JUDGMENT : PRASHANT KUMAR, J. 1. Both the appeals arose from common judgment, therefore they are heard together and being disposed of by this judgment. 2. The appellants challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.11.2002 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, 1st Fast Track Court, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 159 of 2001 whereby and whereunder appellants were convicted under Sections 364/ 34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. 3. The case of prosecution, in short, is that on 11.09.2000 appellant Deg Lal Mahto along with co-villager came to the house of informant and asked about Bhadri Devi. However, Deglal Mahto returned when informant said that she did not come. Thereafter informant and her family members searched Bhadri Devi, but they could not succeed. It is further alleged that Bhadri Devi was always assaulted and tortured by the appellants for demand of a motorcycle and T.V. Thus, the informant suspected that after committed murder of Bhadri Devi appellants might have concealed her dead body. 4. On the basis of aforesaid information Bagodar P.S. Case No. 136 of 2000 under Sections 364/ 34 of the I.P.C. instituted and police took up investigation. After completing investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the appellants. It further appears that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih took cognizance of the offence and committed the case to the court of Sessions, as the offence under Sections 364/ 34 of the I.P.C. is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions. 5. The record further reveals that Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih vide order dated 27th July, 2001 framed and explained charge to the appellants under Sections 364/ 34 of the I.P.C. to which appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter prosecution examined altogether thirteen witnesses in support of its case. It further appears that after the close of the case of prosecution, the statements of appellants recorded u/s 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which their defence is of total denial. They also took a defence that Bhadri Devi left their house by saying that she is going to her matrimonial home, but later on she could not be found. Defence also examined one witness. D.W.-1, who deposed that six months ago, he saw Bhadri Devi at Kaswatand. He further deposed that after seeing him Bhadri Devi fled away. They also took a defence that Bhadri Devi left their house by saying that she is going to her matrimonial home, but later on she could not be found. Defence also examined one witness. D.W.-1, who deposed that six months ago, he saw Bhadri Devi at Kaswatand. He further deposed that after seeing him Bhadri Devi fled away. He stated that on query villager disclosed that she was residing in the village for last six months. However, after considering the evidences available on record, learned court below convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid. Against that, the present appeals filed. 6. While assailing the judgment of the court below, Sri P.K. Mukhopadhyay, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, submits that in the instant case there is no evidence to show that the appellants abducted Bhadri Devi. It is submitted that from perusal of deposition of all the witnesses, it is clear that they falsely implicated appellants merely on suspicion. It is further submitted that the allegation of torture and demand of dowry is an after thought with a view to implicate these appellants. He then submits that no case lodged against the appellants for demand of dowry or for torturing. Accordingly, it is submitted that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence is based on evidence, therefore, the same cannot be sustained. 7. Sri. Azimmuddin, learned Additional P.P. supports the findings of the court below and submits that all the prosecution witnesses consistently deposed that the appellants were assaulting and torturing Bhadri Devi for demand of dowry. He further submits that it has also come in evidence that occurrence took place within seven years of marriage, thus, onus is upon the appellants to show under what circumstance Bhadri Devi was missing from their house. Accordingly, it is submitted that circumstantial evidence available on record goes to show that appellants abducted Bhadri Devi with an intention to commit her murder. Thus, it is submitted that learned court below rightly convicted and sentenced appellants for the charge levelled against them. 8. Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the record of the case. P.W. -1 Hulash Prasad, P.W. -2 Man Bodhan Mahto, P.W. -3 Kedar Mahto, P.W. -4 Shudhir Prasad and P.W. -5 Shyama Lal Mahto are close relatives of P.W. -6 Bhuliya Devi (informant). 8. Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the record of the case. P.W. -1 Hulash Prasad, P.W. -2 Man Bodhan Mahto, P.W. -3 Kedar Mahto, P.W. -4 Shudhir Prasad and P.W. -5 Shyama Lal Mahto are close relatives of P.W. -6 Bhuliya Devi (informant). Aforesaid witnesses stated that on 11.09.2000, appellants Deg Lal Mahto (the husband of Bhadri Devi) came to their house and asked about Badhri Devi and after hearing the reply that she did not come, he returned. They further stated that thereafter they searched Bhadhri Devi, but could not find her, therefore, they suspect that the appellants might have killed her, because they always used to torture her for demand of dowry. Thus, from the perusal of evidence of P.W. -1 to 6, I find that only suspicion raised against the appellants. This fact is also supported by P.W. -7 and P.W. -10, who are co-villager. They have also raised suspicion against the appellants. It is worth mentioning that there is absolutely nothing to show that informant or any other person filed any case against the appellants for the alleged torture or demand of dowry. It is also not out of place to mention that up till now Bhadri Devi has not been found nor her dead body recovered. Thus, it cannot be said that she has been killed. 9. On the other hand from the perusal of statement of appellant-Deg Lal Mahto recorded u/s 313 of Cr.P.C., it appears that on the date of occurrence Bhadri Devi left his house by saying that she is going to her matrimonial home. This fact find support from the statement of P.W. -1 to 6 as they have stated that on 11.09.2000 Deg Lal Mahto came to their house and asked about reaching of Bhadri Devi. Thus, I find substance in the defence that Bhadri Devi might have gone somewhere else. Moreover, for conviction of appellants for the offence u/s 364 of the I.P.C., the prosecution is required to prove that the victim has been abducted with an intention to commit murder. There is nothing in the record to show that appellants abducted Bhadhri Devi. Moreover, it is admitted that Bhadri Devi is legally married wife of Def Lal Mahto and she was residing in his house. Under the said circumstance, question of abduction of Bhadri Devi by the appellants does not arise. 10. There is nothing in the record to show that appellants abducted Bhadhri Devi. Moreover, it is admitted that Bhadri Devi is legally married wife of Def Lal Mahto and she was residing in his house. Under the said circumstance, question of abduction of Bhadri Devi by the appellants does not arise. 10. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find that the prosecution failed to bring home the charge levelled against the appellants beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts. Accordingly, I hold that the impugned judgment of the court below suffers from serious illegality and irregularity, therefore, cannot be sustained. 11. In the result, these appeals allowed. Impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence set aside. Appellants namely Deg Lal Mahto, Rupiya Devi and Gulab Mahto are acquitted from the charges levelled against them. They are also discharged from the liabilities of the bail bonds furnished by them.