JUDGMENT By Court.- These two connected appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 3. The prosecution story, as it appears from the written report of informant Manoj Kumar Chouhan (P.W. 5) made before Hazaribagh Sadar Police Station on 10.11.1999, in short was that his sister Yogita Bala @ Baby was married in June 1998 with the appellant Rakesh Narayan Singh according to Hindu rites and customs in the town of Hazaribagh. On the eve of marriage cash and ornaments wore given according to the capacity. After marriage his sister lived comfortably for 2/3 months at her matrimonial home but thereafter, she used to apprise her parents on telephone with regard to making sarcastic remarks/taunts of her mother-in-law Urmila Devi (died during trial) on her in presence of her husband-Rakesh Narayan Singh (appellant), and the father-in-law-Kartikeshwar Narayan Singh, (appellant) by stating that nothing had been given as dowry at the time of marriage though her son was worth Rs. 5 lakhs to which she was entitled to; and that she had accepted her as daughter-in-law in anticipation of getting Rs. 5 lakhs. Whenever such type of comments were passed by her mother-in-law, the appellants used to keep mum, rather they supported her by saying that she (mother-in-law) was right as a result of which the behaviour of the mother-in-law became from bad to worse for which she had to inform her parents to take her back at Khunti as she apprehended danger to life. After one month, at the time of Rakhi Festival her husband Rakesh came to Khunti and took her back to Hazaribagh. Since he was unemployed, he opened a shop in his house. Thereafter mother-in-law and husband used to make demand of money by asking Yogita to bring the same from her parental house for establishing the shop failing which she was asked to go back to her parental house. In the night of Diwali festival she had talked with her aunt (wife of PW. 4), who was residing at Ranchi, on telephone and had informed of her well being stating that she wanted to go to Khunti during Chatth Festival. In the night of Diwali festival she had talked with her aunt (wife of PW. 4), who was residing at Ranchi, on telephone and had informed of her well being stating that she wanted to go to Khunti during Chatth Festival. One day before her death Yogita had talked with her mother on telephone in which she pleaded to take her back to Khunti on the plea of celebrating Chatth Festival otherwise she apprehended danger to her life. The informant's mother tried to talk with her husband and In-laws but they declined to talk with her. In the evening of 9.11.1999 informant's uncle (P.W. 4) informed the prosecution party on phone that Yogita was seriously ill and on this they came to Hazaribagh and learnt from P.W. 4 that Yogita had committed suicide by hanging herself. On reaching Hazaribagh at 1.30 a.m. in the night, the prosecution party went to the place of occurrence where they found dead body of Yogita lying on a bed. The informant further alleged that Yogita did not commit suicide by hanging herself rather accused persons had committed her murder. It is further alleged that the prosecution party were informed at Ranchi on phone by the accused persons that all on a sudden Yogita was indisposed and she was taken to Doctor where she was declared dead. Thereafter, the informant's uncle (P.W. 4) reported the matter on phone to the Hazaribagh Sadar Police Station. Lastly it was alleged that Yogita had been killed by the accused persons who were trying to give it the colour of suicide. Accordingly, FIR was drawn under Section 3048 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The defence of the accused was that Yogita had committed suicide by hanging herself. 5. Mr. Kanhaiya Prasad Singh the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the prosecution has not been able to prove the ingredients of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. He assailed the impugned judgment on various grounds. 6. On the other hand Mr. S.N. Rajgariha learned A.P.P. appearing for the State while supporting the impugned judgment submitted that this case may be remanded to the court below for retrial under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. To appreciate the submissions made on behalf of the parties it is necessary to deal with the relevant portion of the evidence of the P.Ws. S.N. Rajgariha learned A.P.P. appearing for the State while supporting the impugned judgment submitted that this case may be remanded to the court below for retrial under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. To appreciate the submissions made on behalf of the parties it is necessary to deal with the relevant portion of the evidence of the P.Ws. produced on behalf of the prosecution. 8. P.W. 1 Brajeshwar Prasad Saha ('Phupha' of Yogita) stated that the accused persons used to torture her for demand of dowry and when they were asked about her death, they stated that she committed suicide by hanging herself. 9. P.W. 2, Jaytsna Devi is the mother of Yogita. She supported the First Information Report. In her cross-examination she stated that her husband was son of Phua of the accused Urmila Devi and the parties were on visiting terms prior to the marriage. Yogita had done B.A. Honours. The appellant-Rakesh was not doing anything at the time of marriage. Yogita was married with him keeping in view the sound financial condition of the appellant-Rakesh who had constructed a good house at Hazaribagh before marriage. She made general allegation against the accused persons regarding demand of dowry and torture. 10. P.W. 3-Dhananjay Nath Sah, father of Yogita, supported the FIR. He said that Yogita was being tortured by her mother-in-law and the appellant supported her. He admitted that at the time of marriage the appellant Rakesh was unemployed and keeping in view his sound financial condition, he solemnized marriage of his daughter with him. He also admitted that he did not take consent of Yogita before her marriage. 11. P.W. 4 Mritunjay Nath Sah is the uncle of Yogita and is also practicing Advocate at Ranchi. He stated that his wife was told about the torture for dowry made by the appellant Kartikeshwar Narayan Singh and his wife. He stated that his wife was informed about illness of the deceased. It is important to note that this witness is an Advocate and he admitted that he had written FIR in this case. He further admitted that before proceeding towards Ranchi he learnt about death of Yogita. He informed that Yogita was killed due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. It is important to note that this witness is an Advocate and he admitted that he had written FIR in this case. He further admitted that before proceeding towards Ranchi he learnt about death of Yogita. He informed that Yogita was killed due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. He stated that on the Diwali night there was a talk between his wife and Yogita who wanted to come to her parental house on the eve of Chatth Festival. He specifically stated that Yogita always used to talk with his wife. It is important to note here that Yogita always talked with the wife of this witness and therefore, she was an important witness but it is not known why she has been withheld by the prosecution. 12. P.W. 5-Manoj Kumar Chauhan is the informant in this case. He supported the FIR. 13. P.W. 6 is Dr. Amitabh Ganguly who held the post mortem examination of the deceased on 10.11.1999. He found Abrasion and Bruise on the left side of neck. He opined that death was caused due to throttling. 14. P.W. 7 Subodh Kumar Paswan was declared hostile. He inter alia stated that Yogita committed suicide. 15. P.W. 8-Nagendra Sah was also declared hostile. He simply stated that he learnt about suicide from P.W. 7. 16. PW. 9-Ramesh Kumar Singh was declared hostile. He stated that the accused persons did not demand dowry. 17. P.W. 10-Bijay Kumar Mishra is the Investigating Officer of this case. 18. P.W. 11 is Dr. Indra Mohan Prasad Gupta who said that left hand of Yogita was paralyzed due to Polio. 19. Defence examined four witnesses who mainly stated that there was no torture at any point of time and Yogita committed suicide by hanging herself. The appellant Rakesh Narayan Singh was examined as D.W. 3 who stated that he was educated up to Intermediate level. 20. Though we are satisfied that Yogita did not commit suicide, but on the basis of vague and general evidence against the appellants as noticed above, regarding torture for dowry it will net be safe to convict the appellants under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Specific allegations were made against mother-in-law Urmila Devi, but she is said to have died during trial. 21. Specific allegations were made against mother-in-law Urmila Devi, but she is said to have died during trial. 21. The prayer of the State Counsel for retrial under Section 302 IPC is not accepted as the alleged occurrence took place on 9.11 .1999. (The appellant Rakesh Narayan Singh has remained in jail for more than 11 years. The appellant Kartikeshwar Narayan Singh is aged about 73 years.) At this distance of time we do not think it proper to remand the case for retrial under Section 302 IPC. 22. In the result, both these appeals are allowed. Both the appellants are acquitted giving them benefit of doubt under Section 3048 of the Indian Penal Code and the impugned judgment passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh on 9.6.2003 in S.T. No. 103 of 2000 is set aside. The appellant Kartikeshwar Narayan Singh is discharged from the liability of his bail bonds. The appellant Rakesh Narayan Singh is directed to be released forthwith from custody, if not wanted in connection with any other case.