C. R. Sarma, J.;- This appeal is directed against the judg­ment and order, dated 25.06.2003, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Darrang, Mangaldai, in Sessions Case No. 73 (DMFT) 2002. By the impugned judgment and order aforesaid, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 498(A) IPC and sentenced each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, suffer another period of rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the appellants have come up with this appeal. 3. I have heard Mr. N. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. B. B. Gogoi, learned Addl. Public Prosecu­tor, appearing on behalf of the State-respond­ent. 4. The prosecution case, as revealed at the trial, in brief, may be stated as follows:- Smti. Chandana Ghosh (hereinafter called 'the deceased'), who was the daughter of Sri Khudiram Ghosh (PW. 1) and Smti. Kalpana Ghosh (PW. 2), was given in marriage with the appellant No. 1, namely, Sri Nitya Ghosh. At the time of the said marriage, it was settled that an amount of Rs.60,000/-, including some articles would have to be given to the bride-groom and accordingly the parents of the deceased had given her ornaments and some articles valued at Rs.50,000/-. The re­maining amount of Rs. 10,000/- was required to be paid subsequently. Accordingly, the marriage was performed, but after the mar­riage, her husband and members of his family used to treat her with cruelty, both mentally and physically, demanding the remaining amount of dowry. Being unable to bear the torture, at the hands of the appellants and the members of her in-laws' family, the deceased, on 22.03.2002, committed suicide by con­suming poison. On being informed about the said incident, the parents of the deceased rushed to the marital house of the deceased and found her dead. Accordingly, the father of the deceased i.e. PW. 1 lodged the FIR with the Officer-in-charge, Mangaldoi Police Station, which was registered as Mangaldoi P. S. Case No. 78/02, under Sections 498(A)/304(B) of IPC. After receipt of the said FIR, police launched investigation into the matter, got the autopsy done in respect of the dead body of the deceased and recorded the statement of the witnesses. 5. 1 lodged the FIR with the Officer-in-charge, Mangaldoi Police Station, which was registered as Mangaldoi P. S. Case No. 78/02, under Sections 498(A)/304(B) of IPC. After receipt of the said FIR, police launched investigation into the matter, got the autopsy done in respect of the dead body of the deceased and recorded the statement of the witnesses. 5. At the close of the investigation, police submitted chargesheet against the appellants along with Sri Madhab Ghosh and Smti. Kalpana Ghosh for the offences under Sec­tions 498(A)/306 IPC and forwarded them to the Court to stand trial. 6. The offence, under Section 306 IPC, being exclusively triable by the Court of Ses­sions, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, framed charges against the said accused per­sons under Sections 498(A)/306 IPC. The charge was explained and read over to the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses including the Medical Officer, who performed the autopsy and the Investigating Police Officer. 8. At the close of evidence for the pros­ecution, the accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr. P. C. They denied the allegations and examined two witnesses in support of their plea of innocence. 9. Considering the evidence on record, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, acquitted Sri Madhab Ghosh and Smti. Kalpana Ghosh, for want of sufficient evidence. The appellants were also acquitted of the charge under Section 306 IPC for want of evidence. However, the learned Addl. Ses­sions Judge, convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 498(A) IPC and sen­tenced them as indicated above. 10. Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel, appearing for the appellants, has submitted that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt, by adducing cogent and reliable evidence and that the learned trial Judge committed error by recording the conviction and sentence without suffi­cient evidence on record. It is also submitted that there is no substantive evidence to be­lieve that the appellants treated the deceased with cruelty, either physically or mentally and that the prosecution failed to state the mate­rial particulars regarding the alleged cruelty/ torture. In view of the above, it is submitted, on behalf of the appellants, that the impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside and quashed. 11. In view of the above, it is submitted, on behalf of the appellants, that the impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside and quashed. 11. Supporting the impugned judgment and order, rendered by the learned trial Judge, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State-respondent, has submitted that the prosecution could establish its case by adducing sufficient evidence and that the learned trial Judge committed no error by convicting and sentencing the appellants as indicated above. 12. In view of the rival submissions, ad­vanced by the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the parties and in order to appreci­ate the evidence on record, 1 feel it appropriate to briefly, recapitulate the evidence on record as follows:- 13. Ext. 1 is the FIR lodged by the father of the deceased. The father of the deceased, who deposed as PW. 1, has also exhibited his signature as Ext. 1/1. In the FIR afore­said, it was stated that, for the last one year, the accused persons used to torture and as­sault the deceased, demanding her to bring money from her parents. In the FIR, it was also stated by the said informant i.e. the fa­ther of the deceased that, on 22.03.2003, he came to know that his daughter died in the Gauhati Medical College Hospital. PW. 1, in his FIR, further stated that his daughter was killed by the members of her in-laws family by forcefully administering poison. In the FIR aforesaid, no specific mention was made regarding the amount of dowry claimed by the appellants. The informant simply alleged that the members of the in-laws of the deceased used to torture her demanding her to bring money from her parents. In his evidence given as PW. 1, the father of the deceased, stated that at the time of negotiation of the marriage, he agreed to pay an amount of Rs.60,000/-to the bride-groom and, accordingly, an amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid to the hus­band of the deceased. He further stated that the husband of the deceased and the other members of his family used to torture the de­ceased due to her failure to bring the remain­ing amount of Rs. 10,000/- from her parents. According to the P W. 1, about 8 months prior to the occurrence, the deceased went to her parents house and informed about the ill treat­ment caused by her husband and other mem­bers of his family. 10,000/- from her parents. According to the P W. 1, about 8 months prior to the occurrence, the deceased went to her parents house and informed about the ill treat­ment caused by her husband and other mem­bers of his family. PW. 1 further stated that he brought his daughter to her marital home about 8 months ago and thereafter he came to know that his daughter had fallen ill. Ac­cordingly, on being so informed, he rushed to the marital home of the deceased and came to know that she had died. This witness stated that he had no information as to whether the deceased had consumed poison herself or poison was administered to her. In his cross-examination, PW. 1 stated that, at the time of giving statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C. before the police, he did not tell the police regarding payment of Rs.50,000/- and the demand regarding balance amount of Rs. 10,000/-. PW. 1 also stated that he had informed Sri Mantu Saha, Sakti Saha (DW. 1) and Gayanath Biswas (DW. 2), about the torture committed on his daughter. From the evidence of this witness, it is found that he made the statement, regarding the demand of Rs.60,000/- and payment of Rs.50,000/-, leaving a balance of Rs. 10,000/-, for the first time in the Court at the time of giving evidence. He neither disclosed this matter at the time of lodging the FIR, nor did he make any such statement before the po­lice. That apart, his statements that the bride­groom had demanded Rs.60,000/- and that he had given Rs.50,000/-, keeping a balance of Rs. 10,000/-, have not been supported by the PW. 5, DW. 1 and DW. 2, who were also present at the time of negotiating the marriage. 14. Smti. Kalpana Ghosh, the mother of the deceased, who deposed as PW. 2, stated that, on being demanded by the bride-groom of her deceased daughter, they had paid dowry keeping a balance of Rs. 10,000/- and due to failure to pay the said remaining amount of Rs. 10,000/-, the appellants used to torture her daughter. She further stated that the deceased was once assaulted by the appellants in presence of her brother-in-law i.e. the husband of her elder sister and that once, the appellant No. 2 i.e. Sri Sanjib Ghosh had grabbed her in the bed with ill intention. In her cross-examination, PW. 10,000/-, the appellants used to torture her daughter. She further stated that the deceased was once assaulted by the appellants in presence of her brother-in-law i.e. the husband of her elder sister and that once, the appellant No. 2 i.e. Sri Sanjib Ghosh had grabbed her in the bed with ill intention. In her cross-examination, PW. 2 denied the suggestion that she did not tell the police at the time of recording her statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C. regarding the demand of Rs. 10,000/- by the appellants. Though PW. 2 stated regarding the assault caused to the deceased by the appellants, PW. 1 i.e. the husband of PW. 2 did not whisper anything in this regard. In view of the above, I find no corroboration in the evidence of PW. 2 to believe her statement regarding the said physical assault. Even the prosecution did not examine the said brother-in-law of the deceased, in whose presence, the deceased was alleged to have been assaulted. 15. Sri Ranendra Ghosh, who deposed as PW. 3, stated that his daughter and the deceased used to study together in the School and that he was present at the time of nego­tiation of the marriage. Supporting the evi­dence of PWs. 1 and 2, PW. 3 stated that at the time of negotiation of the marriage, the appellants had demanded Rs.60,000/- and, accordingly, the amount was paid keeping a balance of Rs. 10,000/-. He further stated that due to failure, on the part of the parents of the deceased to pay the said remaining amount, the appellants used to torture the deceased. 16. Carefully perusing the evidence of PW. 3, it is found that, he had no personal knowledge about the alleged torture and ill treat­ment meted out to the deceased. He came to know from his daughter, to whom the de­ceased had disclosed about the ill treatment meted out to her. The said daughter of PW.3 has not been examined in this case. In view of the above, the evidence of PW. 3, being hearsay evidence, lacks sufficient force to inspire confidence. The evidence of PWs. 1, 2 and 3, regarding the demand of Rs.60,000/- made by the appellants and payment of the said amount keeping a balance of Rs. 10,000/- stood belied by the evidence of PW. In view of the above, the evidence of PW. 3, being hearsay evidence, lacks sufficient force to inspire confidence. The evidence of PWs. 1, 2 and 3, regarding the demand of Rs.60,000/- made by the appellants and payment of the said amount keeping a balance of Rs. 10,000/- stood belied by the evidence of PW. 5, who was also present at the time of the negotiation of the said marriage between the deceased and the appellant No. 1 i.e. Sri Nitya Ghosh. 17. Sri Nagendra Ghosh, who deposed as PW. 5, in his evidence, clearly stated that at the time of negotiation of the marriage be­tween the said couple, he was present along with Sri Saktipada Saha (DW. 1) and oth­ers. He stated that at the time of settlement of the marriage, the parents of the deceased expressed their inability to make any payment and that the bride-groom party also did not demand anything from the parents of the deceased. In his cross-examination, this witness stated that the bride-groom agreed to bear the entire expense of the marriage and that he did not demand any dowry from the parents of the deceased. 