JUDGMENT R.N. BISWAL, J. — This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 18.12.96 passed by the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Puri in S.T. Case No.39/324 of 1994, where¬in he convicted the accused-appellant and another for the offence under Sections 304-B/498-A/34 of I.P.C. read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act and sentenced each of them thereunder to undergo R.I. for seven years, one year and S.I. for three months respec¬tively. 2. The case as projected by the prosecution in nub is that deceased, Kapalna was given in marriage to co-accused, Gopal Chandra Mishra of village Parajapada in the year, 1989 according to the Hindu rights and their caste custom. At the time of mar¬riage, a sum of Rs.5,000/- was given towards “Bata Kharcha” to the bridegroom, out of the demand of Rs.10,000/-. The couple led a happy married life for a brief time and thereafter, skir¬mishes erupted between them due to non-payment of Rs.5,000/- more towards dowry demand. It was alleged that the co-accused and his family members including his brother-in-law, the appellant har¬assed and tortured the deceased, Kapalna in many a ways and ultimately in furtherance of their common intention committed murder of Kapalna and her male child on 30.11.1993. They threw the dead body of Kapalna after covering it in a gunny bag to a nearby pond and buried the dead body of the male child in the bank of river, Bhargabi. P.W.1, the brother of deceased, Kapalna gathering this information from the villagers of village Paraja¬pada, scribed an F.I.R. and lodged it before the O.I.C., Satyaba¬di Police Station. Since the allegation made in the F.I.R. re¬vealed a cognizable case, the O.I.C. registered a case under Sections 304-B/498-A/201/34 IPC read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act and directed the Junior S.I. (P.W.11) to investigate the case and accordingly he took up investigation. In course of investiga¬tion, he searched for the accused persons and on seeing the co-accused in the village, interrogated him about his wife (de¬ceased) and her child. In course of investiga¬tion, he searched for the accused persons and on seeing the co-accused in the village, interrogated him about his wife (de¬ceased) and her child. During this time, he confessed to have killed both of them, further stating that he threw the dead body of the deceased, Kapalna covering it in a gunny bag to a pond and that he buried the dead body of the child in the bank of river Bhargabi and so saying led P.W.11 and the witnesses first to the pond where the dead body of the deceased was thrown and gave recovery of it and then to the place where the dead body of the child had been buried and pointed out the place where from the dead body was exhumed in presence of the witnesses and the Execu¬tive Magistrate, P.W.4. Then the I.O. prepared the inquest re¬ports in respect of both the dead bodies, sent the dead bodies under police requisition to the District Head Quarter Hospital, Puri for conducting autopsy over the same, seized a spade by using which it was alleged that the co-accused, Gopal Chandra buried the dead body of the child. He also seized the wearing apparels of the deceased, Kapalna, prepared the spot map, exam¬ined the witnesses and after completion of investigation, finding a prima facie case against the accused-appellant and co-accused Gopal Chandra Mishra submitted charge sheet against them under Sections 302/201/34 IPC. The co-accused admitted to be the hus¬band of the deceased, Kapalna and both the accused repudiated the allegations made against them. After the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Puri, it was transferred to the Court of 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Puri for trial. Accordingly, the Addl. Sessions Judge framed charge under Sections 302/201/34 of I.P.C. against both the accused persons on 18.2.1995. After examination of all the witnesses was over, on a petition filed by the prosecution, P.W.11 was recalled, re-examined and on being declared hostile was cross-examined and the charge was altered to Sections 304-B/498-A/34 I.P.C. read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act under which the accused persons faced trial. 3. In order to bring home the charge framed against the accused persons, prosecution examined 11 witnesses as against none by the defence. The Trial Court mainly relying on the evi¬dence of P.Ws. 3. In order to bring home the charge framed against the accused persons, prosecution examined 11 witnesses as against none by the defence. The Trial Court mainly relying on the evi¬dence of P.Ws. 1,7 and 10, who are brother, elder sister and mother of the deceased, Kapalna respectively and P.W.11 the I.O., found the accused persons guilty under Sections 304-B/498-A/34 IPC read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act and convicted and sen¬tenced them thereunder as mentioned earlier. Being dissatisfied with the said order of conviction and sentence, accused Rajendra Narayan Mishra has preferred this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that P.Ws.1, 7 and 10 being the close relatives of the deceased are highly interested for success of the prosecution and their evidence being full of contradictions and inconsistencies should not have been the basis of conviction of the appellant. If their evidence is closely scrutinized, there is no case whatsoever against the appellant. So, he drew the attention of the Court to their evidence. In the examination in chief, P.W.1 stated that the appellant acted as a mediator in the marriage of the appel¬lant with deceased, Kapalna. The bridegroom demanded Rs.10,000/- towards dowry, but they paid only Rs.5000/- towards road expenses (Bata Kharcha), on the date of marriage. It is further found from his evidence that after four days of the marriage, he visited the house of the co-accused with clothing for observation of the 4th day ceremony of the newly wed. During that time, the appellant demanded the balance amount of Rs.5,000/- towards dowry and as he (P.W.1) could not give the same, the appellant threatened him to give the same, if he at all wanted to see the betterment of his sister. Furthermore, P.W.1 stated that once when deceased, Kapal¬na had gone to his house, he noticed some marks of violence on her person and on being questioned, she stated that she was being assaulted by the relatives of her husband and was not given food. However, the elder brother of P.W.1 consoled her and escorted her to her in-laws house. It is further found from the evidence of P.W.1 that first the deceased, Kapalna gave birth to a female child, but as ill luck would have it, she expired after some days. However, about one year thereafter, she gave birth to a male child. However, the elder brother of P.W.1 consoled her and escorted her to her in-laws house. It is further found from the evidence of P.W.1 that first the deceased, Kapalna gave birth to a female child, but as ill luck would have it, she expired after some days. However, about one year thereafter, she gave birth to a male child. P.W. 1, furthermore stated that the deceased, Kapalna disclosed before him that whenever the present appellant was visiting their house, she was being tortured by the family mem¬bers of her husband. When confronted to the I.O. (P.W.11), he stated that P.W.1 had not stated anything before him against the appellant. In the F.I.R., it has been specifically stated that the appellant was forcing the deceased to bring more dowry and that he along with 4 others, including the co-accused in further¬ance of their common intention, killed Kapalna and her child and concealed their dead bodies. So, the prosecution declared the I.O., (P.W.11) hostile and leading questions were put to him, when he admitted that the informant had stated so before him besides incorporating in the F.I.R. The Trial Court held that the I.O. corroborated the F.I.R. But, it is the established principle of law that the author of the F.I.R. only can corroborate the F.I.R. 5. On perusal of the evidence of P.W.7, the elder sister of the deceased, Kapalna, it is found that her brother Alekha Praharaj stated before her that there was demand of dowry for Rs.10,000/- from the side of the bridegroom. Her evidence is silent with regard to payment of any dowry. P.W.7 also stated that the couple led a happy conjugal life for about 6 months and thereafter quarrel ensued between them as demand for Rs.5,000/- more towards dowry could not be given to the family of the co-accused. She further stated that the appellant was also a party to the torture. As stated earlier, P.W.7 came to know from Alekha Praharaj that a sum of Rs.10,000/- was being demanded from the bridegroom side. But said Alekha Praharaj having not been exam¬ined, the evidence of P.W. 7 regarding demand of dowry cannot be relied upon. On perusal of evidence of P.W.11, it is found that P.W.7 had not stated before him that deceased, Kapalna was being ill-treated in her in-laws’ house. She was examined 10 days after the occurrence. But said Alekha Praharaj having not been exam¬ined, the evidence of P.W. 7 regarding demand of dowry cannot be relied upon. On perusal of evidence of P.W.11, it is found that P.W.7 had not stated before him that deceased, Kapalna was being ill-treated in her in-laws’ house. She was examined 10 days after the occurrence. There is no explanation about belated examination of this witness, even though she was the elder sister of Kapalna. Similarly, the evidence of P.W.10, mother of deceased, Kapalna goes to show that at the time of negotiation of the marriage, a demand for Rs.10,000/- towards dowry was made from the side of the bridegroom as against which a sum of Rs.5,000/- was given to them. She further stated that after 15 days of the marriage, the appellant came to her house and demanded Rs.5,000/-, failing which, he threatened that Kapalna would be in hot water. But P.W.10 had specifically stated before the I.O. that without any demand of dowry, Kapalna was given in marriage to co-accused, Gopala Chandra Mishra through the mediatorship of accused-appellant. P.W. 10 had not stated before the I.O. that a sum of Rs.10,000/- was being demanded from the side of the bridegroom towards dowry. She has also not stated before the I.O. that ac¬cused-appellant raised any demand towards dowry. As stated above, there is no sufficient material to hold that the appellant demand¬ed any dowry from the deceased, Kapalna or from any of her rela¬tions. Similarly, there is no evidence worth the name to show that the appellant tortured Kapalna for non-payment of dowry. More¬over, there is no evidence whatsoever with regard to torture on the deceased, Kapalna, just before her unnatural death. The trial Court without analysing the evidence properly and without going deep into the matter, held the appellant guilty of the offence under Sections 304-B/498-A/34 of I.P.C. read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act and convicted and sentenced him thereunder, which needs to be set aside. 6. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence as passed by the trial Court against the appellant are hereby set aside and he is acquitted of the charge under Sections 304-B/498-A/34 of I.P.C. read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act. The appellant and his bailors are discharged of their bail bonds. Appeal allowed.