JUDGMENT Harbans Lal, J.:- This appeal is directed against the judgment/ order of sentence dated 7.3.1998 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur whereby he convicted and sentenced Gurbachan Kaur, Sarwan Singh and Satwinder Kaur to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years each under Section 304-B of IPC and further sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default of the same, the defaulter to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 498-A of IPC with a further direction that the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. Tersely put, facts of the prosecution case are that on 11.7.1992 ASI Nirmaljit Singh PW6 on receipt of a chit regarding the admission of Gurmit Kaur in Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur went to the said hospital. On his application Ex.PL, the Doctor made endorsement Ex.PL/1 that Gurmit Kaur was unfit to make statement. He returned to the Police Station. On 12.7.1992, on receipt of chit regarding Gurmit Kaur’s death, again he went there and recorded the statement of Prabh Singh, complainant brother of Gurmit Kaur deceased. He stated that he married his sister Gurmit Kaur with Iqbal Singh alias Rachhpal Singh accused, but could not give sufficient dowry at the time of marriage. One son was born to her. Thereafter, her mother-in-law Gurbachan Kaur, sisters-in-law Rani, Binder, husband Iqbal Singh, father-in-law Joginder Singh and brother-in-law Sarwan Singh started harassing her on account of less dowry. Soon thereafter, he gave one petti, (big iron box), clothes and other house-hold articles to her. About ten months later, her in-laws started harassing her. She narrated the same to him. His mother brought Gurmit Kaur to her house. After about one month, she gave birth to a female child. His brother-in-law and his father came to their house to take her back, but they refused to send her. On this, they had altercation. They visited again on 2-3 occasions for this very purpose, but she was not sent with them. Then his brother-in-law told that he had to go to Saudi Arabia and asked them to send her with him. Then she was sent with him. After about one month, Iqbal Singh went to Saudi Arabia, whereafter the members of his family again started harassing her. This fact was brought to his notice by his sister Saroj. Then his brother-in-law told that he had to go to Saudi Arabia and asked them to send her with him. Then she was sent with him. After about one month, Iqbal Singh went to Saudi Arabia, whereafter the members of his family again started harassing her. This fact was brought to his notice by his sister Saroj. After about two months, he went to her house and persuaded the accused who insulted him and put forth the demand of scooter, fan, refrigerator and television. He refused to give the same. He informed Har Bilas, Sarpanch of Village Saincha that his sister was being harassed by her in-laws. Then, he alongwith this Sarpanch went to their house and implored them not to harass her. About 9/10 days back, his brother-in-law (referring to Iqbal Singh) had written letter from abroad that they should bring back her as he did not want to keep her. On this, his mother and sister Saroj went to Village Bassi Ballo along with letter. When Gurmit Kaur was reading out the contents of such letter to her mother-in-law, the latter snatched the same from her and made a bone-fire of it, by throwing it in the chulla (hearth). They also misbehaved with his mother and sister, who prevailed upon Gurmit Kaur to stay on there. About 2-3 days back, his brother-in-law had written a letter to his (Prabh Singh) sister in which he gave threats to her. On account of such harassment as well as threatening letters written to her, she was compelled to put an end to her life. On the previous day, they came to know that the in-laws of his sister had administered some poisonous substance to her. In consequence of which she had expired. The aforesaid ASI made his endorsement and sent the statement to the Police Station Sadar, Hoshiarpur where on its basis, the formal FIR was recorded. This ASI prepared the inquest report, the rough site plan showing the place of occurrence, recorded the statements of the witnesses, got conducted autopsy on the dead body of Gurmit Kaur, arrested the accused and after completion of investigation, laid the charge-sheet in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur, who in turn, committed the case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur who entrusted the same to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur. 3. 3. On commitment, the accused were charged under Sections 498­A/304-B of IPC to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. Iqbal Singh accused was declared a proclaimed offender. 4. To bring home guilt against the accused, the prosecution has examined ASI Balbir Singh PW1, Dr. Rajiv Gupta PW2, Dr. Inderjit Singh Ahuja PW3, Prabh Singh complainant PW4, Ram Piari mother of the deceased (PW5), ASI Nirmaljit Singh PW6 and closed the evidence by tendering into evidence the affidavits Ex.PA of MHC Gurdial Singh, Ex.PB of Constable Jaswinder Singh and Ex.PC of SPO Ashok Kumar. 