JUDGMENT : Akhilesh Chandra, J. - The solitary appellant has preferred this Appeal against his conviction for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years as awarded on 30th July, 2002 by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court). Sitamarhi in Sessions Trial No. 299 of 1997/225 of 2001 arising out of Nanpur P.S. Case No. 122 of 1996, initially instituted for the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal-Code against only co-accused (non-appellant), Navin Kumar Mishra, the husband of the deceased who stand acquitted by same judgment. 2. The prosecution case in short as revealed from Ext. 4, fardbeyan of PW 7, Shanti Devi, mother of the deceased recorded on 23.11.1996 at 17 hours is that her daughter. Bandana aged about 20 years was married with one Navin Kumar Mishra (co-accused) a few months ago. Gifts etc. were also given as per capacity. Roughly one and half months before she had visited the place of her parents along with her husband on the occasion of Durgapuja and remained there for about 18 days. During the period, the appellant who had earlier been operator of Flour Mill of the informant taking undue advantage of relationship provided wine to the co-accused and in intoxicated stage shown him negative/photograph showing his soft relationship with the deceased consequently co-accused became annoyed. Any how the matter was pacified only on the assurance of providing a motorcycle as demanded by him and, thereafter, couple came back. Roughly 20 days ago suddenly information was received that the deceased has committed suicide since she was being tortured for the alleged relationship with the appellant and demand of motorcycle etc. Anticipating her killing by the co-accused, the case was instituted only against him and the fardbeyan was recorded in presence of one Lalita Thakur, PW 8. 3. Police after investigation submitted charge-sheet only against the co-accused but on going through the materials collected towards investigation cognizance was taken and the appellant was also summoned. However, he surrendered before the sessions Court where contested the issue at the initial stage of framing of charge. 3. Police after investigation submitted charge-sheet only against the co-accused but on going through the materials collected towards investigation cognizance was taken and the appellant was also summoned. However, he surrendered before the sessions Court where contested the issue at the initial stage of framing of charge. However, he was put under trial for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code only along with the acquitted accused Navin Kumar Mishra who faced the trial for the offence under Section 304- B as well 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution has produced the following documentary evidence besides examining altogether 11 witnesses, which is as under:- "Ext. 1 Sign of Harish Chndra Paswan on the inquest report. Ext.1/1 Sign of Jivan Mishra on the inquest report. Ext.2 Letter. Ext.3 Inquest report. Ext.4 Fardbeyan. Ext.5 F.I.R. Ext.6 Post-mortem report." In defense, 3 witnesses have also been examined to show his false implication only because some money advanced at the time of marriage of the deceased was not being returned and the prosecution has taken U-turn in collusion with the co-accused of being monetarily satisfied. The trial Court after examining the materials acquitted the co-accused but convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner aforesaid. 5. PW 1, Bindeshwar Mishra who learnt about committing suicide by the deceased, declared hostile. PW 2, Harish Chandra Paswan is a person could see the dead body hanging with a tree. Inquest report was prepared by the police and he proved his signature there as Ext. 1. PW 3, Jeewan Mishra another witness of inquest report proved his signature on such inquest report as Ext. 1/1. PW 11, Dr. Ranjeet Kumar Sinha, is a medical officer who completed autopsy of the deceased proved post-mortem report as Ext.6 and opined cause of death due to asphyxia as a result of hanging caused by ligature of cloth like substance. PW 10, Vindhyachal Singh, the police officer and I.O. of the case proved Exts. 3 to 5. Investigating officer and author of the fardbeyan proved Ext. 3. PW 8, Lalita Thakur, witness on the fardbeyan whose signature has already been marked in defense as Ext. B and she has simply accepted the same. 6. PW 9, Santosh Kumar and PW 5, Rajnish Kumar are the two brothers of the deceased. 3 to 5. Investigating officer and author of the fardbeyan proved Ext. 3. PW 8, Lalita Thakur, witness on the fardbeyan whose signature has already been marked in defense as Ext. B and she has simply accepted the same. 6. PW 9, Santosh Kumar and PW 5, Rajnish Kumar are the two brothers of the deceased. PW 5, Rajnish Kumar has admittedly accompanied the deceased to her sasural and remained there till her death. PW 4, Sadhna Kumari, is younger sister of the deceased whereas PW 6, Mangnu Sharma his father and PW 7, Shanti Devi mother of the deceased and she is also informant. These witnesses have been declared hostile by the prosecution since they did not support the case against the co-accused, Navin Kumar Mishra. All have taken U-turn even his alleged annoyance of being made aware by the appellant in intoxicated stage about her alleged illicit relationship with him demand of motorcycle and only on assurance taken back the deceased with him. Their entire exercise appears against the appellant by showing that he provided intoxicating substance to the co-accused and provided some wrong and false information resulting in the change of his behaviour with the deceased torturing and taunting her and ultimately resulting into her death. Rather, contrary all have consistently come to say that in spite of such poisoning co-accused shown no reaction nor demanded anything rather his relation with the deceased was cordial she was living peaceful life at her sasural even none of her en-laws put any question to her. 7. One may assume, the young married lady committing suicide due to sudden change of behaviour of her husband and in-laws of such a filthy allegation but as per prosecution story and statement of all the witnesses everything, was cordial. Simultaneously, one may even assume, such normal beaviour shown by her husband and in-laws if at all she was feeling guilty for allegedly having illicit relationship with appellant due to whom she may also compel to commit suicide but at the same time it is the duty of the prosecution to produce the materials showing/establishing the things as alleged, and if they have done it is to be explained to the accused at the stage of 313, Cr PC. 8. 8. But in the instant case, all prosecution witnesses are consistent that the deceased was a good lady having no such illicit relationship with the appellant and the prosecution also could not be able to produce the alleged photograph/negative which annoyed the co-accused (husband of the deceased) poisoning the deceased nor there is a single witness coming to say that in his or her presences husband of the deceased was provided wine or such material (negative/photograph) by the appellant. In absence whereof, it cannot be said that prosecution has been able to establish the charge leveled against the appellant. Rather for not removing the cloud against prosecution version the appellant deserves and is entitled for the benefits arrived. 9. Consequently, granting benefit of doubt the conviction and sentence as awarded by the trial Court with reference to the appellant is set aside. The Appeal is hereby allowed and the appellant is set free from the liabilities of the bail bonds furnished on his behalf. Appeal allowed.