JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 3.10.1989 whereby the present appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under : Names Under Sections Period of sentence 1. Parsa Ram and Chhoturi 304-B I.P.C. 10 years' R.I. each and a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default to further undergo 2 years R.I. each. 498-A I.P.C. 2 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default to undergo 6 months R.I. 176 I.P.C. Fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, one month's S.I. 201 I.P.C. 3 years R.I. each. 2. Pura Ram, Suva Ram, Sukha Ram, Sohan Lal, Ruda Ram and Nand Ram 176 I.P.C. Fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo one month's S.I. each. 201 I.P.C. 3 years S.I. each. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Short facts of the case are that Kana Ram lodged a written report Ex.P- 8 at the Police Station, Maroth District Nagaur wherein it was stated that Vimla, daughter of his younger brother, has been married to Ram Niwas two years back and whenever Vimla comes at their father's house, she stated about the ill-treatment from the present petitioner and stated that television has been demanded by the present appellants. The brother of the complainant and other relatives have sent Vimla to her in-laws house, after giving assurance that they will meet her in-laws and the matter will be settled, but he received message that Vimla has been killed in the morning of 27.1.1988. On this written report, F.I.R. No. 3/1988 has been registered under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B I.P.C. and after investigation, charge-sheet has been presented against the present appellants and others. 3. The present appellants have been charged for the offences under Sections 302, 498-A, 304-B, 176 and 201 I.P.C. The prosecution has examined 13 witnesses. The statement of the accused has been recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. No witness in defence has been produced. After trial, the present appellants have been convicted and sentenced as above. Hence this appeal has been preferred by the present appellants. 4. During pendency of this appeal, appellants No. 4 Suva Ram, No. 7 Nuda Ram and No. 8 Nanda Ram have expired, therefore, the appeal has been abated against these appellants. 5. After trial, the present appellants have been convicted and sentenced as above. Hence this appeal has been preferred by the present appellants. 4. During pendency of this appeal, appellants No. 4 Suva Ram, No. 7 Nuda Ram and No. 8 Nanda Ram have expired, therefore, the appeal has been abated against these appellants. 5. The main contention of the present appellants are that there is no evidence against the present appellants which shows that they are, in any way, involved in the commission of crime. There is no evidence that the present appellants ever tortured the deceased in connection with demand of dowry. The only witness, who has stated about the offence, is PW-13 Kana Ram-the complainant, but his evidence is only hearsay evidence. The father and mother of the deceased have not corroborated the prosecution story and the convictions and sentences are bad in law and should be set aside. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that there is no basis to disbelieve the statement of PW-13 Kana Ram and the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the present appellants. 7. PW-13 Kana Ram, who is complainant, is the only witness, who has deposed against the present appellants. He in examination-in-chief, has specifically stated that after marriage, Vimla had been sent to her father's house for 4-5 times and Vimla stated to his wife that she is not happy in the matrimonial house. In cross-examination, he has specifically stated that he never talked to Vimla about any incident which has taken place at her in-laws house and regarding demand of television, conversation has taken place between Vimla and his wife. On Court question, he has denied the statement 'A to B' recorded in Ex.P-8 written report, where there is a specific allegation of demanding television and hence Kana Ram's statements are totally diluted by the cross-examination and he has stated nothing to prove the guilt against the present appellants. His evidence is only hearsay and he had stated specifically that Vimla has stated nothing to him but has specifically stated that Vimla stated to his wife. Kana Ram's wife Tiju (PW-6) has nothing said against the present appellants. She has been declared hostile by the prosecution and she specifically stated that she never talked with Vimla about, how she was living at their in-laws house. 8. Kana Ram's wife Tiju (PW-6) has nothing said against the present appellants. She has been declared hostile by the prosecution and she specifically stated that she never talked with Vimla about, how she was living at their in-laws house. 8. Other witness PW-7 Mohini, who is mother of deceased has stated nothing against the present appellants and the same is the position of PW-8 Banna Ram, who is father of the deceased. They both have been declared hostile by the prosecution. 9. The other witnesses PW-1 Patasi, PW-2 Phephli, PW-3 Smt. Rupi, PW- 4, Hardeva Ram, PW-5 Banney Singh, PW-9 Chhotu have also been declared hostile and they stated nothing against the present appellants. 10. PW-10 Narpat Singh, PW-11 Man Singh and PW-12 Nand Ram are formal witnesses and could not connect the present appellants with the crime. 11. Hence, taking totality of the evidence, there is no evidence against the present appellants to sustain the convictions and sentences of the present appellants. 12. PW-13 Kana Ram has stated about only hearsay evidence and he has also stated that he has not having talking terms with his brother Banna Ram, who is father of deceased. Hence the learned counsel fora. the appellants has submitted that the F.I.R. has been lodged only with an ulterior motive. 13. Hence looking at the above facts and circumstances of the case, the convictions and sentences arrived at by the trial Court are not sustainable and are liable to be quashed and set aside. 14. In view of the above, this appeal is allowed and the convictions and sentences of the appellants Parsa Ram and Chhoturi, Pura Ram, Sukha Ram and Sohan Ram are also quashed and set aside and they are also acquitted of the aforesaid offences levelled against them. They are on bail, they need not to surrender to their bail bonds. Their bail bonds are cancelled.Appeal allowed. *******