5. When examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, all the accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against them and pleaded innocence. Joginder Singh and Gurbachan Kaur accused came up with the plea that Gurmit Kaur was living separately from them. They were not present in the house; when she fell sick. Their elder son Hardev Singh alongwith his wife Surinder Kaur took her to Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur, from where she was referred to CMC Hospital, Ludhiana in the Ambulance, but she expired on the way. They own tractor, motor-cycle, scooter and television. It was only a dispute between the husband and wife and not with regards to dowry. Satwinder Kaur accused has put forth that she is studying at Hoshiarpur. Her sister-in­ law (referring to Gurmit Kaur) was living separately in the village. She (Satwinder Kaur) used to live at the residence of her relation Gopal Singh DSP (retired) Tagore Nagar, Hoshiarpur. Even on the day of occurrence, she was not in the village. In the evening, she came to know about the death and then she went there. Later on, she was falsely implicated. Avtar Kaur accused has set forth that she is married to Surjit Singh of Village Kalra near Bhogpur, District Jallandhar since 1986. She had never maltreated nor she was present on the day of alleged occurrence. She came to the village only on receipt of message of Gurmit Kaur’s death. Sarwan Singh accused has come up with the plea that Gurmit Kaur was living separately. On the day of alleged occurrence, he was present at village Sherpur from where he was called and then he had gone to the hospital. He had deposited the ambulance charges. She came to the village only on receipt of message of Gurmit Kaur’s death. Sarwan Singh accused has come up with the plea that Gurmit Kaur was living separately. On the day of alleged occurrence, he was present at village Sherpur from where he was called and then he had gone to the hospital. He had deposited the ambulance charges. In order to save Gurmit Kaur’s life, he along with his father and brother took her to CMC on the advice of the Doctor, but on the way she died. There might be some dispute between husband and wife on account of some misunderstanding. In their defence, they examined Kulwant Singh Accountant DW1, Bakhshish Singh Driver DW2, Harbilas Singh DW3, Surinder Kumar DW4, Avtar Singh DW5, Sarwan Singh DW6, Harbhajan Singh Inspector DW7 and closed their defence evidence. 6. After hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, the learned defence counsel and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as noticed at the outset. Feeling aggrieved with their conviction/sentence, they have preferred this appeal. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. 8. Mr. Sandeep Mann, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants, emphatically argued that there is no luculent evidence to the effect that the appellants in anyway had ill-treated the deceased soon before her death and in the absence of such evidence, the learned trial Court has gravely erred in recording conviction under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC. He had been emphatic in the course of arguments that Iqbal Singh (Proclaimed Offender) on his having surrendered in the Court was separately tried, which culminated in his acquittal vide Annexure A.1, the copy of the judgment dated 13.12.2006 delivered by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur. During his trial, Prabh Singh, the author of the FIR while appearing as PW 1 testified that no demand for dowry articles was ever raised by the in-laws, family of Gurmit Kaur and he never received any letter of Iqbal Singh after he went abroad. This evidence is in sharp contradiction with the stand taken by him while deposing at the trial of the present appellants. Thus obviously, he has blown hot and cold in the same breath. 9. To tide over these submissions, Mr. This evidence is in sharp contradiction with the stand taken by him while deposing at the trial of the present appellants. Thus obviously, he has blown hot and cold in the same breath. 9. To tide over these submissions, Mr. T.S. Salana, DAG, Punjab maintained that there is cogent evidence leading to prove the charges framed against the appellants. 10. I have well considered the rival contentions. Prabh Singh PW4 has stated in the following terms:­ “The marriage of my sister Gurmit Kaur was performed in the year of 1988-89 with Iqbal Singh, who is residing in foreign country. Joginder Singh accused is the father of Iqbal Singh. Gurbachan Kaur accused is mother of Iqbal Singh, whereas Sarwan Singh is his brother and Satwinder Kaur and Avtar Kaur are the sisters of Iqbal Singh. All the accused are residents of Bullo Di Bassi. After one year from the marriage, my sister gave birth to a son. After the birth of male child, the accused started demanding dowry. After the birth of a son, we gave one Petti, some clothes and some utensils. The behaviour of the accused remained good for 3 or 4 months. Again, they started demanding washing machine, scooter and television. I did not meet the demands of the accused. I brought my sister to my village. When my sister was in my village, she gave birth to a female child. Joginder Singh alongwith other persons as well as the husband of my sister came to our village for 4/5 times, but we did not agree to send her to the matrimonial house. Joginder Singh accused stated that his son Iqbal Singh wanted to go abroad to Saudi Arabia and requested us to send my sister. I did not send my sister alongwith them. I consulted my mother Ram Piari that if the husband of my sister went abroad then the condition of the house would become good. The husband of my sister Iqbal Singh came to my village. We sent Gurmit Kaur my sister with him. After one month, my sister’s husband went to abroad. All the accused used to maltreat my sister in the absence of her husband. I went to the house of the accused and requested them not to harass my sister. The husband of my sister Iqbal Singh came to my village. We sent Gurmit Kaur my sister with him. After one month, my sister’s husband went to abroad. All the accused used to maltreat my sister in the absence of her husband. I went to the house of the accused and requested them not to harass my sister. I called Sarpanch of the village namely Harbilas Singh to the house of the accused when Chhinda