JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 28.02.2003, passed by the Adhoc Addl. Session Judge, Mangaldai, in Session Case No. 115 (DMFT) 01, convicting accused/appellants, namely, Shri Swapan Bhowmick, Shri Jogesh Bhowmick and Shri Arpana Bhowmick @ Shri Tuntun Bhowmick under Section 498A IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- and, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonments for another six months. Being aggrieved by, and satisfied with, aforesaid judgment, Shri. Swapan Bhowmick, Shri Jogesh Bhowmick and Shri Arpana Bhowmick @ Shri Tuntun Bhowmick, who would be described herein after as accused/appellants, preferred this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution may, in brief, be described thus (i) On 24th Bhado, corresponding to English calendar month of April/May, 1993, one Swapan Bhownick, one of the accused/appellants, married Kanchan Saha of Kacharidak village within Khoirabari police station in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. However, as the marriage was being solemnized, a dispute arose between the families of the bridegroom and the bride over the quantity and quality of dowry presented to Kanchan Saha, (since deceased) on the occasion of her marriage. (ii) The dispute took a turn for the worse, when the bridegroom party left the residence of bride without completing all the religious formalities of Hindu marriage. The articles, which were presented to the bride, on the occasion of her marriage, were also left in the house of the bride itself. Father of the bride gave Rs. 12,000/- to one Nitish Saha to pacify the family members of the bridegroom. Accused Nitish Saha, however, demanded more money and left the house of the bride in the middle of the marriage. (iii) Once the bride landed in her matrimonial house, her husband and the other family Members started torturing her, both physically and mentally, demanding more and more money and property from her parents and other family members. What is more, the bride was not allowed to return to her parental house on one pretext or other, although under the prevailing custom, the bride and bridegroom need to visit house of bride sometime after the marriage. What is more, the bride was not allowed to return to her parental house on one pretext or other, although under the prevailing custom, the bride and bridegroom need to visit house of bride sometime after the marriage. (iv) As the bride and bridegroom did not visit their house, the mother of the bride, along with one of her neighbours, went to the house of bridegroom to take her daughter and her son-in-law to her residence. But as soon they reached the house of accused persons, they were subjected to enormous mental harassment, because the bride's family members could not meet the demand for dowry, made in connection with the marriage of Kanchan by the accused. Being so humiliated, the mother of the deceased and her companion returned home without taking bride with them. (v) On 19th June, 1993, accused persons sent a man to the house of the bride to inform that Kanchan Saha had committed suicide. At first, parents and other family members suspected that Kanchan Saha might have been killed by her husband and his family members. Therefore, an F.I.R. to that effect was lodged by one Shri Ratan Saha with police at Udalguri R.S., on 20th, June, 1993. (vi) Receiving the FIR, Police registered a case, namely, Udalguri P.S. Case No. 63/93 under Section 498(A) IPC. During the course of investigation, the I.O. visited the P.O., conducted inquest on the dead body and sent the same to the hospital for post-mortem examination. He also examined the witnesses acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. As the investigation proceeded the I/O, who was entrusted to investigate the case, was transferred for which remaining part of the investigation was done by the O/C concerned and, on completion of the investigation, he submitted a charge-sheet under Section 304(B) IPC against as many as 8 (eight) accused persons, namely, (i) Shri Swapan Bhowmick, (ii) Shri Jogesh Bhowmick, (iii) Shri Arpana Bhowmick @ Shri Tuntun Bhowmick, (iv) Smti. Arpana Bhowmick (v) Sri Nirup Bhowmick (vi) Sri Mithu Bhowmick (vii) Sri Manik Saha and (viii) Nitish Saha (since deceased) and forwarded them to court to face trial. 3. The learned Addl. Session Judge, Adhoc, Darrang, Mangaldai on hearing the parties, framed charges under Section 304(B) IPC and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act read with Section 34 IPC. Arpana Bhowmick (v) Sri Nirup Bhowmick (vi) Sri Mithu Bhowmick (vii) Sri Manik Saha and (viii) Nitish Saha (since deceased) and forwarded them to court to face trial. 3. The learned Addl. Session Judge, Adhoc, Darrang, Mangaldai on hearing the parties, framed charges under Section 304(B) IPC and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act read with Section 34 IPC. Charges so framed, on being read over and explained to accused persons, all the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. During trial, prosecution side examined as many as 12 witnesses. Statements of accused persons were also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused persons' plea was of denial. The defence, too, adduced evidence by examining two witnesses. 5. During the course of trial, one of the accused persons, namely, Nitish Saha expired and, as such, the case against him stood abetted. Learned trial Court, on the conclusion of trial, convicted accused Shri Swapan Bhowmick, Shri Jogesh Bhowmick and Shri Arpana Bhowmick @ Shri Tuntun Bhowmick of offence under Section 498A IPC and sentenced them to punishment as aforesaid. It is this judgment, which has been challenged in the present appeal. 6. Opening up the argument, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the judgment of the learned trial court suffers from several serious infirmities. They are:- a) The testimonies of the principal prosecution witnesses are contradictory and mutually destructive on materials points. b) The deceased was a person, who was emotionally susceptible to commit suicide and, having found it difficult to adjust to her married life, she committed suicide without there being any fault on the part of her husband and parents-in-law. c) Even if one assumes, for the sake of argument, for a moment, that there was some kind of misunderstanding between accused/appellants and the deceased, yet there was no link between such alleged misunderstanding and the death of the deceased. d) The accused persons never subjected the deceased to any kind of cruelty, much less cruelty of the nature forcing her to commit suicide, but all infirmities were overlooked by the learned trial Court. e) Learned trial Court did not read the evidence rendered by witnesses, DWs, in particular, in correct perspective, which, ultimately, led the Court below to a wrong finding. e) Learned trial Court did not read the evidence rendered by witnesses, DWs, in particular, in correct perspective, which, ultimately, led the Court below to a wrong finding. f) It is also contended that though there was no charge under Section 498A IPC, the appellants were convicted of the offence aforesaid despite the fact that the charges, framed under Section 304B IPC and under Section 3 of the Dowry Provision Act, were held to have not been proved. This is not permissible under the law. 7. In order to reinforce his argument, learned counsel for appellant has referred us to a series of decisions, which we would refer to at appropriate place. 8. On the other hand, learned P.P., appearing for the State, has submitted that the judgment, rendered by the learned trial Court, is based on well established facts on record and the impugned judgment was rendered having regard to the law(s), which hold the field and, therefore, it invites no interference from this Court in appeal. He, therefore, urges this Court to dismissed the appeal. 9. In order to appreciate the controversy before us, we find it necessary to have a brief review of the evidence on record. The evidence of the Doctor, who had conducted autopsy of the dead body, is, first, taken up for consideration. Dr. Kulen Ch. Das was examined as PW 8. 10. According to him (PW 8), on 26.3.93, he performed the post mortem examination on the dead body of Smti. Kanchan Bhowmick, age of about 28 years, in connection with Udalguri P.S. UD Case No. 8/93, and found the following: The eyes were closed. Mouth closed with protruded tongue. Dribbling of Saliva coming out of the left angle of the Mouth. A continuous ligature marked with knots marked on. The right of the neck high up obliquely placed in the neck. The knots were situated just below the right ear. A bluish abrasion marked was seen over the right side sick 1/2" away from the knots marked. The second cervical vertebra and the axis got fractured on cut section of the ligasa marked perch men station was seen. Nature: Anti mortem hanging Opinion: In his opinion, the cause of death was due to axephexia as a result of hanging by neck Ext. 4 post mortem Report Ext. 1 (1) is his signature. 11. The second cervical vertebra and the axis got fractured on cut section of the ligasa marked perch men station was seen. Nature: Anti mortem hanging Opinion: In his opinion, the cause of death was due to axephexia as a result of hanging by neck Ext. 4 post mortem Report Ext. 1 (1) is his signature. 11. The above evidence of Doctor has not at all been disputed by any of the parties to the case under consideration. We, too, do not find anything incorrect or improbable in the medical evidence on record. We, therefore hold and decide that the death of the said deceased was unnatural and it was suicidal in nature. 12. PW. 6 Smti. Subodh Lata Saba, is the mother of the deceased. She happens to be the main witness of the prosecution. According to PW. 6, her daughter was married by accused Swapan Bhowmick. The marriage between her daughter and accused Swapan Bhowmick caused some problems and it was mainly over the amount of money to be paid to the bridegroom as well as quality of the dowry and that as there was some amount of distrust and enmity between the family members of the deceased and the bridegroom, sometime after the marriage, she (PW. 6) sent her son, Subodh Saha, to the matrimonial house of the deceased (Kanchan) to bring her and her son-in-law to their house, but her son returned home without bringing the deceased and her husband. 13. It is in the evidence of PW 6 that on returning home, Subodh told her (PW. 6) that the husband of the deceased and his family members were not satisfied with the quality and quantity of dowry given to the bride on the occasion of her marriage. In that context, PW. 6 has further stated that on the night of marriage itself, a sum of Rs. 12,000/- was given to accused Nitish Saha (since deceased), the maternal uncle of accused Swapan Bhowmick, and payment was made by Radha Raman Saha, her husband (since deceased) and that at the time of payment of money, one Gautam was also present. 14. According to the evidence of PW. 6, on returning from the house of the accused persons, Subodh also told her that they need to pay Rs. 14. According to the evidence of PW. 6, on returning from the house of the accused persons, Subodh also told her that they need to pay Rs. 10,000/- more as fine since food, offered on the occasion of marriage of his sister, Kanchan, was not good and since articles, gifted to her, on the occasion of her marriage, were equally bad and this was also the reason as to why her daughter was not allowed to return back to her parental home. 15. It is in the evidence of PW. 6 that they arranged a sum of Rs. 7,000/-, and paid the same to Subodh and sent him to the house of the accused persons. However, accused Nitish refused to accept the said sum of money and demanded Rs. 10,000/- at a time. Later on, they decided that entire sum of money, amounting to Rs. 10,000/-, would be paid sometime in September/October. In the meantime, she sent a letter to her daughter as well as to her son-in-law, but she did not get any reply thereto. On 2nd day of Assamese month of Ashar (Jun/July), she went to the house of her son-in-law to bring her daughter back to their house and she also took a girl with her and when they reached the house of the accused persons, none of the family members talked to them. But sometime later, her son-in-law came and all the family members of accused husband assembled there and enquired from her if she had came with money and when she replied in the negative, her son-in-law and his family members, including one Nitish, started abusing her and her daughter in presence of all including the girl, whom she had taken to the residence of the accused persons on that particular day. 16. It is also in the evidence of PW 6 that seeing all these, her daughter started crying, but she consoled her and told her that she would take her back to their house after paying the fine. As they did not take their lunch, father of accused Swapan told her to take meals. Being so told, they came to the dining hall of the accused persons to take food, but as they took seats to take meals, accused Nitish came there and rebuked them with all kinds of nasty and harsh words and even stopped her from taking the meal. Being so told, they came to the dining hall of the accused persons to take food, but as they took seats to take meals, accused Nitish came there and rebuked them with all kinds of nasty and harsh words and even stopped her from taking the meal. Being so abused, according to the evidence of PW 6, she could not take her meal and came out from the house of accused persons without taking meal. PW. 6 has further deposed that when they were about to leave the house of accused persons, she (PW. 6) was, again, called by accused Nitish and asked her to pay the fine. PW 6, however, informed him that she had come to the house of accused persons without bringing the fine, imposed on her family and this reply terribly angered accused Nitish. 17. PW 6 has deposed that by that time, since the train, bound for their hometown, had already left, they decided to take shelter for that night in the platform of the nearby Railway Station. However, father and son duo forced them to stay in their house as overnight stay, at station, would damage their prestige and reputation. However, in the night, accused Tuntun came to her room and started torturing her by pulling her hair and in the morning, when they came out of the residence of accused persons, her daughter started crying and wanted to come with them to her house, but the accused persons, father of accused Swapan, in particular, by force, took her daughter back to their house. 18. PW 6 has deposed that after some days, police from Khairabari P.S. came to their house and told them that her daughter was no more and, on receiving the news, she fainted and, for that reason, she could not go to the residence of accused persons, but, her son and other persons rushed to the house of the accused persons. 19. In her cross-examination, PW. 6 has denied the suggestion that she did not tell the police that father of Swapan had demanded Rs. 10,000/-, that she sent her son to the residence of accused persons with Rs. 7,000/- and that accused refused to accept the said amount. 20. PW 6 has however, admitted that she could not remember if she told the police (a) that her husband had handed over Rs. 10,000/-, that she sent her son to the residence of accused persons with Rs. 7,000/- and that accused refused to accept the said amount. 20. PW 6 has however, admitted that she could not remember if she told the police (a) that her husband had handed over Rs. 12,000/- to Nitish Saha, (b) that on returning home, Subash told her that unless money, the accused had demanded, was paid, her daughter would not be allowed to go home and (c) that while abusing them in their house, accused persons repeated their demand for money. PW 6 also could not remember if she had told police that accused persons had complained that the quality of dowry was not up to the mark. 21. Another important witness is Smti. Subhadra Barman (PW. 3), who is the neighbour of the informant, Sri Ratan Saha. According to her, the deceased was married to accused Swapan, but the marriage started having difficulties right from the night on which it was solemnized and the dispute arose for not giving a Godrej (i.e. almirah) as a dowry on the occasion of marriage between accused Swapan and the deceased and the dispute turned so ugly that the bride-groom and the people, who had accompanied him, left the house of the bride without even taking the articles gifted to her on the occasion of her marriage. According to this witness, a few days after the marriage aforesaid, she, alongwith the mother of the deceased, went to the house of the accused persons and stayed one night in their residence. 22. It is also in the evidence of PW 3 that when they were at the residence of accused persons, accused Swapan and his relatives quarrelled with them over the quality and quantity of dowry given to the bride on the occasion of her marriage. However, mother of the deceased tried to pacify the family members of the accused persons stating that she would send all the dowry, they wanted, soon, but, such assurance could not dampen the anger of the accused persons. 23. It is her specific claim that the three sisters of accused Swapan participated in the quarrel, although the parents of accused Swapan did not take part in the said quarrel. Two days after their return from the house of the accused persons, she came to know that Kanchan was no more. 23. It is her specific claim that the three sisters of accused Swapan participated in the quarrel, although the parents of accused Swapan did not take part in the said quarrel. Two days after their return from the house of the accused persons, she came to know that Kanchan was no more. The suggestion that she did not tell the police (a) that she had attended the marriage ceremony and (b) that Kanchan told her that Swapan and his family members quarrelled with deceased over the quality and quantity of dowry were denied by the PW 3. 24. PW. 2 (Sri Parotosh Saha), is a neighbour of the deceased. He has deposed that the marriage between the parties was solemnized in accordance with the Hindu rites and customs and on the occasion of marriage, the parents the deceased and her brother gave her some articles, such as, furniture, Godrej, Almirah, etc. but on the night of marriage itself, an altercation took place between the parties to the marriage over the quality of furniture given to the bride and that the altercation was mainly between Nitish, the maternal uncle of the bridegroom, and the father of the deceased. Owing to such altercation, the bridegroom party left the house of the bride without taking the articles gifted to the bride. Sometime later, they heard that Kanchan was no more. On receiving the information, he (PW 2), along with some 30/40 persons, went to the house of Kanchan, but they found the dead body only at the police station. 25. It is in the evidence of PW 2 that he came to know that Kanchan was subjected to torture and, he was told that police seized some articles and he was requested to put his signature on the document, which he proved as Ext. 2. 26. In his cross-examination PW. 2, has admitted that he had seen Material Ext. 2 and Material Ext. 3, in the Court, for the first time, and that he did not know, who wrote Material Ext. 1, Material Ext. 2 and Material Ext. 3. 27. PW. 4 (Sri Nagendra Barman) is also neighbour of the deceased. 2. 26. In his cross-examination PW. 2, has admitted that he had seen Material Ext. 2 and Material Ext. 3, in the Court, for the first time, and that he did not know, who wrote Material Ext. 1, Material Ext. 2 and Material Ext. 3. 27. PW. 4 (Sri Nagendra Barman) is also neighbour of the deceased. According to him, on the night of marriage itself, an altercation took place between the parties over the quality of dowry presented to the bride on the occasion of her marriage, but he did not himself witness such quarrel and few weeks thereafter, he came to know that Kanchan was no more and, then, he, along with others, went to Udalguri and returned home, having seeing dead body of Kanchan, but he did not know how the deceased had met her death. PW. 2 claims that Ext. 2(3) is his signature in the document marked as Ext. 2. In his cross-examination, PW. 2 has admitted that he did not see the police seizing those exhibited documents nor could he say as to what had been written in Ext. 2 since it was not even read over to him. 28. PW. 5 Sri (Basi Ram Barman) is also neighbour of the deceased. According to the evidence of this witness, on 24th Bohag, corresponding to April May in 1993, accused Swapan Bhowmick married Kanchan, the deceased, and sometime later, they heard hue and cry raised from the residence of the informant and when he went there, PW. 1 told him that Kanchan was no more and, on being so informed, he, along with others, went to the house of the accused persons, at Udlaguri, they found the dead body of Kanchan lying at the police station and before the death of Kanchan, her mother told him that her daughter was not allowed to come to her parental hose, because they could not pay them the fine imposed upon them. In his cross-examination, PW. 5 has denied the suggestion that mother of the deceased had not told him that accused persons had demanded them money. 29. PW. 9, Sri Gopewar Paul, deposes that he came to know from Radha Raman, the father of the deceased, that he had paid Rs. 12,000/-, as dowry, to Nitish. According to him, the money was paid by the father of the deceased himself. 29. PW. 9, Sri Gopewar Paul, deposes that he came to know from Radha Raman, the father of the deceased, that he had paid Rs. 12,000/-, as dowry, to Nitish. According to him, the money was paid by the father of the deceased himself. In his cross-examination, he has, however, stated that he told the police that he himself saw transaction of money between the bride and bridegroom party. 30. PW. 10, Smti. Mohamaya Sarkar, is also a neighbour of the accused persons. According to her, she talked many a times with the deceased before her death and she even talked to her on the day of her death as well, but she was not aware of any quarrel going on between the deceased and her accused husband and his family members. 31. PW. 11, Pradip Dutta, is a businessman. According to him, sometime after her marriage, the deceased committed suicide. Hearing the news, he went to the house of accused persons and at that time, police was conducting inquest on her dead body and while conducting inquest, apiece of paper was recovered from the body of the deceased, which was seized by the police on the strength of Ext. 6. On the other hand, PW 7 Sri Sukumar Saha, could not throw any light on the matter under scrutiny. 32. PW. 12, Shri Rajen Borah, is the I.O. of the case under consideration. According to him, on 20.06.93, he was working as S.I. of Police at Udalguri police Station and on that day, an FIR was lodged with O/C, Udalguri Police Station, the O/C, Udalguri P.S., received the same and he entrusted PW. 12 with the investigation of the case. During the course of investigation, according to the I/O, he held inquest on the dead body and seized an agreement executed by the parties at the time of marriage. 33. According to the evidence of the Investigating Officer, he also seized a paper, which said to be in the handwriting of the deceased, by a seizure list, which is Exhibit-2, as well as a letter, on the strength of seizure list, which is Exhibit-3, but before he could complete his investigation, he was transferred and accordingly, the remaining part of the investigation was done by one Shri Biren Das, O/C, Udalguri police station. 34. 34. In his cross-examination, the Investigating Officer has stated i) that PW 3 did not tell him that she had attended the marriage ceremony; ii) that PW. 4 did not tell him that he had gone to Udalguri along with some family members of the deceased; iii) that PW. 6 did not tell him a) that when her son, Subhash, gave Rs. 7,000/- to Nitish, Nitish refused to accept and demanded entire 10,000/- to be paid at a time; b) that the deceased told her to take her home back on paying the fine imposed on them and c) that on seeing them being rebuked, the deceased started weeping. 35. Above being the evidence on record, let us see whether such evidence makes out any offence against appellants. On a careful perusal of evidence on record, we have found that there is no dispute as regard the fact that the deceased was married by accused Swapan Kumar Bhowmick on 24th Bohag in accordance with Hindu ritual, that they lived as husband and wife for sometime in the matrimonial residence of the deceased and that she committed suicide on 19.6.93. 36. On further perusal of the evidence on record, more particularly, the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW6, we have found that these PWs also claim that some dispute greatly strained the relationship between the parties and the dispute arose on the night, when the deceased and accused Swapan Kumar Bhowmick tied their nuptial knot, and that the dispute was carried forward even to the matrimonial residence of the deceased. 37. However, before we could probe the matter further, we find it necessary to determine if this Court could place any reliance on Mat. Ext. 1 and Mat. Ext. 2; and if so, to what extent. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that since the seizure witnesses could not disclose the place wherefrom Mat. Ext. 1 (said to be the letter addressed to her mother by the deceased) and Mat. Ext. 2 (said to be the suicide note) were recovered, these two documents cannot at all be relied on in ascertaining Kripa Bayan's case (supra) the allegations brought against the accused appellants. More importantly, when the witnesses could not as to say who was the author of those documents. In that connection, our attention has been drawn to the judgment of this Court in Kripa Bayan & Anr. More importantly, when the witnesses could not as to say who was the author of those documents. In that connection, our attention has been drawn to the judgment of this Court in Kripa Bayan & Anr. Vs. State of Assam, reported in 2011 (1) GLT 595, wherein this Court refused to place any reliance on suicide note, because the witnesses to the seizure list could not identify the place from where the suicide note had been recovered. 38. The fact and circumstances of the case under consideration, being similar to a great extent with the facts and circumstances of the Kripa Bayan's case (supra), this Court, is already of the view that the contents of M. Ext. 1 and 2 cannot at all be relied upon. 39. On scrutinizing the Material Exhibits, Mat. Ext. 1 and Mat. Ext. 2, in particular, we have found that while Mat. Ext. 1 describes the life of the deceased in her matrimonial house, Mat. Ext. 2; clearly hold the husband of the deceased and her all family members responsible for her untimely death. But then, none of the witnesses, said to be seizure witnesses, could identify the places wherefrom the letters reportedly written by the deceased were recovered. Nor could they say when and wherefrom the suicide note was recovered. More importantly, the prosecution also could not establish that the letters, in question, and suicide note aforesaid were written by the deceased herself. 40. In the face of above revelations and also in view of decision rendered in Kripa Bayan (Supra), this Court is left with no other option, but to reject Mat. Ext-1 and Mat. Ext.-2. Consequently, the prosecution case, in so far it is founded on Mat. Ext-1 and Mat. Ext-2, collapses. 41. So situated, let us consider if, on the remaining materials on record, the learned trial Court was justified in convicting the accused-appellants of the offence under Section 498A IPC. In order to appreciate this appeal correctly, we find it necessary to reproduce Section 498A IPC. Section 498A IPC reads as follows. 498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Section 498A IPC reads as follows. 498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation- For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means- (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. 42. A bare perusal of above provisions of law reveals that in order to prove a charge under Section 498A IPC, the prosecution needs to establish that deceased was subjected to cruelty as contemplated in Explanation (a) and (b) to Section 498A IPC. Cruelty, as contemplated in Section 498A IPC, has two dimensions with colours and contours different altogether. 43. Cruelty may take the form of harassment perpetuated upon a woman by her husband or the relatives of the husband with a view to coercing her or any person, related to her, to meet any unlawful demand for any property of valuable security. Such harassment may be also be on account of failure by her or any person, related to her, to meet such demand. 44. Cruelty may also occur for wilful conduct, which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman. 45. We have already found that the star witnesses for the prosecution are PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW6. Therefore, the evidence of PW 6 is, first, taken up for scrutiny. 46. 45. We have already found that the star witnesses for the prosecution are PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW6. Therefore, the evidence of PW 6 is, first, taken up for scrutiny. 46. On the perusal of the evidence of PW 6, we have found that according to her, since her daughter and son-in-law did not visit her house even for once after solemnization of their marriage on 24th Bohag, 1993, she, first, sent her son to her son-in-law's house to bring her daughter and her son-in-law to their house, but in vain. She, therefore, went to the residence of her son-in-law taking PW 3 with her. However, when they reached the house of the accused persons, they were greeted with all kinds of hostility. The accused inquired from them if they had come with the money, they had demanded and that the accused persons, Nitish Saha, in particular, started to rebuke her. 47. PW 6 has also stated that the deceased, seeing her mother being abused in front of her neighbours and that, too, at the residence of her newly married daughter, started crying in pain and she (deceased) advised her parents to pay the fine imposed on them and take her back to her residence. However, PW 12, the I/O, did not support these claims of PW 6, more particularly, her claim that accused/appellants tortured her daughter demanding money/property, etc. 48. Here, it is worth noting that the evidence of other PWs, on the point of torture of the deceased in connection with demand for money and property, is also found to be far from convincing. In this regard, it may be pointed out that though PW 1, in his examination-in chief, claims that on the day of the marriage itself, he himself gave Rs. 12,000/- to the father of accused Swapan Bhowmick; but in his cross-examination he has stated that such amount was paid, not by him, but by his father thereby contradicting his own evidence that he had himself paid the money to the father of accused Swapan on the night of marriage itself. Worst still such claim of PW 1 did not find support from PW 6 as well as PW 9, since both of them claim that such money was paid by the father of the deceased instead. Giving a new twist to the dispute, PW 6 states that the money was paid to Nitish Saha. Worst still such claim of PW 1 did not find support from PW 6 as well as PW 9, since both of them claim that such money was paid by the father of the deceased instead. Giving a new twist to the dispute, PW 6 states that the money was paid to Nitish Saha. Obviously, therefore money was not paid to the father of the accused Swapan. 49. On the other hand, PW 2 states that after the death of deceased, PW 6 told him (PW 2) that Kanchan (deceased) told her that accused persons had tortured her demanding dowry. However, PW 6 never uttered any word about her making such a statement to the PW 2. The failure, on the part of PW 6 to support the claim, which PW 2 makes, renders his evidence hearsay, and on such hearsay evidence, no Court can place reliance. 50. We may note that PW 6 also deposes that she sent her son, Subodh, to the house of her son-in-law to bring her daughter and her son-in-law to their house and that Subodh went to the house of the accused persons again and again, but could not bring his sister and brother-in-law to their house since they could not pay the accused the entire money, which the accused had demanded. However, according to the I.O., PW 6 never made such a claim, while he examined her. This makes PW 6's claim that accused persons did not allow her daughter to come to her parental house, because the entire money, demanded by the former, had not been paid, cannot be safely relied upon. 51. In our considered opinion, Subodh and none else could have successfully established those aspects of the prosecution's case. However, the witness, Subodh, was not examined and no explanation was offered as to why such an important witness was left out. Such a lapse, again casts a grave doubt on the veracity of the demand for dowry. 52. On the other hand, the claim of PW 3 that accused persons rebuked the mother of the deceased, when she went to the house of accused persons to bring her daughter and son-in-law to her house and that, too, over non-payment of money, was not confirmed by the I.O. Thus, the testimony of PW 3, too, on these aspects becomes very suspicious. Such suspicion gathers more weight, when we notice that PW 10, too, did not support the prosecution's case on this count. 53. In the light of what have been discussed above, we agree with the conclusion of the learned trial Court, and we, too, hold, that prosecution could not make out its case that accused/appellants had harassed the deceased in order to compel her or her relatives to meet the unlawful demand for money/property/valuable security and to that extent, one cannot find fault with the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court that the demand for dowry, having been raised by the accused-appellant, could not be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and, consequently, the said deceased could not have been held to have committed suicide because her parents could not meet the demands for dowry. 54. What follows from the above discussion is that the evidence on record, adduced by the prosecution, was wholly inadequate to hold that the said deceased had been tortured or subjected to cruelty, which led her to commit suicide. 55. It is worth pointing out, at this stage, that witnesses, generally, fall in three distinct categories, namely, (i) witnesses, who are wholly reliable; (ii) witnesses, who are wholly unreliable; and (iii) witnesses, who are neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. While the evidence of wholly unreliable witness cannot be accepted and has to be rejected, the evidence of a witness, who is wholly reliable, can become basis of conviction of an accused. So far as the witnesses, who are neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, are concerned, their evidence cannot be safely relied upon unless their evidence receives support from some independent credible evidence, direct or circumstantial. It is also trite that one infirm witness cannot be taken to have been corroborated by another infirm witness. A witness, therefore, who is neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, cannot be taken to have corroborated the evidence of another witness, who, too, is a witness, who is neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. 56. In the light of the position of law, as discussed above, there is no manner of doubt in our mind that none of the prosecution witnesses was found to be wholly reliable. 56. In the light of the position of law, as discussed above, there is no manner of doubt in our mind that none of the prosecution witnesses was found to be wholly reliable. Even if the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are not rejected, they can, at best, fall in the category of those witnesses, who are neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, and each of them being infirm witness, they cannot be taken to have corroborated each other and their evidence cannot, therefore, become basis for conviction of the accused-appellant. 57. When the accused-appellants have been found not guilty of the offences under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and under Section 304 (B) IPC, the same offence could not have, in the light of what have been discussed above, been made basis for conviction of the present accused-appellants under Section 498A IPC. At any rate, the accused-appellants ought to have been accorded, at least, benefit of doubt. 58. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, this appeal succeeds. The conviction of the accused-appellants and the sentence passed against them are hereby set aside. The accused-appellants are held not guilty of the offence under Section 498 (A) IPC and are acquitted of the same under benefit of doubt. 59. Let the accused-appellants be set at liberty, forthwith, unless they are required to be detained in connection with any other case. Send back the LCR with a copy of this order. Appeal allowed