JUDGMENT (1) HEARD learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State. (2) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 22-4-2002 and order of sentence dated 23-4-2002 passed by Sri V. N. Sahu, 5th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Sessions Trial Case No. 83 of 1994, by which judgment, he found the appellants guilty for the offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and he also found them guilty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years as also he found them guilty under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. However, all the sentences were directed to run concurrently. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that no double the victim lady died within one year of her marriage, but there is no evidence that she was being tortured for any demand of dowry, and as such, the conviction of the appellants under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code as also 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is bad in law and fit to be set aside. It is further submitted that none of the witnesses, who are the family members of the deceased, have supported the prosecution case and the conviction was passed on the evidences of witnesses, who are outside witnesses namely P. W. 1, Dhaneshwar Rawani and P. W. 8, Panchanand Rawani. (3) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and supported the prosecution case and submitted that although all the other witnesses have turned hostile, the evidences of P. W. 1 and P. W. 8 is sufficient to sustain the conviction of the appellants. However, in absence of evidence of doctor and I.O., he cannot say as to how the victim lady died and as to whether the evidence of the hostile witnesses were otherwise before the I.O. which has caused prejudiced to the accused. (4) AFTER hearing both the parties and after going through the evidences on record. However, in absence of evidence of doctor and I.O., he cannot say as to how the victim lady died and as to whether the evidence of the hostile witnesses were otherwise before the I.O. which has caused prejudiced to the accused. (4) AFTER hearing both the parties and after going through the evidences on record. I find that the prosecution case was started on the basis of fardbeyan given by the informant Shibu Rawani, P. W. 7 on 17-8-1989 at about 8 p.m. in the afternoon stating therein that his daughter Belia Devi was married in the last year in the 'Agahan' month with Subhash Rawani S/o Kanhai Rawani and after one month of the marriage, he went to her sasural just after 22 days of marriage, when she came back, she stated that her sasur Kanhai Rawani, husband. Subhash Rawani and mother-in-law all assaulted her and were asking her for Rs. 500/- and a motorcycle. It is stated that on 23 7-1989, the informant along with Dhane-shar Rawani. Budha Rawani and brother-in-law, Nagu Rawani along with his daughter Belia Rawani went to the house of his son-in-law where a panchayati was held and in the panchayati, it was decided that the informant would give a cash of Rs. 500/-, one Hercules cycle and wrist watch in place of motorcycle, to which, a paper was also prepared and he brought for one month time to give the Hercules cycle and Rs. 500/-. It is further stated that subsequently on 4-8-1989, he was informed by his Bhagina Permeshwar Rawani that his daughter was done to death on 2-8-1989 and they were going to burn her dead body, then, he made enquiries from his known people and came to know that the dead body of his daughter has sent for postmortem. He alleged that since he failed to give dowry within time the accused persons have caused her unnatural death by not giving food and assaulting his daughter. On the basis of said fardbeyan, police registered a case for the offence under Sections 498A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry and Prohibition Act after investigation submitted charge sheet in the case under the aforesaid sections. On the basis of said fardbeyan, police registered a case for the offence under Sections 498A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry and Prohibition Act after investigation submitted charge sheet in the case under the aforesaid sections. (5) SINCE, the case was exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the learned C. J. M., after taking cognizance committed the same to the Court of Sessions and lastly learned 5th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bokaro tried the case as aforesaid, who found the appellants guilty and convicted them thereunder. (6) IT appears that in course of trial, the prosecution has examined