JUDGMENT : B.K. Patel, J. - The appeal and revision are directed against the Judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against the Appellants by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court II, Cuttack in Sessions Trial No. 150 of 2000. Appellant No. 1 Nihar Ranjan has been convicted for commission of offences under Sections 302 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'I.P.C.') as well as u/s 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (in short 'D.P. Act') and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life u/s 302 I.P.C. and also to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for three months on each count u/s 498-A and u/s 4 of the D.P. Act. Appellant Nos. 2 Damayanti and 3 Rabindralal have been convicted for commission of offence u/s 4 of the D.P. Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, in default to undergo R.I. for a further period of three months. The revision has been filed by the informant P.W.6 against State as well as Appellant No. 2 Damayanti and Appellant No. 3 Rabindralal as opp. parties 2 and 3. 2. Marriage between the deceased Arati ' Jhuni and Appellant No. 1 Nihar had been solemnized on 13.12.1996. Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are Appellant No. 1's parents. The deceased died on 2.9.1997 while residing in the house of Appellants. 3. Prosecution case is that prior to the marriage between Appellant No. 1 and the deceased, the Appellants demanded dowry in the form of cash of Rs. 1,50,000/-, gold ornaments of 10 tolas, one motor cycle and other articles. In response to such demand, Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid to Appellant Rabindralal at the time of 'Nirbandha' on 29.11.1996. Thereafter, at the time of marriage, motor cycle, gold ornaments and other articles were given to Appellant No. 1 and the deceased's father P.W.2 assured to pay the balance amount of Rs. 50,000/- after the marriage. In connection with demand for dowry, the deceased was subjected to ill-treatment, filthy comments, abuse, assault and torture by the Appellants and their relations in the deceased's matrimonial home. The Appellants and to-accused persons also insisted the deceased to bring the balance amount for dowry under the threat to kill her. 50,000/- after the marriage. In connection with demand for dowry, the deceased was subjected to ill-treatment, filthy comments, abuse, assault and torture by the Appellants and their relations in the deceased's matrimonial home. The Appellants and to-accused persons also insisted the deceased to bring the balance amount for dowry under the threat to kill her. Finding such ill treatment unbearable, the deceased left the Appellant's house and stayed in the house of her parents. However, her parents and other relations consoled her that the balance demand for dowry will be paid shortly and sent her to the house of the Appellant. On 2.9.1997 at about 5 P.M., Appellant Nihar came to the house of the deceased's parents and informed that Arati had committed suicide. Immediately P.W.2 proceeded to the house of the Appellants and discovered the dead body of the deceased hanging with the help of dhoti from the bath room ceiling. Deceased's brother P.W.6 lodged a written report on the basis of which investigation was commenced. On completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the Appellants as well as three others, namely, Shyam Sundar-accused Nihar's cousin brother, Bidyut Lata-deceased's aunt-in-law and Gitanjali-deceased's sister-in-law under Sections 302/304-B/498-A/34 IPC and u/s 4 of the D.P. Act. Charges also were framed against all the accused persons for commission of aforesaid offences. 4. Defence took the plea of complete denial and of false implication. 5. In order to substantiate the charges, prosecution examined twelve witnesses and three witnesses were examined on behalf of defence. As has been stated earlier, P.W.2 is the deceased's father and P.W.6 the informant is one of the deceased's brothers. P.W.3 is another brother of the deceased, whereas P.W.1 is deceased's sister. P.W.4 happens to be a 'samudi' of P.W.2 being father of the wife of P.W.2's son Girija (not examined) and P.W.5 is P.W.2's brother. Out of the official witnesses P.W.7 is the Executive Magistrate in whose presence inquest over the dead body of the deceased was held, P.W.8, the doctor, conducted post-mortem examination, P.W.9 is the Scientific Officer of D.F.S.L., Cuttack, who visited the scene of occurrence and P.Ws.10 and 11 are the Investigating Police Officers. P.W.12, a Bank Officer, proves the bank account of Appellant No. 1. P.W.12, a Bank Officer, proves the bank account of Appellant No. 1. Out of three defence witnesses, D.W.1 an officer of L.I.C., deposes regarding payment made to the deceased's-nominee brother upon her death by the L.I.C. on the deceased's life insurance policy and D.W.3 an Asst. Professor, Neuro Surgery, deposes regarding ailments of Appellant No. 3 Rabindralal. D.W.2 claims to have knowledge regarding the family of the Appellants as well as marriage between the deceased and Appellant No. 1. Upon appraisal of the evidence on record, learned trial Court acquitted all the accused persons of the charge u/s 304-B I.P.C. and also acquitted Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 of the charges under Sections 302 and 498-A I.P.C. Learned trial Court also acquitted accused persons Shyam Sundar, Bidyut Lata and Gitanjali of all the charges. However, the Appellants were convicted and sentenced as stated above. 6. In assailing the impugned Judgment and order it is strenuously contended by the learned Counsel for the Appellants that there is no evidence, either direct or circumstantial, implicating Appellant No. 1 with commission of the deceased's murder. It is submitted that the circumstances available from the evidence of prosecution witnesses who are closely related to the deceased reveal that the deceased committed suicide by hanging inside the bath room which was closed from inside but learned trial Court relying upon opinion evidence of P.Ws. 8 and 9 concludes that the deceased's death was homicidal in nature. It is argued that there being unimpeachable evidence on record that the deceased's dead body was found hanging inside the room closed from inside, the learned trial Court should not have acted upon hypothetical conclusions of the doctor and the Scientific Officer. It is further contended that even if the deceased's death is held to be homicidal, in absence of any circumstances indicating that it was Appellant No. 1 who committed the deceased's murder, conviction of Appellant No. 1 u/s 302 I.P.C. is not sustainable. It is further contended that in the absence of any evidence indicating that any of the accused persons in particular subjected the deceased to cruelty in connection with the demand for dowry soon before her death, the learned trial Court rightly held that none of the accused persons including the Appellants could be convicted u/s 304-B IPC. It is further contended that in the absence of any evidence indicating that any of the accused persons in particular subjected the deceased to cruelty in connection with the demand for dowry soon before her death, the learned trial Court rightly held that none of the accused persons including the Appellants could be convicted u/s 304-B IPC. Learned Counsel for the Appellants making a threadbare analysis of the prosecution evidence contends that prosecution has failed to establish