JUDGMENT (ORAL) Per Mandhata Singh, J.-All the above three appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment as they are having same Sessions Trial bearing No.12 of 2003. 2. Prosecution case initiated on the fard-bayan of one Vidya Nand Saha in brief is that his daughter Sarita Devi was married with accused-appellant Binod Kumar Sah three years ago, she lived peacefully in her sasural for a period of six months, thereafter accused-appellants and others started to demand a motorcycle in dowry and caused cruelty followed by assault on her. Same was narrated by the informant's daughter, when she came to her parents with further disclosure that if they want to see the deceased living peacefully in her sasural, they should fulfill the demand of motorcycle. Informant along with ills friend Md. Kurban went to his daughter's sasural fifteen days before puja, promised to purchase a motorcycle within 2-3 years after depositing its price. On which they (accused persons) assured not to treat cruelly with the deceased. 3. It is further stated (alleged) that on 08.10.2000 at about 5-6 p.m. one Kishan Lal along with Ashok Prasad, the son-in-law of the informant came at informant's house informed him about death of informant's daughter due to consumption of poison. Receiving such information informant went to his daughter's sasural Haldikhora where none of the family members was found present. Gathered villagers namely Bishnu Lal Saha, Basant Lal Saha, Jahad Lal Saha and others informed the informant that accused persons were always treating the deceased cruelly for demand of motorcycle. For accused-appellant Binod Kumar Sah, it is said that he was keeping a lady having illicit relation with her and on 7.10.2000 at about 9.00 a.m. informant's daughter consumed poison, who died in a clinic at Mahadevdighi. After concluding the trial, all the accused-appellants are convicted for the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. 4. In all, twelve (12) witnesses are examined in the case, they are PW 1 Pano Devi, PW 2 Dayawati Devi, PW 3 Asha Devi, PW 4 Dhaniya Devi, PW 5 Birendra Kumar, PW 6 Gopal Prasad, PW 7 Lila Nand Saha, PW 8 Md. Mofuzuddin, PW 9 Vidya Nand Saha, PW 10 Dr. 4. In all, twelve (12) witnesses are examined in the case, they are PW 1 Pano Devi, PW 2 Dayawati Devi, PW 3 Asha Devi, PW 4 Dhaniya Devi, PW 5 Birendra Kumar, PW 6 Gopal Prasad, PW 7 Lila Nand Saha, PW 8 Md. Mofuzuddin, PW 9 Vidya Nand Saha, PW 10 Dr. Faijul Rahman, PW 11 Chandra Bhushan Saha and PW 12 Dropadi Devi, of them PWs-1 to 6 and 8 are stating to know nothing about the incident, they have been declared hostile, cross-examined by the prosecution also, but nothing has appeared in their statement either to corroborate prosecution case or to favour the defence. PWs-7, 9, 11 and 12 are only material witnesses to state the prosecution case. 5. It is admitted case of the parties that there is no eye-witness of the case, all the allegations rest on circumstance or presumption under Section 113-A or 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act. Marriage of the deceased with appellant Binod Saha is within a period of seven years is an admitted fact. Now, the allegation is that informant's daughter was killed for demand of dowry for which she was being cruelly treated is the part of allegations, if is established then only circumstance or presumption will have any role to play. On this point, PW 7 Lila Nand Saha states that deceased was kept peacefully for a period of five months after the marriage, thereafter, there was a demand of motorcycle and on non-fulfilment of it she was being assaulted and lastly was killed after administering poison, but in cross-examination i.e. states about his going to Punjab and coming to know about the incident there from son-in-law of Sarfaria, he is silent on the point of source of information about demand and torture for its non-fulfillment. 6. PW 12 is mother of the deceased, she states about keeping her daughter with all okey for a period of one year and thereafter demand of a motorcycle and assault, but specifying the same in Paragraph-2 that husband was demanding. Further, she states about killing and disposing of the dead body. 7. PW 11 is uncle of the deceased, he also states about keeping of deceased by in-law peacefully for a period of 1-2 years, thereafter making of demand and causing of assault and thereafter killing after administering poison. 8. Further, she states about killing and disposing of the dead body. 7. PW 11 is uncle of the deceased, he also states about keeping of deceased by in-law peacefully for a period of 1-2 years, thereafter making of demand and causing of assault and thereafter killing after administering poison. 8. PW 9 in his examination-in-chief states that after the marriage for six months deceased was kept peacefully by in-laws, thereafter she came to her maika and disclosed that accused-appellants were asking her to demand a motorcycle. Later she was killed and her dead body was disposed of. 9. Stress is made by lawyers of all the appeals that the motive leading to circumstance or presumption under Section 113-A and 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act is lacking in the case referring the statement of PWs 9 and 11 which has appeared in the case. More specifically, it is submitted that for demand of dowry, cruelty was being caused and deceased was killed, but statement of PW 9 in paragraph 2 of his examination-in-chief is that for the demand, there was a panchayati in which an assurance was given on behalf of the appellants to fulfill the demand of motorcycle within a period of 2-3 years, thereupon in-laws assured that deceased would be kept with all okey. PW 11 also in his examination-in-chief states that assurance to provide motorcycle was given by his brother, father of the deceased. It is further specifically submitted on behalf of learned counsels that assurance was working, no occasion ever appeared to disbelieve or believe the assurance given by the deceased's father, so, there could be no occasion to kill the deceased or creating any circumstance leading to act of abetment of suicide. 10. Further submission on behalf of defence is that deceased suffered with some ailment, she was taken to clinic of one Dr. Faijul Rahman and every attempt was made to get her cured. First Information Report also mentions about her death to a clinic for which PW 10 Dr. Faijul Rahman is examined on behalf of the prosecution itself that medical aid was provided on his behalf. Faijul Rahman and every attempt was made to get her cured. First Information Report also mentions about her death to a clinic for which PW 10 Dr. Faijul Rahman is examined on behalf of the prosecution itself that medical aid was provided on his behalf. Further submission on behalf of accused-appellants is that after the death matter was informed to the police and U.D. Case was lodged, investigation was there in which post-mortem was also conducted, but death was not found beyond normal circumstance that was on record, but doctor not examined nor produced by prosecution even I.O. is not produced by the prosecution. Under such circumstances the conclusion about death not in normal circumstance may not be reached concluded). 11. Further submission on behalf of defence is that motive if is taken for the offence under Section 304-B of the I.P.C. only then cruelty or harassment for demand of dowry should continue soon before the death which is lacking in the case. After intervention of PW 9 father of the deceased who held a panchayati gave an assurance, which was accepted also there was no occasion to again treat the informant's daughter cruelly. 12. On the observation made above, evidence and circumstance of the case, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction dated 13.12.2005 and order of sentence dated 15.12.2005 passed in S.T. No.12 of 2003 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.3. Kishanganj are set aside. The accused-appellants are acquitted of their respective charge, discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds and set at liberty. 13. A copy of this judgment along with Lower Court Records be sent back to the trial Court. Appeals allowed.