ten witnesses. P. W. 1 is Dhaneshwar Rawani. P. W. 2 is Satyanarayan Rawani. P. W. 3 is Ramsaran Dasandi. P. W. 4 is Ganju Rawani. P. W. 5 is Lutu Rawani. P. W. 6 is Saraswati Devi. P. W. 7 is Shibu Rawani, who is the informant in the case. P. W. 8 is Panchanand Rawani. P. W. 9 is Parvati Devi P. W. 10 is Sita Ram Mahato, who is the Ex-Mukhia. It is important to note that in course of trial, P. W. 2, P. W. 3, P. W. 4, P. W. 5 and even the informant P W.7 and also the mother of the victim, P. W. 9 all have turned hostile. P. W. 6, Saraswati Devi is a tender witness and nothing was asked from her. The only two witnesses who have supported the prosecution case were P. W. 1, Dhaneshwar Rawani and P. W.8, Panchanand Rawani. It is also important to note that I.O. of the case, who submitted charge sheet after examination of the witnesses and the doctor, who conducted postmortem examination and even the postmortem report has not been proved in the trial. (7) FROM the evidences, it appears that P. W. 1, Dhaneshwar Rawani has stated that he knows the victim girl Belia Devi, who was married to Subhash Rawani and when he came back after one year after marriage, then she stated that her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law assaulted her for not bringing watch, one thousand rupees and motorcycle as dowry. She stated this fact in the presence of him also. She stated this fact in the presence of him also. Then, he along with Shibu Rawani and Budha Rawani, who is now dead, went to the sasural of Belia Devi, where a panchayati was held in presence of his father-in-law, Kanhai Rawani and husband Subhash Rawani and settled, thereafter, they left the victim girl in her sasural within one month of panchayati Parmeshwar Rawani of village Talai came and informed that the inlaws of Belia Devi have stopped food to her and caused her death. Hearing this, her father Shibu Rawani went to village Talai and lodged a case in court. In his cross-examination, he stated at para 8 that he had gone to the house of Kanhai Rawani only once and he did not remember the date and month. He stated that apart from him, Shibu Rawani and Budha Rawani also participated in the panchayati from his side and Kanhai Rawani and his family members were present from their side. (8) IT is important to note that other witness P. W. 2, Satyanarayan Rawani stated that they do not know as to how the Belia Devi died. He was declared hostile. P. W. 3, Ramsaran Dasandi also stated that he does not know as to how Belia Devi died and he was also declared hostile. P. W. 4, Ganju Bawani was also declared hostile as he stated that he knows nothing about the death of the Belia Devi, but in his cross-examination, he stated that she died due to ailment. P. W. 5, Lutu Rawani also staled that he does not know about the occurrence and he also declared hostile, but in his cross-examination he stated that she died due to fever. P. W. 6, Saraswati Devi has tendered. In her cross- examination, nothing was asked from him. Now, it is important to discuss that P. W.7 Shibu Rawani, the informant and his wife, R W. 9, Parveti Devi, both of them have turned hostile. (9) P. W. 7, Shibu Rawani has stated in his evidence in court that after the marriage of his daughter Belia Devi in 1989, she started living with her husband and after living 2-21/2 years in her sasural, she died. He does not know as to how she died. He stated that he had gone to police station and put his thumb impression, but he does not know the contents of the same. He does not know as to how she died. He stated that he had gone to police station and put his thumb impression, but he does not know the contents of the same. He also stated that he does not know about the conduct of her inlaws with her. In his cross-examination, he denied that he gave his statement and he recorded his fardbeyan by the I.O. Even the mother of the victim lady, P. W. 9, Parveti Devi has stated that his daughter was married with the accused Subhash Rawani and after marriage, she was living with her husband at her sasural in village Ghosaldanga. She stated that her relation with her husband and in-laws was very good. However, she died as she does not know the cause of the death. She also denied that she made any statement to the police. P. W. 8, Panchanand Rawani, who has stated to be an advocate, the resident of Upper Deoghara stated that he knew Belia Devi and stated that after her marriage, she stayed happily with her in-laws and subsequently her in-laws started torturing her, which was informed to him by her father Shibu Rawani, and his Bhagina Parmeshwar Rawani stated that they were demanding motorcycle