that any of the Appellants committed any overt act so as to hold the Appellants guilty in connection with demand for dowry. It is submitted that allegations made against the Appellants are vague, generalized, omnibus, inconsistent and belated. It is argued that there is no evidence that any of the Appellants in particular demanded dowry and rather circumstances available on record go to show that neither the Appellants could have demanded dowry nor the Appellants would have been given dowry in connection with the deceased's marriage with Appellant No. 1. On the contrary, it is argued, articles were given to the deceased as gift. In the background of such contentions, learned Counsel for the Appellants assails the conviction of the Appellants u/s 498-A IPC as well as u/s 4 of the D.P. Act. 7. In reply, it is contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the State that in view of positive evidence on record available from the depositions of P.Ws. 8 and 9 to the effect that the deceased's death was homicidal in nature caused by strangulation and in view of the conduct of Appellant No. 1 prior to and after the death of the deceased, the learned trial Court rightly held Appellant No. 1 to be guilty for commission of murder of the deceased. In this connection, learned Counsel appearing for the State also argued that in implicating Appellant No. 1 solely with the offence of murder of the deceased, the learned trial Court has also taken note of the fact that Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are aged and ailing persons. It is further argued that father and other relations of the deceased having categorically deposed that the deceased used to complain before her death that Appellants used to inflict ill-treatment and torture on her, the Appellants have been aptly convicted u/s 498-A IPC. 2 and 3 are aged and ailing persons. It is further argued that father and other relations of the deceased having categorically deposed that the deceased used to complain before her death that Appellants used to inflict ill-treatment and torture on her, the Appellants have been aptly convicted u/s 498-A IPC. It is also argued that there being positive evidence on record that the Appellants demanded and also accepted dowry in connection with the deceased's marriage with Appellant No. 1, the Appellants have been rightly convicted u/s 4 of the D.P. Act. 8. In support of the revision filed by informant P.W.6, it is contended that as allegations against all the three Appellants are similar and prosecution has led unimpeachable evidence in support of such allegations, opp. parties 2 and 3 are also liable to be convicted for commission of offences under Sections 498-A and 302 IPC. 9. We have scrupulously analyzed the evidence on record in the back ground of the rival contention. Undoubtedly, the evidence of P.W.8 has been the most vital factor in arriving at the conclusion that there is no material to hold that the deceased committed suicide or that offence arisen out of the deceased's death is the offence of dowry death. Finding of the trial Court to the effect that Appellant No. 1 committed murder of the deceased is substantially based on evidence of P.W.8 stated to have been supported by corroboration from the evidence of the Scientific Officer, P.W.9. Upon autopsy of the dead body of the deceased, as per post-mortem report Ext. 9, P.W.8 found as follows: . (i) There were three nail marks on the right arm on its antiro medial aspect 4 cm. above the elbow joint and 1 cm. apart from each other. Each nail mark measured 0.5 cm ? 0.25 cm. and looked cresentric. Two of them lay transversely in one line, and the other one lay below it 1 cm. apart from the above two. (ii) Anterior aspect of the tip of tongue was beaten and abraded bruises were present. There was one abrasion in the inner aspect of lower lip in the middle and measured 1 cm ? 0.25 cm. (iii) Left elbow joint was dislocated and swollen. (iv) There was a ligature mark around the neck continuous in nature horizontally present along with two marks in front and one mark behind. There was one abrasion in the inner aspect of lower lip in the middle and measured 1 cm ? 0.25 cm. (iii) Left elbow joint was dislocated and swollen. (iv) There was a ligature mark around the neck continuous in nature horizontally present along with two marks in front and one mark behind. The mark measured 30 cm. in length and 0.25 cm. breadth. It looked imprinted by nylon rope in front. The front marks were closed to each other and situated over the thyroid cartilage. On the back of the neck the mark was situated at the level of 3rd cervical vertebra. On the lateral aspect of the neck it traversed 4 cm. below the angle of mandible and an abrasion was present over the left lateral aspect of ligature mark of size ? cm. ? ? cm. On dissection P.W.8 states to have found as follows: (1) The neck tissues including muscles around the ligature impression in front were extravassated. Cricoid cartilage was broken, floor of the ligature mark was abraded at places in the front. Oesophageal lumen and tracheal lumen were congested and contained white froth corresponding to the ligature mark. (2) The organs like lungs, liver, kidney, spleen and brain were deeply congested. The face looked blacken. Heard chamber contained dark liquid blood. (3) The uterus measured 10 cm ? 7 cm. ? 3 cm. The product of conception inside was of four weeks duration. 10. The dead body of the deceased had been sent for post mortem examination along with the ligature material with which she was found hanging from the ceiling in the bath room. The ligature material was a white dhoti with red border cut into two pieces. The circumference was found during 5 cm. Upon post mortem examination and upon examination of the ligature material, P.W.8 opines that the injuries as well as ligature impression were ante mortem in nature. Having opined so, P.W.8 makes the most vital statement and opines that the ligature impression found on the dead body of the deceased was caused by rope and not by dhoti and that the cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation by a rope. He also states that the hanging scene as described in the dead body challan was a post death activity. He also states that the hanging scene as described in the dead body challan was a post death activity. Having deposed and opined so in his examination-in-chief, P.W. 8 prevaricates in course of cross-examination to admit that at times it is not possible to opine if the dislocation found in a case occurred before or after the death. He also says in his cross-examination that dislocation of the deceased reflected in the post mortem report in Ext. 9 was possible if the hand strikes against wall or any hard object. P.W.8 admits that the inquest report and the dead body challan were supplied to him with the request to conduct autopsy and that it was reflected in the inquest report that the dead body of the deceased was found lying on the verandah. P.W.8 does not claim that he had visited the spot. As has been earlier he opines that the hanging scene as described in the dead body challan was a post death activity. On scrutiny of the dead body challan Ext. 21, it is found that it does not bear the description of the hanging scene. In the dead body challan Ext. 21, there is no reference to the hanging apart from the gist of the FIR which reads "in sending herewith the dead body of the above deceased, I beg to say that on 2.9.1997 at 10.30 A.M. on the report of Kamakshaya Prasad Patnaik of Deulasahi, the above noted case was registered in which it has been alleged that her husband and in-laws have killed her and thereafter hung her dead body in the bath room.". In addition it is also pertinent to note that in the FIR Ext. 2 there is no such allegation that after being killed, the dead body of the deceased had been hung in the bath room. P.W. 8 also admits in cross-examination that he measured the circumstance of the dhoti after bringing it into the rope form but he did not mention circumference in the plain form. He also admits that Ext. 9 does not reflect whether the dhoti was in rope or plain form when it was produced before him. It is admitted by him that the nature of ligature mark varies with the nature of material used such as coir, plastic, jute cloth etc. He admitted that in Ext. He also admits that Ext. 9 does not reflect whether the dhoti was in rope or plain form when it was produced before him. It is admitted by him that the nature of ligature mark varies with the nature of material used such as coir, plastic, jute cloth etc. He admitted that in Ext. 9 there is no mention regarding nature of rope which could have caused ligature impression. 11. P.W.9 the Scientific Officer visited the spot and prepared his report Ext. 10. He found the inside bolting system of the bath room door in proper condition. No mark of violence was noticed by him. He also examined the wooden beam from which the deceased was found hanging as well as a piece of white dhoti with which the deceased was hanging. Upon such examination, P.W.9 deposes to have found no transference of coaltar or dust particles from the wooden beam to the white coloured dhoti. These circumstances are relied upon by the prosecution to urge that the dhoti was not the ligature with which asphyxia of the deceased was caused and that the bath room door was not closed from inside. However, it has been elicited in P.W.9's cross-examination that he personally tested and found that much force was not necessary to open the bath room door particularly when it was closed without the bolting system. 12. Nevertheless, the direct evidence of deceased's father P.W.2 apparently militates against and is inconsistent with the opinion and inference of P.Ws. 8 and 9. P.W.2 deposes that on 2.9.1997 at about 5 p.m. Appellant No. 1 came to his residence and reported that Arati was dead upon which P.W.2 rushed to the house of the Appellants. Reaching there, he asserts, he came to know that Arati had closed the door of the bath room from inside. He testifies to have immediately opened the door forcefully and discovered that Arati was hanging from the ceiling with the help of a piece of dhoti and her feet were resting upon the brim of the water tank (Panikundara Bada). Finding no other alternative, P.W.2 deposes to have caught hold of both the legs from below and to have cut the dhoti with the assistance of his rickshawala. He further testifies that he brought down the deceased and laid her on the ground with the help of Appellant No. 1. Finding no other alternative, P.W.2 deposes to have caught hold of both the legs from below and to have cut the dhoti with the assistance of his rickshawala. He further testifies that he brought down the deceased and laid her on the ground with the help of Appellant No. 1. He adds that the Appellant fled away thereafter on his return home Appellant No. 1 was found to have thrown away the Kawasaki Motor bike and become untraced. However, in the cross-examination of P.W.2 it has been elicited that after bringing down the deceased from hanging position and laying her on the ground, P.W.2 himself sent Appellant No. 1 for calling a taxi with a view to take the deceased to the medical. Also, it has been brought out in course of cross-examination of P.Ws. 2 and 11 that P.W.2 had not stated before P.W.11 that Appellant Nihar fled away after death of the deceased, or that he found that Appellant Nihar had thrown away the Kawasaki Motor cycle in P.W.2's residence. Thus, the criticism levelled by the learned Counsel for the Appellants against the evidence of P.W.8 to be inconsistent with the direct evidence adduced by the prosecution does not appear to be unfounded. The evidence of P.W.8 and authenticity of post mortem examination report Ext. 9 are further assailed by the learned Counsel for the Appellants on the ground that the post mortem report was not prepared forthwith. In this connection, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants refers to the evidence of Investigating Officer P.W.11 to the effect that till 9.9.1997 the post mortem report had not been made ready due to absence of the concerned doctor. It is strenuously contended that in the absence of any scientific reason to support such finding, the observation of P.W.8 to the effect that the ligature mark looked imprinted by nylon rope has no basis to be accepted. In this connection, learned Counsel for the defence also presses into service the decision in Main Pal and Another Vs. State of Haryana and Others, to urge that the opinionative evidence of the doctor has to be ignored if the opinion is not consistent with the evidence of the eye-witness who was found to be truthful. In this connection, learned Counsel for the defence also presses into service the decision in Main Pal and Another Vs. State of Haryana and Others, to urge that the opinionative evidence of the doctor has to be ignored if the opinion is not consistent with the evidence of the eye-witness who was found to be truthful. In the above cited decision it has been held that: The hypothetical discrepancy regarding the height from which the gun was shot is one aspect which needs to be noted, only to be rejected. If the eye witnesses' version even though of the relatives, is found to be truthful and credible after deep scrutiny, the opinionative evidence of the doctor cannot wipe out the effect of eye witnesses' evidence. The opinion of the doctor cannot have any binding force and cannot be said to be the last word on what he deposes or meant for implicit acceptance. On the other hand, his evidence is liable to be sifted, analyzed and tested, in the same manner as that of any other witnesses, keeping in view only the fat that he has some experience and training in the nature of the functions discharged by him. 13. In the present case there is absolutely no reason to disbelieve or discard the evidence of P.W. 2 regarding the manner in which he found the dead body of the deceased was hanging. The dead body was hanging from the bath room ceiling closed from inside. P.W.2 had applied force to open the door. Appellant No. 1 himself called P.W.2 from his house saying that Arati was dead. P.W.2 himself deposes that it was Appellant No. 1 who assisted him in bringing down the dead body from the hanging position. Such circumstances available on record render the opinion that the dead body of the deceased was hung after she was dead doubtful. Absence of coaltar or dust particles on the dhoti suggesting non-transference of coaltar or dust particles from the wooden beam to the dhoti as noticed by P.W. 9 also is inconsequential in view of the fact that it was P.W.2 himself who cut the dhoti in order to bring the dead body hanging from the wooden beam down. Therefore, prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that death of the deceased was homicidal. 14. Not only the expert evidence of P.Ws. Therefore, prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that death of the deceased was homicidal. 14. Not only the expert evidence of P.Ws. 8 and 9 does not conclusively establish that deceased's death was homicidal in nature but also admittedly there is no direct or cirsumstantial evidence implicating any of the Appellants with the murder as suggested by P.Ws. 8 and 9. Admittedly, not only Appellant No. 1 but also Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 were residing with the deceased in the house, where the occurrence took place. The only reason assigned by the trial Court for not implicating Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 with the homicidal death of the deceased appears to be that both of them are old and ailing persons. Had Appellant No. 1 been staying alone with the deceased, the contingency of the legal obligation on the part of the Appellant No. 1 to explain the death of the deceased might have arisen. That being not the circumstance in the present case, no other circumstance indicating Appellant No. 1's complicity with the deceased's death is established by the prosecution. The conduct of Appellant No. 1 immediately after the death of the deceased in informing P.W.2 and returning to the place of occurrence as well as assisting P.W.2 in removing the deceased from the bath room does not support the prosecution allegation that Appellant No. 1's conduct was suspicious. In such circumstances, there is no material on the basis of which it may be concluded that it was the Appellant No. 1 who is responsible for the homicidal death. Therefore, even assuming that the deceased was murdered, Appellant No. 1 is entitled to be acquitted of the charge u/s 302 IPC. 15. 'Though the learned Counsel for the State in course of hearing does not raise any alternative contention regarding liability of Appellant No. 1 for being convicted for commission of offence u/s 304-B IPC for having committed the offence of dowry death, learned Counsel for the Appellants makes elaborate submissions to urge that materials on record fall far short of proof to implicate any of the Appellants with the commission of offence of dowry death of the deceased as provided Section 304-B IPC. The Appellants having been charged u/s 304-B IPC also, we have scrupulously scrutinized the evidence on record to examine as to whether the prosecution has made out any case for conviction u/s 304-B IPC. There is no dispute that the deceased, who is the wife of Appellant No. 1, died within seven years of her marriage. Undisputedly, her death occurred otherwise than under normal circumstance. Therefore, the sole point which requires examination is as to whether the deceased was subjected to cruelty by Appellant No. 1 in connection with demand for dowry soon before her death. In course of scrutinizing the evidence to examine the aforesaid question, dowry demand and cruelty being essential ingredients of offence u/s 304-B, IPC, the maintainability of conviction of the Appellants for commission of offences of dowry demand u/s 4 of the D.P. Act and of subjecting the deceased to cruelty u/s 498-A IPC has to be necessarily dealt with. 16. The material prosecution witnesses admit that the deceased and Appellant No. 1 were in love prior to their marriage. Prosecution alleges that it was Appellant No. 1 who voluntarily put forth the proposal for the marriage through his friend P.W.3 upon which there were negotiations on two occasions. It is alleged that in course of first negotiation, demand for dowry in the shape of cash of Rs. 2.00 lakhs and household articles was made and in the second occasion, there was negotiation relating to demand for dowry of cash amounting to Rs. 1.5 lakhs. It is further alleged that as per negotiation, dowry of Rs. 1.00 lakh was paid at the time of 'Nirbandha' with a promise that the balance amount of Rs. 50,000/- would be paid later. 17. P.W.6 deposes to have been present at the time of negotiations as well as at the time of 'Nirbandha'. He deposes to have accompanied P.Ws. 2 and 4 to the house of the Appellants at the time of first negotiation. P.W.6 alleges that Appellant No. 3 Rabindralal put forth a dowry demand of a hard cash of Rs. 2.00 lakhs, one scooter and other house hold articles upon which his father P.W.2 expressed his inability to pay the said amount of Rs. 2.00 lakhs for which the negotiation failed. P.W.6 alleges that Appellant No. 3 Rabindralal put forth a dowry demand of a hard cash of Rs. 2.00 lakhs, one scooter and other house hold articles upon which his father P.W.2 expressed his inability to pay the said amount of Rs. 2.00 lakhs for which the negotiation failed. It is further deposed by P.W.6 that on the request of Appellant No. 1, he and P.W.2 went to the house of the Appellants for negotiation for the second time in course of which as per demand raised by Appellant No. 3 Rabindralal, P.W.2 agreed to pay cash of Rs. 1.5 lakhs, gold ornaments weighing 10 to 12 tolas along with other household articles and a scooter. It was decided that hard cash of Rs. 1.00 lakh would be paid prior to the marriage at the time of 'Nirbandha' and the balance amount of Rs. 50,000/- would be paid subsequent to the marriage. P.W.6 says that 'Nirbandha' was solemnized on 29.11.1996 and on that day, he along with P.Ws. 4 and 5 were present when he personally handed over a cash of Rs. 1.00 lakh to Appellant No. 3 Rabindralal, who in turn, gave it to the Appellant No. 2 Damayanti. At the time of marriage on 13.12.1996, all the dowry articles, such as, Kawasaki Bajaj motor cycle, gold ornaments and other household articles were given. P.W.5 is stated by P.W.6 to have performed 'Kanyadana'. It is alleged by P.W.6 that after the marriage, the deceased came to her matrimonial house on the 'Astamangala Day' and reported that the accused persons were subjecting her to mental cruelty on the ground that all the dowry articles were of low quality and also demanding the balance amount of Rs. 50,000/-. P.W.6 also says that the deceased visited their house for about five to six times prior to the marriage and on each occasions, she reported that she was being subjected to physical and mental cruelty in connection with demand of balance amount of Rs. 50,000/- and that the accused persons threatened her to kill in respect of such demand. P.W.6 makes a specific allegation that on the day preceding 'Gamhapurnima', P.W.3 went to the house of the accused person to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- as 'Gamhapurnima Briar' but Appellant No. 2 Damayanti did not accept the said sum. On the other hand, she ill-treated the deceased in presence of P.W.3. P.W.6 makes a specific allegation that on the day preceding 'Gamhapurnima', P.W.3 went to the house of the accused person to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- as 'Gamhapurnima Briar' but Appellant No. 2 Damayanti did not accept the said sum. On the other hand, she ill-treated the deceased in presence of P.W.3. However, P.W.6 says, on the insistence of P.W.3, the Appellant No. 2 Damayanti received the said amount. It is further alleged by P.W.6 that on the next day, the deceased came to their house as Appellant No. 1 assaulted her and refused to return back saying that all the accused persons would kill her unless the balance amount of Rs. 50,000/- was paid immediately. She stayed in their house till 28.8.1997. P.W.2 who had gone to Pondichery returned back on 27.8.1997 upon which on 28.8.1997 P.W.6 along with P.W.3 took the deceased to the house of the Appellants and left her there and promised that the balance amount would be paid shortly. Soon thereafter, on 2.9.1997, the occurrence took place. P.W.6 deposes to have learnt at Bhubaneswar regarding the death of the deceased from P.W.1 over telephone and rushed back to Cuttack. He deposes to have lodged the FIR Ext. 2 after seeing the dead body of the deceased in the house of the Appellants. P.W.6 also deposes that Appellant No. 1 left the dowry motor cycle in front of their house soon after the occurrence and that in connection with the deceased's marriage, they had prepared a detail list of dowry-articles in a binding note book Ext. 8 containing 105 pages. In course of cross-examination, P.W.6 admits that in the cover of Ext. 8, it has been mentioned 'Ayusmati Arati and Ayusmana Niharankara Upahar Talika'. It is pertinent to mention that the above expression in Oriya literally means "list of gifts to the bride Arati and bridegroom Nihar". P.W.6 in his cross-examination says also that he does not remember who made the entries in Ext. 8 but says that the entries were made prior to the marriage and completed on the same day. However, he is constrained to admit that on the first page of the said note book Ext. 8, there is an entry in Oriya similar to the one extracted above which has been dated as 13.12.1996. 8 but says that the entries were made prior to the marriage and completed on the same day. However, he is constrained to admit that on the first page of the said note book Ext. 8, there is an entry in Oriya similar to the one extracted above which has been dated as 13.12.1996. There are headings of sixteen items and those headings have been mentioned in a red sketch pen but the heading of 17th item relating to 'Artha Upahara' has been made in a red dot pen in the 17th item, the contents have been left blank. P.W.6 also admits that the entry relating 'Artha Upahara' has been made in a pen different than the one with which the other entries have been made. Thus, as a piece of evidence Ext. 8 does not inspire confidence to be relied upon. That apart; the evidence of P.W.6, as referred to above, does not reveal any specific allegation against any of the Appellants and whatever specific allegations have been made against the Appellants are found to have not been made at the earliest by P.W.6 in his statement made before the investigating Officer, P.W.11. It is in the evidence of P.Ws. 6 and 11 that P.W.6 had not stated before P.W.11 that during first negotiation, Appellant No. 3 Rabindralal put forth a dowry demand of a hard cash of Rs. 2.00 lakhs, one scooter and other household articles, or that P.W.2 expressed his inability to pay the said sum of Rs. 2.00 lakhs, or that during second negotiation, the Appellant No. 3 Rabindralal demanded gold ornaments weighing 10 to 12 tolas, or that P.W.2 agreed to pay all the demanded articles along with hard cash of Rs. 1.00 lakh as dowry and promised to pay the balance amount of Rs. 50,000/- subsequent to marriage, or that it was settled that on the date of 'Nirbandha', they would pay cash of Rs. 1.00 lakh, or on 29.11.1996, P.W.6 accompanied P.W.5 to the house of the Appellants, or that Appellant No. 3 Rabindralal handed over cash of Rs. 1.00 lakh to the Appellant No. 2 Damayanti, or that on the 'Astamangala Day', the deceased came to their house and complained that all the accused persons were subjecting her to mental cruelty on the ground that all the dowry articles were of low quality and demanding the balance amount of Rs. 1.00 lakh to the Appellant No. 2 Damayanti, or that on the 'Astamangala Day', the deceased came to their house and complained that all the accused persons were subjecting her to mental cruelty on the ground that all the dowry articles were of low quality and demanding the balance amount of Rs. 50,000/-, or that on the next day, the deceased returned back to their house as Appellant No. 1 Nihar assaulted her and she did not agree to return back on the allegation that the accused persons would kill her unless the balance amount of Rs. 50,000/- was paid immediately, or that on 28.8.1997 P.W.6 along with P.W.3 took the deceased to the house of the Appellants and promised that the balance dowry amount would be paid shortly. Thus, it is evident that specific allegation for demand of dowry made against Appellant No. 3 Rabindralal and specific allegation regarding complaint of the deceased that the Appellants assaulted her as made by P.W.6 in Court had not been made by him at the earliest in course of investigation. Such vital omissions amount to material contradictions in the evidence of P.W.6. A close reading of the FIR reveals that in the FIR Ext. 2 also there is no allegation of any specific instance in which any of the Appellants in particular demanded dowry or subjected the deceased to cruelty. 18. The deceased's father P.W.2 is the next most important witness. It is in his evidence that P.W.1 told him that the Appellant Nihar was interested to marry the deceased upon which he contacted Appellant No. 3 Rabindralal over telephone and along with P.Ws. 4 and 6 went to the house of the Appellants for the first negotiation in course of which dowry demands of cash of Rs. 2.00 lakhs, gold ornaments weighing 10 tolas and furnitures were made by Appellant No. 3 Rabindralal. P.W.2 deposes to have expressed his inability to comply with the said demands. P.W.2 deposes that about ten to fifteen days after the first negotiation, on being invited by Appellant No. 3 Rabindralal, he along with P.W.6 came to the Appellants' residence for the second time. In course of the second negotiation dowry demands of cash of Rs. 1.5 lakhs, a scooter, gold ornaments and furnitures were made P.W.2 agreed to pay heard cash of Rs. In course of the second negotiation dowry demands of cash of Rs. 1.5 lakhs, a scooter, gold ornaments and furnitures were made P.W.2 agreed to pay heard cash of Rs. 1.00 lakh along with other articles on the condition that on the date of Nirbandha, hard cash of Rs. 1.00 lakh would bepaid to Appellant No. 3 Rabindralal and the balance amount of Rs. 50,000/- would be paid subsequently. Accordingly, on the date of 'Nirbandha' i.e. on 29.11.1996, a sum of Rs. 1.00 lakh is stated to have been paid to Appellant No. 3 Rabindralal. P.W.2 further alleges that after the 'Nirbandha', the accused persons demanded a Hero Honda motor cycle instead of scooter and as Hero Honda motor cycle was not available, he gave a Bajaj Kawasaki motor bike along with other articles as per their demand at the time of marriage which took place on 13.12.1996. As regards the ill-treatment of the deceased, P.W.2 deposes that on the day of 'Astamangala', the deceased came to his house and reported that the accused persons were ill-treating her and telling that all the dowry articles were not good in quality and even Appellant Nihar was ill treating her. P.W.2 further deposes that the deceased came to his house for about five to six times prior to her death and, during her visits, she reported that for want of the balance dowry amount of Rs. 50,000/-, the accused persons were ill-treating and torturing her and even threatening to kill her. The deceased came to her matrimonial house on 18.8.1997 when P.W.2 was at Pondichery on a religious tour and when he got information over telephone, he returned back. P.W.2 says that on his return on 27.8.1997, he came to know about the torture befalling upon the decased for the dowry amount of Rs. 50,000/-, and consoled and sent her back on 28.8.1997. Thus, P.W.2 also makes omnibus allegations against all the accused persons to have subjected the deceased to ill-treatment in connection with demand of dowry. In his cross-examination, P.W.2 admits that no outsider was present at the time of both the marrige negotiations and he himself was not present when the demand amount of Rs. 1.00 lakh was paid to the Appellant No. 3 Rabindralal. In his cross-examination, P.W.2 admits that no outsider was present at the time of both the marrige negotiations and he himself was not present when the demand amount of Rs. 1.00 lakh was paid to the Appellant No. 3 Rabindralal. He also admits without any explanation that he did not lodge any complaint before any authority regarding the demand of dowry after the first marriage negotiation failed, or when he came to know about the dowry torture upon the deceased. Also it has been elicited by way of cross-examination of P.Ws. 2 and 11 that P.W.2 had not stated before P.W.11 in course of investigation that P.W.1 informed him that Appellant Nihar was interested to marry the deceased upon which he contacted Appellant No. 3 Rabindralal over telephone and along with P.W.6 sent to the house of the Appellants, or that at the time of first negotitaion, P.W.4 also accompanied him to the house of the Appellants, or that on the date of 'Astamangala', the deceased came to his house and reported that the accused persons ill-treated her and told her that the all the dowry articles were not good in quality, or that upon receiving information over telephone, he returned from Pondichery and reached his residence on 27.8.1997, or that Appellant No. 3 Rabindralal called him to his residence for the second negotiation, or that after the 'Nirbandha', the accused persons demanded a Hero Honda motor cycle instead of scooter, or that Appellant No. 3 Rabindralal placed the dowry demand of gold ornaments and furniture during the second neogotiation. P.W.11 also admits that P.W.2 had not made any statement before him implicating the acquitted accused persons in connection with allegations of dowry demand and consequent torture upon the deceased. 19. The evidence of P.W.4 is also replete with contradictions and infirmities. He is found to have made an effort to develop upon his earlier version in course of deposing before the Court. It is already noted that P.W.2 had not stated before the Investigating Officer that P.W.4 accompanied P.W.6 for the first marriage negotiation. Also neither P.W.2 nor P.W.6 says that P.W.4 was present during the second negotiation. However, P.W.4 deposes to have been present on both the occasions. Thus, his version is not consistent with the versions of P.Ws. 2 and 6. P.W.4 says that Appellant No. 3 Rabindralal placed dowry demand to the tune of Rs. Also neither P.W.2 nor P.W.6 says that P.W.4 was present during the second negotiation. However, P.W.4 deposes to have been present on both the occasions. Thus, his version is not consistent with the versions of P.Ws. 2 and 6. P.W.4 says that Appellant No. 3 Rabindralal placed dowry demand to the tune of Rs. 2.00 lakhs as well as one Bajaj scooter and gold ornaments weighing ten to 12 tolas along with other household articles in course of the first negotiation itself. According to him, P.W.2 expressed his inability to meet the said demands and returned back. P.W.4 testifies that same thing happened during the second negotiation also in course of which Appellant No. 3 Rabindralal again placed the above dowry demands upon which they returned back. P.W.4 says that on the date of 'Nirbandha' only, P.W.2 called and intimated him regarding the settlement of marriage and from P.W.2 he came to know that he had promised to pay dowry demand of Rs. 1.00 lakh on that day and to pay the balance amount of Rs. 50,000/- later on. P.W.4 also says that he along with P.Ws. 5 and 6 proceeded to the Appellants' house where P.W.6 handed over Rs. 1.00 lakh to Appellant No. 3 Rabindralal. P.W.4 also makes omnibus allegations to the effect that he had met the deceased in her matrimonial house twice in course of which she told that she was assaulted by the accused persons and she was subjected to ill-treatment and cruelty in connection with the demand for the balance dowry amount. P.W.4 also deposes that the deceased expressed before him that she would be killed in case she went to the house of the accused persons. 20. Admittedly, P.W.1, the deceased's sister was not present at the time of any of the negotiations or at the lime of 'Nirbandha'. Therefore, her version regarding dowry demand in course of negotiation and payment of Rs. 1.00 lakh on 29.11.1996 is hearsay. As regards giving of dowry articles at the time of marriage, P.W.1 says that gold ornaments weighing ten tolas, one Kawasaki Bajaj motor cycle and furnitures as per the demand were given to the accused persons. Therefore, her version regarding dowry demand in course of negotiation and payment of Rs. 1.00 lakh on 29.11.1996 is hearsay. As regards giving of dowry articles at the time of marriage, P.W.1 says that gold ornaments weighing ten tolas, one Kawasaki Bajaj motor cycle and furnitures as per the demand were given to the accused persons. P.W.1 says that on the day of 'Astamangala', the deceased reported that all her in-laws' family members complained that the dowry articles were not good in quality and that she herself was black in colour and was not beautiful. P.W.1 also says that in course of five to six visits made by the deceased to their house after the marriage, she reported that the members of her in-laws' family i.e. accused persons were torturing her frequently and depriving of minimum condition of life as good, seeing T.V., telephone etc., and that Appellant Nihar disliked her and hated her, and that the accused persons demanded the remaining amount of Rs. 50,000/-, and that the Appellant Nihar had got illicit connection with his elder sister-in-law. P.W.1 also alleges that on 18.8.1997, when the deceased came to their house, she reported that due to their failure to pay the balance dowry amount of Rs. 50,000/-, the accused persons would kill her and expressed her unwillingness to return back to her matrimonial house. It is in the evidence of P.W.1 that on 2.9.1997, Appellant Nihar went to their house and reported that the deceased had closed the door from inside the bath room upon which P.W.2 rushed to the house of the accused persons. In course of P.W.1's cross-examination, it has been brought out that her father P.W.2 retired from service as a Police Inspector, P.W.6 the informant works as the Finance Manager in the OBCC, P.W.3 works as a Ranger in the Forest Department and the deceased's another brother Girija is the President of Jonson Tiles at Bangalore. It is also in her evidence that Appellant No. 3 Rabindralal is a paralysis patient and Appellant No. 2 Damayanti suffers from Asthma and that after the marriage, the entire burden of the family of the accused persons fell upon the deceased. P.W.1 categorically admits that Appellant Nihar and the deceased were in love. It has been brought out in the cross-examination of P.Ws. P.W.1 categorically admits that Appellant Nihar and the deceased were in love. It has been brought out in the cross-examination of P.Ws. 1 and 11 that P.W.1 had also not stated before P.W.11 that on the 'Astamangala day', the deceased reported that all the members of her in-laws family complained that the dowry articles were not good in quality and that she herself was black in colour and was not beautiful. 21. None says that P.W.3 was present at the time of the two negotiations when dowry demands were raised or at the time of payment of Rs. 1.00 lakh on the date of 'Nirbandha'. Hence, his evidence also on that score is hearsay. P.W.3 also makes omnibus allegation that after the marriage, the deceased reported that the accused persons were ill-treating and assaulting her and also expressed her apprehension that she would be killed by the accused persons. P.W.3 makes a specific allegation that on the 'Gamhapurnima' occasion, he went to the house of the Appellants and handed over Rs. 5000/- to Appellant No. 2 Damayanti as 'Gamhapurnima Bhar', but Appellant No. 2 Damayanti did not accept the same and, rather, ill treated the deceased in his presence. However, on his insistence, Appellant No. 2 Damayanti took the amount. P.W.3 further says that on the date of deceased's death, the dowry motor cycle was found standing in front of their house but Appellant Nihar was found absconding. It has been elicited from P.W.11 that P.W.3 had not stated before him in course of investigation that the deceased reported that the accused persons ill treated her demanding the balance dowry amount of Rs. 50,000/- and alleged that all the dowry articles were of low quality, or that Appellant No. 2 Damayanti ill treated the deceased in his presence when P.W.3 handed over Rs. 5,000/- as 'Gamhapurnima Bhar'. Though P.W.3 denies to have made any such statement before P.W.11, it has been elicited from P.W.11 that P.W.3 had stated before him that Appellant Nihar had developed relationship with the deceased, and that P.W.1 came to know about it and disclosed it before him, and that he intimated the matter to his parents who proposed the marriage, and that none of their family members raised any protest to the said marriage as the deceased and Appellant Nihar were loving each other. It is also pertinent to note that P.W.3 contradicts P.W.1 when he says that he had known that Appellant No. 3 Rabindalal was not a paralysis patient and also expresses his inability to say if Appellant No. 2 Damayanti is an old woman. 22. P.W.5, P.W.2's brother who performed 'Kanyadana' of the deceased deposes that on the date of 'Nirbandha', P.W.2 called him to his house and told him about the marriage negotiation between Appellant Nihar and the deceased and also regarding the settlement with regard to payment of dowry in shape of cash and kinds. He is a witness to payment of Rs. 1.00 lakh on the date of 'Nirbandha' to Appellant No. 3 Rabindralal. He also deposes that at the time of marriage, motor cycle, gold ornaments and other household articles were given to the groom's side. However, like the other witnesses, P.W.5 also says that the deceased used to report that the accused persons subjected her to cruelty and assault, and that the accused persons under-estimated the dowry articles. It is in the evidence of P.W.5 that the deceased was of black complexion and was not beautiful, and that Appellant No. 3 Rabindralal and Appellant No. 2 Damayanti were old and ailing persons, and that the entire household works of the Appellant's family were on the shoulder of the deceased. 23. Thus, none of the witnesses testifies that the deceased made specific allegation against any of the Appellants or acquitted accused persons in particular to have subjected her to ill-treatment or cruelty or torture in connection with demand for dowry. All of them vaguely depose that the deceased alleged against 'the accused persons' in an omnibus manner. Substantial part of assertion made by material witnesses in Court are also found to be inconsistent with their statements made before the police at the time of investigation. Though P.Ws.3 and 6 assert that the deceased made specific allegations of assault and ill-treatment against Appellant Nihar, both of them had omitted to disclose the same before P.W.11. Such evidence is liable to be ignored as being contradictory. Want of allegation of specific overt act committed by any of the Appellants renders the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 6 incapable to inspire confidence to hold beyond reasonable doubt that Appellant Nihar subjected the deceased to cruelty in connection with demand for dowry. 24. Such evidence is liable to be ignored as being contradictory. Want of allegation of specific overt act committed by any of the Appellants renders the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 6 incapable to inspire confidence to hold beyond reasonable doubt that Appellant Nihar subjected the deceased to cruelty in connection with demand for dowry. 24. In this connection, reliance is placed on Sakharam and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra (2003) 12 SCC 368 cited by the learned Counsel for the Appellants. It has been held by the Apex Court as follows: In our view, the aforesaid submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellants is well founded. There is no evidence on record that the Appellants demanded dowry or that they ill-treated their daughter-in-law who committed suicide. The evidence which is brought on record is that of Shankar (P.W.1), father of the deceased, who has vaguely stated that the accused were ill-treating his daughter for non-payment of the remaining dowry amount of Rs. 40,000/-. He has made the aforesaid statement on the basis of what his daughter Gangabai stated to him before one month of her death. There is no specific allegation made by the witness that the present Appellants were demanding dowry or were harassing his daughter. Similarly the evidence of Prabhu (P.W.2) who was the middleman, who settled the marriage of Gangabai with original accused 1 Madhav is also equally vague. He has only stated that he was meeting Gangabai and she was telling him that the accused were ill-treating her for non-payment of dowry. In cross-examination, he has stated that he met Gangabai before the birth of a daughter to Gangabai. Admittedly, Gangabai had given birth to her daughter 7 months prior to the date of incident. That would mean that this witness met Gangabai 7 to 8 months prior to the date of incident. Except the evidence of the aforesaid two witnesses, there is no other evidence brought on record by the prosecution for establishing that the present Appellants ill-treated their daughter-in-law Gangabai and were demanding dowry. On the basis of the so-called omnibus statement of these two witnesses, the Appellants cannot be convicted. For the fault of the husband, the in laws or other relatives cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. Who demanded dowry and subjected her to cruelty is required to be established. On the basis of the so-called omnibus statement of these two witnesses, the Appellants cannot be convicted. For the fault of the husband, the in laws or other relatives cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. Who demanded dowry and subjected her to cruelty is required to be established. In cases, where such accusations are made, the overt acts attributed to such persons are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. This Court in Kans Raj v. State of Punjab has specifically observed that a tendency has however developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wife in the matters of dowry death which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. (underline supplied) 25. The Appellant Nihar and the deceased were in love prior to their marriage. It has been elicited in course of cross-examination of P.W.6 that there was absolutely no transaction relating to dowry in any other marriage in their family. P.W.2 is a retired Police Inspector. P.Ws. 3 and 6 as well as the deceased's another brother Girija, as deposed to by P.W.1, are educated and well placed. P.W.4 also is an educated person having worked as Pilot Project Officer in the office of the Director of Industry, Cuttack. P.W.5 is an Audit Superintendent who worked in the office of the Director General of Police, Cuttack. Admittedly, none of the above persons ever complained before any authority regarding dowry demand raised by or cruelty on in that connection inflicted on the deceased. Such circumstance also improbabilises the vague and omnibus allegations made against the Appellants after the death Of the deceased. 26. There is also a legal constraint to accept the evidence with regard to the deceased's version of cruelty inflicted on her in connection with demand for the balance dowry amount of Rs. 50,000/- for the purpose of implicating the Appellants for commission of offences u/s 498-A IPC as well as Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In Gananath Pattnaik Vs. State of Orissa,, The Appellant was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A, IPC for allegedly subjecting his wife to cruelty and causing dowry death. 50,000/- for the purpose of implicating the Appellants for commission of offences u/s 498-A IPC as well as Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In Gananath Pattnaik Vs. State of Orissa,, The Appellant was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A, IPC for allegedly subjecting his wife to cruelty and causing dowry death. The trial Court acquitted him of the charge u/s 304-B for want of acceptable evidence but convicted him u/s 498-A. The trial Court had, on evidence, found that the Appellant-accused had taken away the child from the deceased, had disallowed her to sit on his scooter, remained frequently absent from the house and had illicit relationship with his sister-in-law. His acquittal of the charge u/s 304-B was not further challenged but his conviction u/s 498-A was, on being challenged, confirmed by the High Court. Before the Supreme Court, the Appellant contended that the said circumstances did not constitute "cruelty" for the purposes of Section 498-A. He further contended that the findings of the trial Court were not based on legal evidence. This contention involved the question whether the deposition of the deceased's sister before the trial Court that there deceased had been telling her about : (i) ill-treatment given to her by her husband and in laws for non-fulfilment of balance dowry, (ii) assaults by her husband, and (iii) taking away of the child from her etc., was admissible in evidence. It was held: The statement of the deceased's sister was taken on record with the aid of Section 32 of the Evidence Act at a time when the Appellant was being tried for the offence under 304-B and such statement was admissible u/s 32(1) as it related to the cause of death of the deceased and the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in her death. Such a statement is not admissible in evidence for the offence punishable u/s 498-A IPC and has to be termed as only to hearsay evidence. Section 32 is an exception to the hearsay rule and deals with the statements or declarations by a person, since dead, relating to the cause of his or her death or the circumstances leading to such death. Section 32 is an exception to the hearsay rule and deals with the statements or declarations by a person, since dead, relating to the cause of his or her death or the circumstances leading to such death. If a statement which otherwise is covered by the hearsay rule does not fall within the exceptions Of Section 32 of the Evidence Act, the same cannot be relied upon for finding the guilt of the accused. (para 10) It follows, therefore, that there was no legal evidence tendered in the case which could be made the basis for returning a finding with respect to the alleged cruelty of the accused with the deceased. In the absence of any legal evidence produced in the case, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove, beyond doubt, that the Appellant had committed the offence u/s 498-A, of the Indian Penal Code and find that it is a fit case where he is entitled to be given the benefit of doubt. 27. Be that as it may, as has been referred to above, the evidence of P.W.4 contradicts the versions of P.Ws. 2 and 6 that during the course of the second negotiation, there was dowry demand by Appellant No. 3 Rabindralal of cash amounting to Rs. 1.5 lakhs which was agreed to by P.W.2. According to P.W.4, in course of the second negotiation also, demand for Rs. 2.00 lakhs was made to which P.W.2 refused upon which they returned back. 28. The manner deceased's death being inconclusive, a question may arise, as is urged by the learned Counsel for the Appellants, as to, if not killed, why the deceased would commit suicide. In answering the question posed by him, learned Counsel for the Appellants suggests a probable proposition that not only the deceased family members admit that the deceased was of dark complexion and not beautiful, but also it is in the evidence, that after the marriage, the burden of the entire family of her husband including the responsibility of the old and ailing parents-in-law fell on the deceased which might have drove her to a level of intolerence. Also the contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellants that the family members of the deceased had an interest in depicting the deceased's death as murder as because the deceased had a Life Insurance Policy in respect of which her brother Girija Shankar Patnaik was a nominee cannot be lightly brushed aside. In fact, as has been stated earlier, D.W.1 who worked as Administrative Officer of the Claims Department, L.I.C. Branch Office at Cuttack deposes that after the death of the deceased, the life insurance policy amount was paid to the above said nominee. 29. In view of the above analysis of the evidence on record, we are of the considered view that not only the evidence adduced by the prosecution falls far short of proof beyond reasonable doubt in implicating Appellant Nihar with the commission of offence of dowry death under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC but also in implicating any of the Appellants for commission of offence u/s 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. We have already held that Appellant Nihar is entitled to be acquitted of the charge under u/s 302 IPC. On further analysis of the evidence on record, we further held that there is no basis for conviction of any of the Appellants for commission of offences u/s 498-A IPC as well as Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 30. Consequently, the Criminal appeal is allowed. The impugned Judgment and order of conviction and sentenced passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court II, Cuttack in Sessions Trial No. 150 of 2000 against the Appellants are set aside. It appears that Appellant Nos. 2 and 3, namely, Damayanti Kanungo and Rabindralal Kanungo were directed to be released on bail by This Court and Appellant No. 1 Nihar Ranjan Kanungo is still in custody. If that be so, Appellant No. 1 Nihar Ranjan Kanungo be set at liberty forthwith, unless his detention is required in any other case. In view of the above, the Criminal Revision stands dismissed. L. Mohapatra, J. 31. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed