JUDGEMENT Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The Appellants have been convicted under Sections 498A/34 and 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and eight years respectively by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Katihar, in Sessions Trial 248 of 1995/5 of 1996 by a judgment dated 10/11.4.1997. 2. The case of the prosecution according to PW-15 Umesh Sahni is that his sister Ranju Devi had been married with Appellant No. 1 in the year 1992 and she was residing in her matrimonial home. It was alleged by the Informant that the Appellant No. 2 who was the mother-in-law of the deceased had illicit relationship with some person and the deceased was being pressurized to serve food to him and to talk to him on account of which she committed suicide. The Appellants also used to assault her. 3. During trial, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses out of whom PW-4, PW10, PW-12 and PW-13 have been tendered whereas PW-7 is a formal witness. PW-11 is the Doctor who did not find any external or internal injury on the person of the deceased and preserved viscera for testing but no final report has been produced by the prosecution. PW-16 is the Investigating Officer. The rest of the witnesses i.e. PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-5, PW-6, PW-8, PW-9, PW-14 and PW15 are relative of the deceased. PW-15 is the Informant. 4. On going through the evidence of the witnesses, I find that PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-14 and PW15 are only on the point of allegation that the deceased was being pressurized to serve food and have illicit relationship with another man on account of which she had committed suicide but the said evidence is purely speculative. However, PW-8 and PW14 have stated that they had seen the Appellant No. 1 assaulting the deceased and later in the evening it was learnt that the deceased had died and on enquiry for which, the Police had arrived. Evidently, there is no eye witness to the occurrence and even though the evidence of PW-8 and PW14 are to the effect that the deceased had been assaulted by the Appellant No. 1, the Doctor (PW-11) had contradicted this fact since he did not find any external or internal injury on the person of the deceased. 5. Evidently, there is no eye witness to the occurrence and even though the evidence of PW-8 and PW14 are to the effect that the deceased had been assaulted by the Appellant No. 1, the Doctor (PW-11) had contradicted this fact since he did not find any external or internal injury on the person of the deceased. 5. On appreciation of evidence, I find that there is complete paucity of any material to show that the suicide of the deceased had been abetted by the present Appellants. The Doctor (PW-11) has not conclusively given any opinion with regard to the cause of death of the deceased and, therefore, the fact that the deceased had died on account of consuming poison is also not corroborated and the allegation with regard to the same has remained merely oral in nature. 6. In the result, the Appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the Appellants in Sessions Case No. 248 of 1995/5 of 1996 by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Katihar, is hereby set aside. 7. The Appellants are discharged from the liability of their bail bond.