Judgment The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim in Sessions Trial No.76/1995. The appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A read with Section 34 and Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The deceased was wife of appellant No.1. She was married to appellant No.1 on 19-5-1995 and died within three months of her marriage. The allegations against the appellants before the trial Court were that the appellants had been demanding Rs. 50,000/- from the deceased and her parents to secure a job for appellant No. 1. The parents of deceased could not pay the amount and therefore, the deceased committed suicide by consuming poison. First Information Report was registered on the basis of complaint lodged by father of the deceased. Dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. The Medical Officer reported that the deceased had died due to chemical poisoning. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court. 3. The prosecution had examined in all four witnesses to establish the charges against the appellants. P.W.1-Pandurang and P.W.2-Parvatibai were parents of the deceased, P.W.3-Subhash was neighbour of P.W.1 and P.W.2, P.W.4-Awdhesh Tripathi was the Investigating Officer. P.W.1 and P.W.2, both have stated that they were told by the deceased that the appellants had been demanding Rs. 50,000/-. P.W.1 had refused to pay. It is further stated that mother-in-law of deceased had once visited house of P.W.1 and P.W.2 to demand Rs. 50,000/-. To corroborate this evidence, the prosecution has examined P.W. 3. P.W.3 has stated that there was a commotion at the house of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and when he visited the house, he was told by P.W.2 that mother-in-law of the deceased was demanding Rs. 50,000/-. The evidence of P.W.3 is hearsay. 4. P.W.1 in his cross-examination has stated that he had stated to the police that he was told by his daughter that she was being subjected to cruelty by the appellants. The Investigating Officer has stated that P.W.1 had not stated in his statement that deceased had told P.W.1 that she was being ill-treated. This is a glaring omission in the previous statement of P.W.1. Apart from this, it can be seen that the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is very cryptic. The Investigating Officer has stated that P.W.1 had not stated in his statement that deceased had told P.W.1 that she was being ill-treated. This is a glaring omission in the previous statement of P.W.1. Apart from this, it can be seen that the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is very cryptic. It appears that there was one Laxmibai who had worked as a mediator for settling the marriage with the deceased of appellant No.1. It was the case of prosecution before the trial Court that she had also told the parents of the deceased to pay Rs. 50,000/-. She is neither made accused as an abettor nor she has been examined as a witness. As such there is no corroboration in the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. The prosecution could have examined the said Laxmibai. Moreover the P.W.1 and P.W.2 have also not given any details of visit of mother-in-law of the deceased. 5. The cause of death is not disputed, evidence of witnesses has failed to prove the charges levelled against the appellant Nos. 1, 2 and 4. The appellant No. 3 is reported dead. 6. In view of above discussion, in my opinion, the benefit of doubt should have been given to the appellants by the trial Court. Hence, I pass the following order. i. Appeal of appellant No.3 stands abated. ii. The appeal of appellant Nos. 1, 2 and 4 is allowed. iii. The Judgment and Order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Washim, dated 21st April, 1999 in Sessions Trial No. 76/1995, is set aside. iv. Appellant Nos. 1, 2 and 4 are acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 498A read with Section 34 and Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. v. Bail bonds of appellant Nos. 1, 2 and 4 shall stand cancelled. vi. Fine, if paid by the appellants, shall be refunded to them. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. Ordered accordingly.