elder brother of Iqbal Singh was present in the house alongwith Joginder Singh accused. Sarpanch and brother of Iqbal Singh gave the surety that accused will not harass Gurmit Kaur in future. Again accused started harassing my sister Gurmit Kaur. I brought my sister to my house for three days. My elder sister Saroj used to visit the house of the accused. Sarwan Singh accused in my absence came to village and took my sister back to the matrimonial house. After some days, I received a letter of Iqbal Singh from abroad, that since I am convening a panchayat, therefore, he does not want to keep Gurmit Kaur and I was asked to take her back to my village. My mother Ram Piari and my elder sister Saroj went to the village of the accused alongwith the said letter. The said letter was shown to my sister and the same was torn by the accused. The abovementioned facts were revealed to me by my mother and sister. When the letter was torn, this fact was not disclosed by my mother and my sister to me. My mother and my sister were turned out of the house by the accused after giving push. On the third day, after the coming of my sister and my mother, I came to know that my sister Gurmit Kaur consumed some substances and she is admitted in Hospital. My sister Gurmit Kaur wanted to accompany to my mother and sister to our village, but all the accused stopped her forcibly not to accompany my mother and sister to our village. Due to this reason, she consumed some substance.” Ram Piari PW5 has stated in the following terms:­ “Gurmeet Kaur deceased was my daughter. She was married with Iqbal Singh accused in 1989, who is P.O. Joginder Singh is the father-in-law of my daughter and Gurbachan Kaur is the mother-in-law of my deceased daughter. Sarwan Singh is Devar of my daughter. Due to this reason, she consumed some substance.” Ram Piari PW5 has stated in the following terms:­ “Gurmeet Kaur deceased was my daughter. She was married with Iqbal Singh accused in 1989, who is P.O. Joginder Singh is the father-in-law of my daughter and Gurbachan Kaur is the mother-in-law of my deceased daughter. Sarwan Singh is Devar of my daughter. Satwinder Kaur and Avtar Kaur are the real sisters of my son-in-law. All the accused are residents of Ballo Di Bassi. After one year from the marriage, my daughter gave a birth to a son. No dowry was given at the time of marriage. At the time of birth of the son, after one year from the marriage, the accused used to demand dowry. At the time of birth of the child to my deceased daughter, we gave one Peti, two beddings and some utensils. After the birth of the male child, the behaviour of the accused remained good for some time, but again they started demanding television, Scooter and Washing Machine. As we were poor, we could not fulfil their demand. I used to ask to my daughter now deceased to stay in her inlaws’ house. My daughter Gurmeet Kaur gave birth to a female child in our house. Gurbachan Kaur and Binder, mother and sister of Iqbal Singh, came to see the newly born child and to my daughter. They requested me to send Gurmeet Kaur deceased, to her inlaws house. I replied that till the matter is settled about the harassment, I will not send Gurmeet Kaur to her inlaws house. Again Joginder Singh father-in-law of my daughter came alone to our house. He came twice or thrice and requested to send Gurmeet Kaur as his son Iqbal Singh wanted to go abroad to Saudi Arabia. After 1½ month, we sent Gurmeet Kaur to her inlaws house. Iqbal Singh went abroad. After one month from sending Gurmeet Kaur to her inlaws house, all the accused present in court again started harassing her for bringing more dowry. I went to the house of the accused, where all the accused were present. I was all alone. I persuaded all the accused not to harass my daughter. I said to the accused that I would bring the Sarpanch of village Sainchain namely Hardial Singh to the house of the accused for settlement. I went to the house of the accused, where all the accused were present. I was all alone. I persuaded all the accused not to harass my daughter. I said to the accused that I would bring the Sarpanch of village Sainchain namely Hardial Singh to the house of the accused for settlement. Iqbal Singh, my son-in-law wrote a letter to my daughter in her inlaws house. I alongwith my daughter Saroj went to the house of my daughter Gurmeet Kaur. Again said, the letter of my son-in-law was received in our house. I and my daughter Saroj took the said letter to the house of the accused and asked my daughter Gurmeet Kaur to read the said letter. Immediately, it was reported by Gurmeet Kaur to her mother­ in-law that what type of letter was written by her husband. It is also stated that what was written against my brother. I do not know other thing which was mentioned in the letter. Gurbachan Kaur snatched the letter and put the same in the burning hearth. Both the sisters of Iqbal Singh gave the beating to my daughter Gurmeet Kaur and took my daughter Gurmeet Kaur in side. I requested them not to beat the deceased, but they also pushed me. Sarwan accused immediately went inside and brought Pistol and gun and threatened us to teach a lesson. I and my daughter Saroj returned to our village. On the third day, I do not know what poisonous substance was given to my daughter Gurmeet Kaur. I came to know that she was admitted in the Civil Hospital for the treatment and my daughter Gurmeet Kaur died about three years back. I do not know if my statement was recorded by the police.” 11. In the light of the above-mentioned evidence, the question which arises for consideration is as to whether a case under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code can be said to have been made out. I do not know if my statement was recorded by the police.” 