JUDGEMENT Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The Appellant has been convicted under Sections 304B and 498A IPC and sentenced to RI for seven years and three years respectively as also under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to three months RI by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur in S. Tr. No. 3/93 and 102/94 by a judgment dated 04.09.1995. 2. The case of the prosecution according to the informant, P.W. 8 is that his daughter was married to the Appellant on 05.05.1992 but she was tortured for ends of dowry by her in-laws and on 06.08.1992 he learnt that his daughter had died in the hospital and when he went there he learnt that she had been murdered and no information had been given to him. 3. The prosecution in all examined eleven witnesses out of whom P.W. 1 is the brother of the deceased and was on the point of torture of the deceased and the fact of her death in the hospital. He confirmed that the Appellant and his aunt were present in the hospital when he went there. 4. In the present trial P.W. 1 was a neighbour and he stated only on the point that the accused persons had demanded dowry in the "Tilak Ceremony". He, however, conceded that he had been examined one and half months after the alleged occurrence and he had not stated about the demand of dowry in the "Tilak Ceremony". He also stated that he had come to know in the hospital that the deceased had taken poison and therefore she was removed to the hospital. P.W. 2, Sharad Kumar Singh is the son of the informant who has been examined as P.W. 1 in the corresponding S. Tr. No. 102 of 1994. He has stated as discussed above. P.W. 3 is the maid-servant of the informant and on the point that she had gone with P.W. 2 to the matrimonial home of the deceased but she was not allowed to meet her. P.W. 4 is also on the point that when he had gone to the matrimonial home of the deceased he was not allowed to meet her. The statement was recorded more than one and half months from the date of occurrence. P.W. 5 is the co-villager of the informant and only on the point that he was not allowed to meet the deceased. The statement was recorded more than one and half months from the date of occurrence. P.W. 5 is the co-villager of the informant and only on the point that he was not allowed to meet the deceased. In his cross-examination he conceded that he had been received well by the accused persons in the matrimonial home of the deceased. P.W. 6 is also a son of the informant and more or less on the same point. He confirmed that the accused persons had told his father that the deceased had herself consumed poison on account of which she had been removed to the hospital. He also stated that he was treated well by the in-laws of the deceased. He had allegedly given his statement about the death of the deceased. P.W. 8 is the informant himself who has supported the factum of demand of dowry by the accused persons and that the deceased had also sent some letters marked as Exhibits 3 series in which she expressed suspicion that she would be killed. However, in his cross-examination he stated that no dowry had been fixed at the time of fixation of marriage on assurance of another person. P.W. 9 is the Investigating Officer who recorded the ferdbeyan of the informant that he had visited the hospital on the basis of OD slip. P.W. 7 is the Doctor who conducted the post-mortem but opined that the cause of death could not be ascertained nor did he find any external injuries on her person. P.W. 10 is the Investigating Officer and in his cross-examination he stated that he had learnt that the deceased had in fact eloped with one Surendra Sah of his village and on inquiry he had learnt that the deceased was in love with Surendra Sah. The letters allegedly written by the deceased were not produced by the informant before him so the hand-writing remained unproved. 5. On behalf of the defence, two witnesses were examined out of whom D.W. 1 stated that no dowry had been demanded by the accused persons and that the deceased was in fact in love with one Surendra Sah and eloped with him on a previous occasion and she had never been tortured in her matrimonial home. D.W. 2 is a Constable of Bihar Police who has stated that on account of elopement of the deceased with another boy. 6. D.W. 2 is a Constable of Bihar Police who has stated that on account of elopement of the deceased with another boy. 6. On going through the evidence as mentioned above, I find that admittedly the Doctor has not opined as to what was the cause of death as also he stated that no external injury has been found on her person, in such circumstances, it is difficult to accept that the death of the deceased had occurred under unnatural circumstances. Also, the evidence of the witnesses indicate that the deceased had herself consumed poison on account of which she was taken to the hospital where even the Police Officer had gone to the Hospital on OD slip which indicates that the accused persons had nothing to hide and had in fact taken all steps to get the deceased treated which would not have been done had they intended to cause her death. 7. Under the circumstances, the appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 04.09.1995 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bjojpur in S. Tr. No. 3/93 and 102/94 is set aside. The Appellant is discharged of the liability of his bail bond.