JUDGMENT : AKHILESH CHANDRA, J.:–Heard the parties. 2. Both these Appeals have been preferred by the appellants against their conviction for the offences under sections 304B/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven and three years respectively. However, the sentences are to run concurrently as awarded on 9th April 2002 by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Saharsa in Sessions Trial No. 191/1998 arising out of Saur Bazar P.S. Case No. 157 of 1996 by same judgment all the appellants have been acquitted for the charge under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The solitary appellant in the former Appeal is the husband of the deceased whereas the three appellants in later Appeal are father-in-law, uncle-in-law and cousin-in-law(devar) of the deceased and since both the Appeals have arisen against one and common judgment, heard together and being disposed of by this composite order. 4. The prosecution case in short as revealed from Ext.1, written application dated 28th August 1996 of the informant, Kishore Kumar Singh, PW-8 is that his sister Rekha Devi married with the appellant, Medni Singh 6 to 7 years ago and, some time thereafter, there was a demand of motorcycle which could not be fulfilled due to poverty. However, one bicycle was given but after retaining for some period it was returned and she was subjected to torture by her husband and in-laws including the appellant. Suddenly, on 25th August 1996, DW-1, Rajendra Yadav, informed father of the deceased, Fuleshwar Singh, PW-4, about illness of his daughter. Consequently, he on the following day went to enquire the matter but intimated by the appellant, Paltan Singh about her death by burn. PW-4, came back and again along with Rajendra Singh (PW-5), Kishore Kumar Singh (PW-8), villager Surendra Narain Singh (PW-6), Ram Ballav Singh (PW-7) and Gajendra Narain Singh (PW-2) went back and could learn from the villagers that on 23rd August 1996 itself she was assaulted and killed by pressing her neck followed by putting in fire inside the house and a rumor was sprayed that she herself died due to diarrhea. Informant has further stated that in spite of residing at a distance of 10 kms. Informant has further stated that in spite of residing at a distance of 10 kms. which may be covered by bicycle within 45 minutes there was no information given and still the two daughters of the deceased apprehend danger of life at the hand of the accused persons. All these four appellants were put on trial for the offences under sections 302/34, 304B and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code besides, others but remaining such acquitted from the charges under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, stand convicted and sentenced in the manner aforesaid. 5. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution has produced the following documentary evidences besides examining altogether 10 witnesses, which is as under:– “Ext.1 Fardbeyan Ext.2 Formal F.I.R.” Whereas, in defense, there is one documentary evidence that too for identification and nine witnesses have been examined. 6. Out of 10 prosecution witnesses, PW-3, Siya Devi, mother of the deceased has come to say that her daughter died within six to seven years of her marriage and her husband could know that she died due to diarrhea. She was declared hostile since said nothing about any sort of alleged demand. However, in cross-examination, by defence no question was put on the point of the period between marriage and death of the deceased. PW-4, Fuleshwar Singh, father of the deceased has almost stated what his wife, PW-3 has said and, consequently, declared hostile said nothing about demand etc. and he too was not tested during cross-examination on the point of the period between death and marriage of the deceased. PW-2, Gajendra Narain Singh, named witness in Ext.1, fardbeyan since did not state a word in support of prosecution declared hostile. PW-1, Krishnanand Singh has stated that deceased died within 2 to 3 years of her marriage and also said that he could know from her father PW-4 that she was being treated and sline was being putting and when he went to enquire into the matter could know about the rumor relating to different modes of death and in cross-examination, this witness admits that whatever he learnt he has stated to the police. This witness not declared hostile by the prosecution though states against. Likewise, PW-9, Mohan Paswan, the village Chaukidar states about coming to know that the deceased died due to diarrhea. This witness not declared hostile by the prosecution though states against. Likewise, PW-9, Mohan Paswan, the village Chaukidar states about coming to know that the deceased died due to diarrhea. Again he could learn about her death by committing suicide and he denied any demand and torture. He too was not declared hostile by the prosecution and in cross-examination this witness has said that whatever he has said was learnt by some unknown persons he cannot say about the details. PW-6, Surrender Narain Singh, has come to say that, on enquiry, PW-4 stated that his daughter (the deceased) died and this witness also accompanied the group went to enquire and could learn that she died of diarrhoea and someone stated about her killing by burn. He too was not declared hostile. 7. PW-5, Rajendra Singh, full brother of PW-4, Fuleshwar Singh, almost stated the prosecution version and, from this stage, there is some change in situation and he has stated about the alleged demand of motorcycle even of bicycle which could not satisfied the lust and ultimately the deceased had to lose her life and this is what the position of PW-8, Kishore Kumar Singh, the informant who though almost in cross-examination said that it was an ideal marriage there was no demand at initial occasion but, however, it could accrue after duragman (second marriage) of the deceased. PW-10, Anand Mohan Singh, is I.O. who after investigation submitted chargesheet against the appellants. 8. Out of 9 defense witnesses, DW-1, Rajendra Yadav, is the person who as per prosecution case has informed about illness of the deceased which the informant also admits in his evidence but without details. Though this witness has stated about the details of illness, treatment being provided and information given to the prosecution side. DW-2, Dr. Sheojee Singh is he person who treated the decease for diarrhoea etc. and in his presence she died. Md. Shamim (DW-3), Ram Chandra Sah (DW-4) and Md. Safique Alam (DW-6) are the persons also stated about the treatment being provided to the deceased. 9. DW-2, Dr. Sheojee Singh is he person who treated the decease for diarrhoea etc. and in his presence she died. Md. Shamim (DW-3), Ram Chandra Sah (DW-4) and Md. Safique Alam (DW-6) are the persons also stated about the treatment being provided to the deceased. 9. Ganesh Yadav (DW-5), Badri Mandal (DW-7) were the two persons who have come to state about the period of marriage of the deceased had commenced 12 to 13 years ago and another witness 13 to 14 years but statement of these two witness on the point of period of marriage cannot be accepted in face uncontroverted statement to the prosecution witness stated above. And this much is crystal clear that the deceased died at her Sasural within 7 years of her marriage and, now it is to be seen whether her death was unnatural and whether she was subjected to any demand or torture. 10. True it is, in the written application Ext.1, there is a case of demand of motorcycle in lieu whereof bicycle was provided which was not acceptable. Consequently, returned after few days retention but the most natural witness on such point are the parents of the deceased who are none else than PWs-3 and 4 i.e. mother and father of the deceased but none of these two have said a word about any such demand or torture shown/made to the deceased. On the other hand, the uncle and brother of the deceased respectively PWs. 5 and 8 had stated about such demand and torture but at the same time they have also consistently said that marriage was ideal one but at the relevant time there was no such demand though it developed and made subsequently. In the face of the two sets of contradictory statements of family members of the deceased creates doubt against the prosecution version and one is to accept the testimony of the nearest persons who are undoubtedly the parents unless and until nothing is shown by other persons including PWs. 5 and 8 about the reason behind by these two persons when their own daughter was done to death, not coming to support the statement made by their son as informant of the case and brother of the deceased. 11. Having regard to facts and circumstances stated above, prosecution case appears covered under dark cloud and the prosecution appears not been able to remove the same. 11. Having regard to facts and circumstances stated above, prosecution case appears covered under dark cloud and the prosecution appears not been able to remove the same. Consequently, the conviction and sentence as awarded by the trial Court to the appellant for the offences under Section 304B and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code is not at all sustainable. Accordingly it is set aside. 12. Both the Appeals are allowed and the appellants are set free from the liabilities of the bail bonds furnished on their behalf.