JUDGMENT : Akhilesh Chandra, J. Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. The solitary appellant, namely, Nawal Upadhaya, has preferred this appeal against his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each for both the offences and the sentences are to run concurrently as awarded on 30th day of June, 2000 in Sessions Trial No. 323/99 arising out of Kutumba P.S. Case No. 87/85 by Additional District & Sessions Judge-VI, Aurangabad. 3. Undisputedly, the appellant is the husband of deceased sister of the informant who died within three and half years of her marriage on 15th August, 1985 at her sasural and allegedly there was demand of motorcycle for which the second marriage (Duragaman) was also delayed a bit and the informant could be able to know the same on 17th August, 1985 from the nephew (Bhagina) of the appellant about the death of his sister and on the following day he went to inquire into the matter and got the case instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code by filing written application. The police after concluding investigation submitted charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant and others. After commitment of the case, the trial commenced for the said offences and during trial the mother of the appellant died and before commencement of the trial his father too. 4. To substantiate the prosecution case altogether thirteen witnesses were examined besides producing following documentary evidence :- (i) Exhibit 1 ;- Formal F.I.R. (ii) Exhibits 2 to 2/1 : - Endorsement with signature. (iii) Exhibit 3 ;- Written report with signature. Since PW 13 (Jagdish Dubey) did not turn up to even complete his examination-in-chief, thus his deposition was expunged and out of remaining twelve witnesses. PW 1 (Baleshwar Prasad), PW 2 (Om Prakash Sharma), PW 3 (Shivpujan Prasad) are completely formal witnesses, respectively, proved Exhibits-1, 2 and 2/1. PW 4 (Sitaram Tiwary), PW 5 (Ram Chandra Mahto), PW 6 (Mangali Devi), PW 8 (Samudri Devi) since said nothing about the prosecution case they were declared hostile and their entire statements became redundant. PW 1 (Baleshwar Prasad), PW 2 (Om Prakash Sharma), PW 3 (Shivpujan Prasad) are completely formal witnesses, respectively, proved Exhibits-1, 2 and 2/1. PW 4 (Sitaram Tiwary), PW 5 (Ram Chandra Mahto), PW 6 (Mangali Devi), PW 8 (Samudri Devi) since said nothing about the prosecution case they were declared hostile and their entire statements became redundant. PW 7 (Birendra Upadhaya) is a hearsay witness stating only the deceased died on 17th August, 1985 due to her illness and that he too could learn when he returned from Patna. 5. PW 9 (Suryadeo Ram) has come to state that he alongwith PW 12 (Ramanuj Dubey) visited appellant's place with Kalewa which was not accepted and there was consistent demand for motorcycle and even he was not permitted to meet the deceased, but as rightly submitted by learned counsel for the appellant in paragraph-2, he says that he was never examined before the police, consequently for the first time examined in Court. It is also pointed out that according to this witness, the appellant did not permit PW 12 to meet the deceased, whereas, PW 10 (Awadhesh Kumar Dubey) the informant in paragraph 7 of his deposition states he could learn from this PW 9 and PW 12 that the appellant was not there and the deceased sent some messages through them. Likewise PW 12 (Ramanuj Dubey) though also states almost the same as PW 9 said, but in very initial stage of cross-examination in paragraph-3 he says that he has never made any statement before any other agency and whatever he has stated it is for the first time during trial in the Court. PW 10, the informant, with a bit variation of his own written report has tried to support the prosecution version, but as rightly pointed out he is completely silent about any sort of harassment and torture etc. to the deceased. Though, he is consistent about the alleged demand of motorcycle but without any specific date etc. Almost similar is the position of PW 11 (Lalmohan Dubey. the uncle of the informant). 6. to the deceased. Though, he is consistent about the alleged demand of motorcycle but without any specific date etc. Almost similar is the position of PW 11 (Lalmohan Dubey. the uncle of the informant). 6. The Investigating Officer has not been examined for the reasons best known to the prosecution at least to derive some material in support of prosecution as vehementally argued by learned Additional Public Prosecutor that examination of the Investigating Officer was a must, specially, when these two witnesses have consistently denied making any such statement before any other agency including investigating agency. 7. Thus, on overall consideration of the facts and circumstances discussed above, it appears that neither there was anything to screen and nor to constitute the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code nor the requirement of law is fulfilled to attract the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, which reads as such :- "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.]" 8. In view of the above, the appellant appears entitled for the benefit of doubt to the laches committed by the prosecution and his conviction and sentence as recorded by the trial Court, is not at all sustainable. Accordingly, it is set aside and the appeal is hereby allowed. Appeal allowed.