deceased and he deposed that he seized burnt gold plated ear ring, Lathi and a can of K.oil from the living room of the deceased and he also seized pieces of burnt blouse, pieces of bamboo from bank of river in presence of independent witnesses (P.W. 9 and P.W. 11) and a seizure list were prepared. But this has to be considered here that the seized articles were not produced before the Trial Court. This has also be noticed that the two independent witnesses, namely, P.W. 9 and P.W. 11 who are said to have witnessed the seizure have not supported the factum of seizure and they have deposed that seizure of any such articles was not made in their presence and police had obtained their signatures on blank paper. Thus, the evidence of the I.O. does not furnish any reliable objective evidence for the support of the prosecution story. 16. During hearing the learned counsel for the appellants argued that in this case the prosecution has failed to prove any demand of dowry and any torture or harassment meted to the deceased due to non-fulfillment of the demand hence, any conviction cannot be sustained on this presumption that the appellants committed dowry death by causing the death of the deceased under any abnormal circumstances. It was also argued that there is no evidence to show that the appellants had killed the deceased by setting her on fire. 17. On perusal of the evidence of wit-nesses as brought by the prosecution it is found that there is no evidence to show that any of the appellants had killed the deceased by setting her on fire. It was also argued that there is no evidence to show that the appellants had killed the deceased by setting her on fire. 17. On perusal of the evidence of wit-nesses as brought by the prosecution it is found that there is no evidence to show that any of the appellants had killed the deceased by setting her on fire. The witnesses who are the brothers, uncles and father of the de-ceased have said that they learnt from one Binay Rai that the in-laws of the deceased had killed the deceased and on going to deceaseds Sasural they also learnt this from the villagers there. Thus any of the prosecution witnesses are not eye-witnesses to the occurrence of killing of the deceased as alleged and all of them say that they learnt about it from Binay Rai or the village people of the deceaseds Sasural but any of such persons has not been examined by prosecution to say about the killing of the deceased in the manner as alleged by prosecution. 18. The learned A.P.P. argued that in this case the I.O. had seized burnt pieces of gold plated ear ring, Lahthi and can of K. oil from deceaseds living room and pieces of burnt blouse and bamboo were also seized from the bank of the river where the dead body was burnt. Hence, it was further argued that the circumstances established that the death of the deceased had occurred under abnormal circumstances and by burn injuries. Therefore, the learned A.P.P. argued that in case when the death has occurred under abnormal circumstances or even if, the deceased is found to have committed suicide the in-laws are liable for dowry death, if it is further found that prior to death the deceased had been tortured and harassed due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. No doubt, such conclusion is possible but for arriving at such conclusion this has to be established beyond doubt that before the death under abnormal circumstances the deceased had been tortured and harassed due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. In the instant case the father (P.W. 12) and brother (P.W. 6) of the deceased adduced categorical evidence in their cross-examination that the deceased had not communicated or told about the demand of dowry and that the Sasural family of the appellants was an affluent one and that they had not demanded any money from them. In the instant case the father (P.W. 12) and brother (P.W. 6) of the deceased adduced categorical evidence in their cross-examination that the deceased had not communicated or told about the demand of dowry and that the Sasural family of the appellants was an affluent one and that they had not demanded any money from them. Considering this evidence this has to be found that prosecution has not been able to prove beyond the doubt that before death of the deceased any demand of dowry was made and that deceased had been tortured and harassed due to non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry. In absence of these facts no presumption can be raised against the appellants to hold them guilty for commission of dowry death. 19. In the circumstances of the case, the appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt. Therefore, by way of giving benefit of doubt, the appellants are acquitted of the charges under Ss. 304(B)/34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The order of conviction and sentenced as passed by the learned Trial Court is hereby set aside. The appellant who is in custody is ordered to be released forth-with, if not wanted in any other case. 20. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed.