JUDGMENT S.K. SHARMA, J.:- The sole appellant Atul Mandal has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 7.7.1993 passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Banka in Sessions Trial No. 84 of 1991/T.R. No. 25 of 1993 whereby he was found guilty for the offence committed under section 498A of the IPC and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. 2. On the fardbeyan of Puna Devi (PW 3) the case was registered under sections 302/328/34 of the Indian Penal Code against this appellant as well as against his parents. She in her fardbeyan which was recorded at hospital alleged that her daughter Ragani Devi was married with the appellant 6-7 years earlier. After marriage she started living with her husband. Out of that wedlock two children were born. Five to six months prior to the occurrence the informant's son-in-law namely the appellant performed another marriage and started assaulting and abusing his wife. On account of that she came to her mother's house. About one and half months prior to the occurrence Amin Mandal, namely, the father of the appellant came to the house of PW 3 and told that her daughter will get proper treatment and on this assurance she allowed her daughter to go. Later on she was administered poison and the informant heard news that her daughter was vomiting and was brought to hospital for treatment. The informant went to the hospital and came to know that her daughter was already dead. The FIR was registered against the appellant and his parents. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted under sections 498A, 3048/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges under sections 3048/34 and 498A were explained to the appellant as well to his parents. They pleaded their innocence and preferred to face trial. The defence of the appellant was of false implication and that the informant's daughter died on account of pain; in her stomach for which she was properly treated. 3. In order to prove its charge the prosecution has examined altogether 7 witnessed. They pleaded their innocence and preferred to face trial. The defence of the appellant was of false implication and that the informant's daughter died on account of pain; in her stomach for which she was properly treated. 3. In order to prove its charge the prosecution has examined altogether 7 witnessed. PW 1 Shyam Sunder Mandal is the brother of the deceased Ragani, PW 2 Jai Prakash Mandal is maternal uncle of Ragani, PW 3 Puno Devi is the mother of the deceased and she is the informant PW 4 Dhano Devi, PW 5 Sumitra Devi, PW 6 Kishori Mandai have been tendered. FW 7 Krishna Deo Prasad Singh has proved the fard beyan and the formal FIR. Signature on the inquest report has been exhibited as Ext.-1. FIR has been exhibited as Ext.-2. Fardbeyan and the post mortem report have been exhibited as Exts.-3 and 4 respectively. 4. The informant is the most important witness. She in her evidence has stated that Ragani was married with Atul Mandal (Appellant) and she died in Dhuraiya Hospital. She in her examination-in-chief has stated that she was now known as to .how her daughter died. This witness has been declared hostile and she has denied any suggestions of the prosecution that she has made any statement before the police implicating any of the accused person. PW 2 is the witness of inquest report and has stated ignorance about the occurrence. PW 1 has also not supported any part of the occurrence and he has been declared hostile. 5. This is a case in which there is no evidence at all has been gathered. The court has unnecessarily dragged the accused persons upto the stage of judgment. It was the case when the court should have been acquitted the accused persons under section 232 of the Cr.P.C. itself. In view of the fact that this is a case of no evidence judgment of conviction and sentence of the court is set aside and this appeal is allowed. The appellant is discharged from the liabilities of his bail bonds.