JUDGMENT : Ananda Sen, J. 1. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 27.03.2003 and the order of sentence dated 28.03.2003, passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bermo at Tenughat, in Sessions Trial No. 214 of 1999, whereby the accused-appellants have been convicted for committing offence under sections 307 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years, this appeal has been preferred by the appellants-accused. 2. The prosecution story is that victim Geeta Devi was married to Deblal Mahto (Appellant no.3) on 18.03.1998. It is alleged that after the marriage, all the appellants, who happen to be relatives of the husband, and the husband himself started demanding Hero Honda Motorcycle and one Colour T.V. Due to non fulfillment of the said demand she was being harassed and tortured regularly and was also assaulted. It is alleged that some time in the month of July, 1998 she was offered a tea mixed with poison, which she refused, as a result of which she was tied up and was assaulted. On 17.10.1998 at about 6 P.M. when the informant was taking bath after cleaning the house, her husband came there and asked for a bucket of water. When the informant (victim) put the bucket inside the well to bring out water, the husband snatched the rope of the bucket from the informant and tied the rope over the body of the victim and forcibly pushed her down in the well. She could manage to catch some grass and plants, which were inside the well and she screamed for help. These appellants then assaulted her with wooden log and other objects like bricks etc. Her attempt to come out from the well was unsuccessful because of the acts of these appellants. After some time she heard that the appellants left the place thinking her to be dead. She managed to save herself by catching grass and the bricks, which were on the wall of the well. At about 9 P.M. one elder brother-in-law of this victim (Mahendra Mahto) came there along with one Dilip Mahto and seeing the victim to be alive saved her and brought her out. After coming out, the victim sent message to her parents through one Dinesh Mistry. 3. On the aforesaid fardbeyan, Mahuwatand P.S. Case no. 44 of 1998 was registered. At about 9 P.M. one elder brother-in-law of this victim (Mahendra Mahto) came there along with one Dilip Mahto and seeing the victim to be alive saved her and brought her out. After coming out, the victim sent message to her parents through one Dinesh Mistry. 3. On the aforesaid fardbeyan, Mahuwatand P.S. Case no. 44 of 1998 was registered. The police investigated the case and filed charge sheet against the accused. After taking cognizance the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The charges were framed and the accused pleaded not guilty. 4. Al together 9 (nine) witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution. Apart from the oral evidence, F.I.R. has been exhibited as Ext.1. 5. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the statements of the accused were recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. Two defence witnesses were also produced by the accused persons. 7. Thereafter vide the impugned judgment, the trial Court found the appellants guilty of committing offence under sections 498A and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 7 years under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Since imprisonment of 7 years was granted to the accused-appellants as punishment, no separate sentence was passed for the offence under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 8. I have heard the counsel for the appellants and Addl. P.P. for the State. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the evidence if scrutinized properly will lead to only one conclusion that these appellants are innocent. It is submitted that there is long delay in lodging the F.I.R. itself, which prejudiced the prosecution case. It is submitted that it is a fact that victim fell into the well, but not in the manner as narrated by her. The witnesses clearly state that she fell in the well herself while fetching water. It is submitted that, thus, by no stretch of imagination that the appellants can be held guilty for the said offence. It is submitted that the fact of mixing poison in the tea in the month of July, 1998 is not corroborated by any evidence and the Court below has wrongly relied on the said statement of the victim as the said incident was never reported to anyone. 10. Learned Addl. It is submitted that the fact of mixing poison in the tea in the month of July, 1998 is not corroborated by any evidence and the Court below has wrongly relied on the said statement of the victim as the said incident was never reported to anyone. 10. Learned Addl. P.P. submits that there is consistent evidence that the accused were demanding dowry for which she was thrown in the well. It is the luck of the victim that she managed to hang on to some grass and plants, which were on the wall of the well, so that she can be taken out after some time from the well. It is submitted that the torture has been proved by the witnesses. 11. P.W.1 is Gita Devi, who is the informant and victim. In her cross-examination, she supported the entire story, which she narrated in the F.I.R. As per the deposition of the victim, she was tortured for demand of dowry regularly and she narrated that she was given a cup of tea mixed with poison, which she refused to accept as a result of which she was also beaten. She stated that in the month of October 1998, she was asked to bring a bucket of water and when she came near the well and put the bucket inside the well to bring out water, these appellants pushed her in the well. She was not allowed to come out as these appellants threw wooden log and bricks and she remained there for nearly 3 hours. When these appellants left the place thinking her to be dead, Mahendra Mahto and Dilip Mahto came there and saved her. Thereafter she informed the matter to her parents and went to her parent’s house. To test the veracity of the statements of this witness, P.W.1 (victim), I would like to examine the statements of other witnesses. P.W.4 is Mahendra Mahto, who allegedly reached the place of occurrence and saved the victim. He stated that on the day one girl raised hulla that somebody has fallen in the well. On hearing the said news, this witness ran towards the well and found one lady inside the well. She was rescued and this lady (informant) told him that Deblal has pushed her into the well. He stated that on the day one girl raised hulla that somebody has fallen in the well. On hearing the said news, this witness ran towards the well and found one lady inside the well. She was rescued and this lady (informant) told him that Deblal has pushed her into the well. He stated that well was near their house and there are several other houses near the well and several persons are living in those houses. The well belongs to the entire community and the bricks boundary walls of the well had become very old and the wooden slab, which was kept on the top of the well, was also an old one. He stated that the village women told him that Geeta Devi fell down in the well while she kept her foot over the wooden slab of well as that was old and fragile. He stated that many persons had seen the said occurrence. He stated that the accused persons Ganga Ram Mahto and Deblal Mahto were not present in the village at that point of time. He stated that the victim was also treated in the village. P.W.5 is Dilip Kumar Mahto. He stated that on hearing hulla that somebody fell into the well he rushed there along with Mahendra Mahto and he along with others brought Geeta Devi out of the well by means of rope. This witness was declared hostile. He stated that the well is a community well and is old one and the boundary walls of the well was old and the wooden slabs over the well was broken. P.W.6 has also been declared hostile, but he stated that Geeta Devi fell in the well. P.W.7 has also been declared hostile. P.W.8 is Doctor, who treated Geeta Devi. He treated Geeta Devi on 24.10.1998. He found stitched wound over forehead and left eye brow and also found healed scar on right little toe. He stated that Geeta Devi before coming to him was treated else where. P.W.3 is the father of the victim. He stated that the informant was tortured for demand of dowry. He stated that the victim was tied and was thrown in the well, later on she was rescued. In his cross-examination he stated that he never met in-laws of his daughter prior to the incident. P.W.2 is the brother of the victim. P.W.3 is the father of the victim. He stated that the informant was tortured for demand of dowry. He stated that the victim was tied and was thrown in the well, later on she was rescued. In his cross-examination he stated that he never met in-laws of his daughter prior to the incident. P.W.2 is the brother of the victim. He stated that he took his sister for treatment in Ranchi. 12. The Defence has also led evidence by producing two witnesses. D.W.1 is Sainath Mahato and D.W.2 is Biseswar Mahato. D.W.1 stated that he has not heard at any point of time that dowry was demanded by the accused. He stated that he has not heard that the victim was pushed in the well. D.W.2 stated that he was a part of the Panchayati. He stated that father of the victim has demanded Rs. 1,00,000/- to which the accused refused to pay. Several Panchayatis were convened prior to the alleged incident. He denied the fact that dowry was demanded at any point of time. 13. From the evidence, which has been led on behalf of the prosecution, one fact came in light that Geeta Devi fell in the well and she was rescued. 14. Now the question is whether Geeta Devi was pushed in the well by these appellants or fell down by her self. 15. The statement of Geeta Devi suggests that she was tied by rope and was thrown in the well at 6 P.M. As per her evidence she was rescued at 9 P.M. as she could manage to cling to some grass and bricks which were on the wall of the well. From the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 it is clear that the well is a community well, which is surrounded by houses of several persons. None of the persons have seen these appellants pushing the victim in the well. No rope was found tied on the body of the victim while she was rescued as it is the prosecution case that she was thrown in the well after she was tied with rope. Further it has come in the evidence that wooden plank, which was kept on the well, was very weak and the witnesses have heard that she fell down while stepping on the said plank. Further it has come in the evidence that wooden plank, which was kept on the well, was very weak and the witnesses have heard that she fell down while stepping on the said plank. Further I find that the occurrence had taken place on 17.10.1998, but the F.I.R. was lodged on 25.10.1998 i.e. after 8 days. There is no explanation for such delay. Further Doctor, who had examined the victim, is not the first one to treat her. He stated that she was already treated earlier before he treated her. Thus, this entire episode creates a doubt about the entire occurrence. Thus, I find that the prosecution could not prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts. 16. So far as demand of dowry and torture is concerned, it is the father of the victim, who has stated that he had not met in-laws of his daughter prior to the occurrence. Thus, in view of the said statement, it cannot be believed that the father of the victim was asked any dowry. Further there is no police report about any torture, which allegedly had taken place prior to the occurrence, which also creates doubt about the prosecution case. Thus, on over all considerations, it cannot be said that the prosecution story is proved beyond all reasonable doubt. 17. In view of the aforesaid findings, the judgment of conviction dated 27.03.2003 and order of sentence dated 28.03.2003 passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bermo at Tenughat, in Sessions Trial No. 214 of 1999 is hereby set aside and the appellants are acquitted from the charges leveled against them. The appellants are on bail, they are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds. 18. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.