18. The evidence of PW. 5 has been duly corroborated and supported by Sri Saktipada Saha (D W. 1), who was present at the time of negotiation of the marriage. 19. DW. 1, Sri Saktipada Saha denied the suggestion put to him by the prosecution that the bride-groom had demanded Rs.60,000/- from the parents of the deceased. This witness stated that, at the time of settling the marriage between the deceased and the appellant No. 1, the appellants made no demand regarding any dowry or any other articles. 20. Sri Gayanath Biswas, who was also present at the time of negotiation of the said marriage, deposed as DW. 2. In tune with the evidence of PW. 5 and DW. 1, this wit­ness stated that no dowry demand was made by the appellants at the time of the marriage. According to DWs. 1 and 2, they used to visit the marital house of the deceased and at no point of time, either the deceased or the parents of the deceased had made any complaint to them regarding ill treatment meted out to the deceased by the appellants. 21. Carefully scrutinizing the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3 on the one hand and the evi­dence of PW. 5, DW. 21. Carefully scrutinizing the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3 on the one hand and the evi­dence of PW. 5, DW. 1 and DW. 2 on the other hand, it is found that PW. 5, DW. 1 and DW. 2 contradicted the evidence of the PWs. 1,2 and 3, regarding the allegation of dowry demand and torture. The failure of the inform­ant i.e. PW. 1 failed to make any disclosure regarding such dowry demand and material particulars regarding ill treatment in the FIR, lodged by him, raises doubt about the verac­ity of the prosecution version. That apart, from the evidence of PWs. 1,2 and 3, it is found that they did not make such disclosure at the initial stage i.e. at the time of making state­ment before the police. It transpires that the said three witnesses, for the first time, made statements regarding dowry demand in the Court. Therefore, possibility of improving the prosecution story can't be ruled out. This sus­picion has been fortified by the contradictory evidence given by the PW. 5, DW. 1 and DW. 2. 22. In the light of the above discussions, it is quite doubtful as to whether the appellants had demanded any money from the parents of the deceased. 23. PWs. 1 and 2 i.e. the parents of the deceased, stated that their daughter, during her visit to their house, had informed that she was ill treated and tortured by her husband and the members of his family, demanding her to bring the remaining amount of dowry i.e. Rs. 10,000/- from her parents. Except using the word 'torture' or 'ill treatment', the said witnesses failed to specifically state the ma­terial particulars i.e. the nature, gravity and manner of ill treatment caused to the deceased. They made vague statement alleging torture. 24. In order to hold a person guilty of com­mitting the offence under Section 498(A) IPC, the prosecution is required to establish that the woman was treated with cruelty by her husband or members of his family. The term 'cruelty' has been explained under Section 498(A) of IPC, which reads as follows:- "S. 498-A. Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. The term 'cruelty' has been explained under Section 498(A) of IPC, which reads as follows:- "S. 498-A. Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation - For the purposes of this section, 'cruelty' means - (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security is on account of failure by her or any person re­lated to her to meet such demand." 25. Carefully considering the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2,1 find no sufficient materials to believe that the deceased was treated by the appellants in such a manner, which was suffi­cient to drive her to commit suicide or to cause injury or danger to her life or limb or health. That apart, from the evidence of PW. 1, it is found that about eight months ago, the deceased had visited his house and narrated the story of torture etc. and thereafter she left to her marital home, and she remained there till her death. There is no evidence on record to show that the deceased was ill treated or tor­tured during the said intervening period of eight months. Therefore, considering the proximity of the time and the nature of allegation made by the prosecution witnesses, more particu­larly the PWs. 1 and 2, it cannot be safely concluded that the alleged torture, if any, was the cause of death of the deceased. From the evidence on record, it appears that the de­ceased had expressed that there was age dif­ference between her husband and herself and that she was not happy with the marriage life. Therefore, committing suicide by the de­ceased due to frustration or depreciation can­not be ruled out. 26. From the evidence on record, it appears that the de­ceased had expressed that there was age dif­ference between her husband and herself and that she was not happy with the marriage life. Therefore, committing suicide by the de­ceased due to frustration or depreciation can­not be ruled out. 26. It is settled law that in a criminal case, prosecution is required to prove the charge brought against the accused beyond all rea­sonable doubt and in the event of existence of two inferences i.e. one going in favour of the accused and other going in favour of the prosecution, the benefit should always be given to the accused person. 27. In view of the above discussions, it has been found that the prosecution failed to establish the charge brought against the ac­cused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused persons are entitled to get the benefit of doubt. 28. Considering the entire evidence on record and in view of the above discussion, I find sufficient merit in this appeal, requiring interference with the impugned judgment and order. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants are set aside and quashed. The appellants are acquitted and set at liberty forthwith. Their bail bonds stand discharged. Return the Case Diary.