and watch, which the father of the victim girl could not give and hence they used to assault her. He also stated that a panchayat was held in the the house of Kauhai Rawani, father in law of the deceased, where Shibu Rawani stated that he will give cycle and watch, but on 4-8-1989, Parmeshwar Rawani informed him that she has been done to death and on enquiry he came to know that the dead body has been taken to the police station. Thereafter, when Shibu Rawani came, his statement was recorded by the police. He identified the signature of the informant, Shibu Rawani, heard the fardbeyan and his signature was marked as Ext. 1/1. (10) P. W. 10, Sita Ram Mahato has proved the fact that he was a co-villager and exmukhia of the village and when he was informed about the death of the Belia Devi by the accused Kanhai Ram, then, he asked him to inform the matter to police, then he along with Kanhai Rawani went to the police station, where Kanhai Rawani gave his statement and then police came and prepared the inquest report of the dead body. He also signed the same and proved his signature and that of Kanhai Rawani as Ext. 1/2 and 1/3 respectively. He also stated that on the basis of statement of Kanhai Rawani, police registered the fardbeyan which he also signed and proved his signature as Ext. 1/4 and Ext. 1/5 and stated that the U. D. Case No. 6/89 was registered at the police station. He also stated that she was suffering from Mirgi and used to fall down and then 'phen' used to come from her mouth. Thus, from the evidences discussed above, I find that although in the fardbeyan recorded by the I.O. it is stated that Shibu Rawani, the informant stated about the demand of dowry and torture on his daughter Belia Devi, but he virtually refused in court that there was any demand of dowry or torture, for which, he gave the statement before I.O. Now, in the absence of I.O., it is difficult to say as to whether this statement was made or not. From the evidences of P. W. 8, Panchanand Rawani, it is apparent that he was the creator of this fardbeyan, since, he stated in his evidence that the informant, Shibu Rawani came to him and told him about the death of his daughter and then he took him to police station and got his fardbeyan recorded, on which, Shibu Rawani put his L.T.I., only. He stated that fardbeyan was not read over by him nor he supported the statement. (11) MOREOVER although, P. W. 8, Panchanand Rawani has tried to improve the case by saying that he participated in panchayati, which was earlier held in the house of Kanhai Rawani, but it will appear from the said fardbeyan itself that the fardbeyan states that the informant Shibu Rawani had gone to police station on 23-7-1989 along with only Dhaneshwar Rawani, Budha Rawani and his brother-in-law, Nagu Rawani, and as such, admittedly this witness Panchanand Rawani, the advocate was not present in the said panchayat as stated either in the F.I.R. or in the statement of P.W. 1, Dhaneshwar Rawani. As per his knowledge with regard to demand of dowry is concerned, he has very clearly stated that he came to know about the statement of dowry from Shibu Rawani and his Bhagina Parmeshwar Rawani. Shibu Rawani has not supported this fact and Parmeshwar Rawani has not been examined by the prosecution. As per his knowledge with regard to demand of dowry is concerned, he has very clearly stated that he came to know about the statement of dowry from Shibu Rawani and his Bhagina Parmeshwar Rawani. Shibu Rawani has not supported this fact and Parmeshwar Rawani has not been examined by the prosecution. (12) IN that view of the matter conviction of the appellants only on the basis of evidence of Dhaneshwar Rawani and this advocate Panchanand Rawani, who was interested in supporting the fardbeyan, recorded by him from the mouth of Shibu Rawani. 18. But in absence of any support by the family members with regard to the demand of any dowry and the unnatural death of the victim girl, who may have died due to fever and mirgi as suggested by the defence, their conviction is not proper and the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubts and both the appellants are given the benefit of doubt and they are acquitted from the charges levelled against them. In the result, the judgment of conviction dated 22-4-2002 and order of sentence dated 23-4-2002 passed by Sri V. N. Sahu, 5th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Sessions Trial Case No. 83 of 1994 is set aside. Both the appellants are on bail and thus they are directed to be released from the bondage of their bail bonds. (13) ACCORDINGLY, this criminal appeal is allowed. Appeal allowed.