Order By Court: Mr. B. K. Dubey learned counsel for the appellants did not press this appeal on behalf of appellant – Natho Rana saying that he has died during the pendency of this appeal. 2. Both these appeals arises out of common judgment dated 23.03.2002 and order of sentence dated 01.04.2002 passed by Sri Ravindra Prasad Ravi, 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Hazari bagh in Sessions Trial No. 201 of 2000 convicting the appellants under Section 304 - B of I.P.C. and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for seven years and they have been further convicted under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years. Both the sentences were to run concurrently. 3.The proseuction case in short is that Sunita Devi aged about 19 years was married with the appellant Suresh Rana one year ago prior to the occurrence. After the marriage, the accused persons started demanding Rs. Ten thousand as dowry on the pretext that at the time of marriage less dowry was given. It was further alleged that if the said amount is not satisfied, the life of Sunita will be at stake. The informant Munshi Raha who is the father of Sunita shown his inability to meet the said demand on account of poverty. On 19.06.1999, accused Dhanu Rana (Bhaisur of Sunita Devi) came to the house of the informant and informed the family members that Sunita is suffering from vomitting and her condition is very serious. On such information, the family members of the informant rushed to the matrimonial home of the Sunita and found her dead. It was found that blood was oozing out of her nose. On enquiry made from the villagers about the cause of the death, none of the villagers disclosed anything about it. It was alleged that Sunita was tortured and killed for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. 4. Mr. B. K. Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that so far as demand of dowry is concerned there is vague and general allegation against all the appellants and that too by relative witnessses; and that P.W. 6 & 7 who are independent witnesses clearly said before the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that there was no such demand and Sunita died due to diarrhoea and inspite of treatment by local doctor and these two witnessses said the same thing in court. He further submitted that the doctor neither found poison nor any injury on the body of the deceased and opined that the death was due to cardio respiratory failure. On being asked, the doctor said that in some cases there may be blood oozing from nose in case of cardio respiratory failure. Thus, he submitted that there is nothing to show that Sunita was tortured or killed for dowry. 5. On the other hand, Mr. P. K. Sahay, learned counsel appearing for the State in both the cases supported the impugned judgment and submitted that though they are relative of Sunita, but they were consistent about demand of Rs. Ten thousand as dowry and torture on that account. He further submitted that mucosa erosion was found in the kidney by the doctor who opined that in case of poisoning, the kidney and spleen gets enlarged. 6. After hearing the parties and going through the records carefully, in my opinion, the appellants deserve benefit of doubt. Firstly, there is general and omnibus allegation of demand of Rs. Ten thousand as dowry and torture on that account against the accused persons. On the other hand, P.W. 6 & 7 who are independent witnessses have not said anything about demand of dowry or torture, rather they said that Sunita died due to diarrhoea even after she was treated by local doctor. P.W. 6 & 7 are also witnessses to the inquest report. The doctor did not find any injury or mark of violence on the body of the deceased. He opined on the basis of chemical report of the viscera that the death was caused due to cardio respiratory failure; and that no poison was found in viscera. On question put by the court, he said that in some cases of cardio respiratory failure, blood may come from nose. He also found the kidney and spleen of Sunita enlarged. On being questioned, he said that because of poisoning also the kindney and the spleen can be enlarged. Thus it appears that the death was not homicidal. In the result, the appellants are given benefit of doubt as the prosecution has not proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. The impugned judgment is set aside and the appels are allowed. The appellants are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.