Judgment Dharnidhar Jha, J. The two appellants, father and son between them, were put on trial by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Darbhanga by being indicted of committing offences under Sections 306, 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in Sessions Trial No. 133 of 1990/33 of 1990. The judgment in the case was delivered by the learned Judge on the 8th of May, 1992 and while the learned Judge acquitted the appellants for offences under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, they were held guilty of committing offences under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and after being heard on the quantum of sentence on the same day, the two appellants were directed individually to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 304B and rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. This is how the appellants are before us through the present appeal. 2. Some facts are undisputed that Ashia @ Shushila Devi who happened to be daughter of P.W.10 Kaushalya Devi @ Sita Devi and Sundar Rai and that she was married to appellant Satya Narayan Yadav and that on the day of occurrence, the deceased was residing in her matrimonial house. It also does not appear disputed that she died under circumstances not natural as her dead body was found hanging through a rope from the ceiling of the house and that the dead body was bearing a few other injuries also in addition to the ligature mark which had asphyxiated her to death. Yet another undisputed fact was that in spite of being married for about 10 years, as appears from the evidence of P.W.10 her mother, the lady had not given birth to any child. 3. In the backdrop of above admitted facts, it was alleged that the lady was taken away four days prior to the occurrence from the house of P.W.10 to their house by the appellants and just on the next day, her mother and other relatives came to know that Shushila had been murdered by the accused persons. 3. In the backdrop of above admitted facts, it was alleged that the lady was taken away four days prior to the occurrence from the house of P.W.10 to their house by the appellants and just on the next day, her mother and other relatives came to know that Shushila had been murdered by the accused persons. In fact, the information was lodged by the Chaukidar Ram Sevak Singh, P.W.9 who stated that there was a rumour thick in the air that the deceased Shushila @ Ashia had hanged herself to death and on this information he reached the house of the appellants to find that the dead body was hanging through a rope and further that the doors and door frames of the house were lying dismantled. The family members stated that after they had found the doors locked from inside and the bride of the house not available in the household anywhere, then they suspected some foul play and on breaking the doors and windows open they could find out that she had in fact hanged herself to death. 4. On the statement of P.W.9, the case was registered and the dead body was sent to Dr. Akhauri Rabindra Kishore (P.W.11) for post mortem examination who found the following ante mortem injuries on the dead body : (i) One ¼” wide ligature mark at the level of thyroid cartilage in front of the neck extending from one sterno-mostoid muscle to another sterno-mostoid muscle (from let to right) – the ligature was absent in the back. Underlying soft tissues were found bruised and margins were abraised. (ii) One bruise 1½”x½” over right shoulder. (iii) One bruise 1”x½” over right side of neck at the base. (iv) One grazed abrasion ½”x¼” over back of right elbow joint. In the opinion of P.W.11, injury no. 1 was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death while the remaining two injuries were simple in nature, not being the cause of death. 5. (iii) One bruise 1”x½” over right side of neck at the base. (iv) One grazed abrasion ½”x¼” over back of right elbow joint. In the opinion of P.W.11, injury no. 1 was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death while the remaining two injuries were simple in nature, not being the cause of death. 5. The prosecution examined a total number of thirteen witnesses, out of whom, as may appear from the very judgment itself, P.W.1 Ram Baran Bhagat, P.W.2 Damodar Sah, P.W.4 Laxmi Yadav, P.W.7 Jamindar Rai and P.W.8 Chhitu Rai were deposing on facts, like, the marriage of the couple, the demand of a bicycle and on that account the killing of the deceased but on recall the witnesses were turning round to resile from their earlier statements and to state that in fact the deceased had been married 10 years prior to the occurrence and that there was no demand of dowry. Some of the other witnesses, like, P.W.3 Bodh Narayan Bhagat, was a witness to inquest and seizure memo while P.W.5 Madheshwar Bhagat did not support the prosecution case and he was declared hostile. It appears that the defence had come up before this Court in Cr. Rev. No.587 of 1991 seeking a direction to the court below to recall the witnesses for further cross-examination and witnesses, like, P.W.7 or P.W.10, i.e., the uncle of the deceased or her mother besides others were recalled for further cross-examination during which course they also gave statements as if the lady had been married 10 years prior to the occurrence and that there had not been any demand of dowry and further that they were made to make certain statements adverse to the accused by the investigating officer. All these facts were noticed by the learned trial Judge in paragraph 7 of the judgment and what we find from the discussion made by the learned trial Judge on the nature of the evidence given by the witnesses is that the learned trial Judge was not hesitating to consider the statements made by them during investigation before the police and thus was raising a presumption as if the accused persons had demanded dowry and had ill-treated the lady and ultimately the lady died a death which was not natural. 6. 6. After having gone through the evidence of witnesses and after having considered the discussion of evidence made by the learned trial Judge, we are constrained to observe that it may be true that the witnesses might have made a summersault, which word appears used by the learned trial Judge on more than two occasions in the judgment for rejecting the evidence of the witnesses in cross-examination after their recall, but the effect of the evidence was there on record and the inferences had to be raised after considering their evidence in its totality. The court cannot and should not pick up one single line of the evidence and consider it to raise an inference. There were varying evidences on the period since the deceased had been married to the accused. The period as per the witnesses, like, P.W.7 might have stated that Sushila was married three years prior to her death but the evidence of that particular witness as also that of P.W.10 Kaushalya Devi @ Sita Devi who happened to be the mother of the deceased could not have been brushed aside merely because she had given evidence adverse to the prosecution during cross-examination on her recall at the orders of this Court. The mother of the deceased was one of the most competent witnesses on many facts. She would have been the best witness to say as to when the deceased had been married to the accused and also as to whether there was any demand from the accused of any article or anything as a dowry. While we were considering the evidence of P.W.10, the mother of the deceased in paragraph-6, we could find out that the negotiations for the marriage of the deceased to appellant Satya Narayan Yadav had been carried on by one of her relatives Chhitar Rai and during the negotiations for marriage there had never been any demand for any dowry. P.W.10 has further stated in paragraph-7 that her Damad, i.e., the appellant Satya Narayan Yadav had never visited her house after being married to her daughter and her daughter had also never come to her house and further that she did not have any talk with her daughter on any aspect of her life nor she had gone to her daughter ever to meet her. If these are the evidences coming from the mother of the deceased, merely because is was coming through cross-examination on recall, it was, in our opinion, not prudent on the part of the learned trial Judge to reject the evidence so as to considering the statements of the witness made to the police during investigation to raise an inference. The learned trial Judge has on many occasions referred to the statements made by the witness to the police and had recorded findings on facts, like, the period of marriage, the demand of a particular article and has thereafter, gone on to hold the two accused persons guilty. Thus, what we find is that the conviction of the appellants was recorded by considering the statements of witnesses made by them before the police. In other words, the conviction of the appellants appears recorded by perusing the case diary which is completely prohibited under law. 7. We have already noted that there were varying evidences of witnesses as regards the period the deceased had been married to the appellant Satya Narayan Yadav. Witnesses, like, P.Ws. 1, 8, 10 and others had given different periods of marriage of the deceased to the appellant Satya Narayan Yadav whereas her mother has stated that she had been married since last 7 years to the appellant Satya Narayan Yadav. Some other witnesses also stated that the deceased had been married for about 11-10 years to Satya Narayan Yadav. If there were varying evidence coming from prosecution witnesses on a single fact then the law states that the interpretation of the evidence has to be in such a way as to be in favour of the accused persons. The learned trial Judge was raising an inference discarding the principles of appreciation of evidence in favour of the prosecution and that too presumably under some prejudice because the witnesses were recalled for cross-examination at the orders of this Court. In our opinion, the approach which was adopted by the learned trial Judge in appreciation of the evidence was not conducive to better administration of justice and that was the reason the learned trial Judge had fallen in error in recording the finding of guilt against the two appellants and passing sentences upon them. In our opinion, the approach which was adopted by the learned trial Judge in appreciation of the evidence was not conducive to better administration of justice and that was the reason the learned trial Judge had fallen in error in recording the finding of guilt against the two appellants and passing sentences upon them. On consideration of the evidence available on record, we find that it was a case in which the witnesses had virtually given no evidence in support of the prosecution and the learned trial Judge was convicting the appellants out of his moral conviction. 8. In the result, the appeal appears meritorious and the same is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence are hereby set aside. The two appellants are acquitted of the charges they had been found guilty of. They are on bail. They shall stand discharged from the liabilities of their respective bonds. Appeal allowed.