11. In the light of the above-mentioned evidence, the question which arises for consideration is as to whether a case under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code can be said to have been made out. Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code reads as under:­ “304-B. Dowry death.- (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called “dowry death”, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Explanation. - For the purpose of this sub-section, “dowry” shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961). (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.” 12. A legal fiction has been created in the said provision to the effect that in the event it is established that soon before the death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any of his relative; for or in connection with any demand of dowry, such death shall be called “dowry death”, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. The Parliament has also inserted Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act by Act No.43 of 1986 with effect from 1.5.1986, which reads as under:­ “113-B- Presumption as to dowry death. - When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death. Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, “dowry death”, shall have the same meaning as in section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).” 13. Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, “dowry death”, shall have the same meaning as in section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).” 13. From a conjoint reading of Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, it will be apparent that a presumption arising thereunder will operate if the prosecution is able to establish the circumstances as set out in Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. 14. The ingredients of the aforementioned provisions are: (1) That the death of the woman was caused by any burns or bodily injury or in some circumstances which is not normal; (2) Such death occurs within 7 years from the date of her marriage; (3) That the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; (4) Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry; and (5) is established that such cruelty and harassment was made soon before her death. 15. To be noticed herein is as to whether the alleged cruelty or harassment was caused soon before the death of Gurmit Kaur. To define “soon before death” no definite period has been indicated in Section 304-B of IPC. In other words, this expression is not defined. A reference to the expression “soon before” used in Section 114, Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act is relevant. It lays down that a Court may presume that a man who is in the possession of goods, “soon after the theft, is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen unless he can account for their possession”. The determination of the period which can come within the term “soon before” is left to be determined by the Courts, depending upon facts and circumstances of each case. Suffice, however, to indicate that the expression “soon before”, would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the cruelty or harassment concerned and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death concerned. Suffice, however, to indicate that the expression “soon before”, would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the cruelty or harassment concerned and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death concerned. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb the mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence, as ruled by the Apex Court in re: Hira Lal and others v. State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi. 2003(3) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 830. Soon before death cannot be construed as immediate. To prove demand of dowry, statements of father, mother and brother of deceased are relevant and reliable and not the statements of witnesses who are beyond the close degree. A study in depth of Prabh Singh’s statement would reveal that he has nowhere stated as to how many months or days before this occurrence the demand of the alleged articles as dowry was made by the appellants. He has spilled the beans by deposing that “my sister Gurmit Kaur wanted to accompany my mother and sister to our village, but all the accused stopped her forcibly not to accompany my mother and sister to our village. Due to this reason, she consumed some substance.” The reasonable interpretation which can be put on this evidence is that there is no nexus between her death and the alleged dowry related harassment. As surfaces in Prabh Singh’s cross-examination “ I had stated to the Police while making my statement that accused demanded washing machine, television and scooter after 3/4 months of the birth of son.” When he was confronted with his police statement Ex.PM, it was found that the same was silent about this specific period. Thus, it tends to show that he has materially improved upon the factum of period. It is in his further cross­examination that “I had stated before the police that I called a Sarpanch. Sarpanch and Juneja appeared on behalf of the accused that they will not harass my sister Gurmit Kaur.” When this witness was confronted with statement Ex.PM, this fact was not found recorded therein. Again it amounts to material improvement. It is in his further cross­examination that “I had stated before the police that I called a Sarpanch. Sarpanch and Juneja appeared on behalf of the accused that they will not harass my sister Gurmit Kaur.” When this witness was confronted with statement Ex.PM, this fact was not found recorded therein. Again it amounts to material improvement. It is in his further cross-examination that “I had stated before the police while making my statement Ex.PM that my sister Saroj and my mother Ram Piari were pushed out of the house by the accused.” On being confronted with Ex.PM, this fact was not found recorded therein. Again this is an improvement. It is also in his cross­ examination that “I never gave any application before my Panchayat or before the Panchayat of the accused regarding the maltreatment of my sister Gurmit Kaur. It is correct that the house of the accused is in the Village Abadi.” If maltreatment was being meted out to the deceased by the appellant, in that, in the common course of human conduct, Prabh Singh or his mother or other relatives would have complained against the appellants to the Panchayat of their village or the police. As per this evidence, Prabh Singh did not move any such application to either Panchayat. Ram Piari PW5 mother of the deceased has testified in unequivocal terms that no dowry was given at the time of marriage. Prabh Singh (sic.) under the stress of cross-examination has admitted in categoric terms that Joginder Singh accused i.e., father of husband of the deceased is owner of a tractor bearing registration No.PBH-1195. It implies that the appellants were well off. If it was so, could it be expected of the appellants to clamour for washing machine, scooter, television from the complainant party. Its answer must be in the negative. The version with regards to the demand of dowry appears to be a pack of lies. To put it differently, Prabh Singh as well as Ram Piari PWs have lied on this aspect. Its answer must be in the negative. The version with regards to the demand of dowry appears to be a pack of lies. To put it differently, Prabh Singh as well as Ram Piari PWs have lied on this aspect. Ram Piari (sic.) lets the cat out of bag by deposing in her cross-examination that “all the statement made by me today in the Court is tutored by Sub-Inspector outside the Court today.” It is explicit from this piece of evidence that as a matter of fact, her testimony was not of her own rather she vomited whatsoever was tutored to her by the Police Officer. She further went on to say in her cross-examination that “I did not state anything before the police at that time. I did not make any statement before the police about any incident regarding the death of Gurmit Kaur.” On appreciating this much evidence, it turns out that she did not make any statement with regards to this occurrence before the police. It is in her further cross-examination that “I did not move any application before the Panchayat of either village or before the higher authority, when my daughter was given beatings by the sisters of Iqbal and we were threatened by Sarwan Singh with revolver and gun.” If the deceased had been beaten up by the sisters, i.e., the accused, by all probabilities, the incidence would have been reported to the Panchayats of respective villages or the Police. Annexure A.l, the copy of the judgment dated 13.12.2006 rendered by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge Hoshiarpur brings out that Iqbal Singh co-accused, a proclaimed offender, who was subsequently tried has been acquitted. It is worth pointing out here that the original record of Sessions Case RBT No.3 of 18.2.2006 which ultimately resulted in acquittal of Iqbal Singh has also been summoned. In Annexure A2, the copy of his statement dated 18.5.2006, Prabh Singh (sic.) has. deposed that “the relations of in-laws family of my sister remained cordial even after the said delivery of child and Gurmit Kaur had been residing at her in-laws house. No demand for dowry articles was ever raised by the inlaws’ family of Gurmit Kaur. I never received any letter of Iqbal Singh after he went abroad.“ He was declared hostile. deposed that “the relations of in-laws family of my sister remained cordial even after the said delivery of child and Gurmit Kaur had been residing at her in-laws house. No demand for dowry articles was ever raised by the inlaws’ family of Gurmit Kaur. I never received any letter of Iqbal Singh after he went abroad.“ He was declared hostile. When cross-examined by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, he deposed by volunteering that “I never made that part of statement regarding the writing of letter and taking off the same by my mother and sister to Gurmit Kaur and had been reading the same to her mother-in-law at the asking of police who stated that the case will get stronger only if I stated so.” It is in his further cross-examination that “I also stated to the police that the inlaws family of Gurmit Kaur administered her some poisonous substance. I, however, stated the said factum of second letter having been written by Iqbal Singh to my sister containing the threat or having brought inadequate dowry at the asking of police, who stated that case would become stronger only if I stated in that manner.” It is discernible from this evidence that this witness took different stands in both the trials having arisen out of the same FIR. Papably, he has maintained double standards. As per FIR as well as Ram Piari’s statement, some poisonous substance was statedly administered to the deceased by the accused, though Prabh Singh (sic.) deposed at the trial of present appellants that she, herself had swallowed some poisonous substance. That being so, it would not be free from risk to rely upon the evidence of Prabh Singh or his mother, which too does not find corroboration from any independent source. 16. There being no nexus between the death and the alleged dowry related harassment, the prosecution edifice collapses like a house of cards. As a sequel of the above discussion, this appeal is accepted, setting aside the impugned judgment/order of sentence. The appellants are hereby acquitted forthwith of the charged offences. ------------------