JUDGMENT : Since both the appeals arise out of the common judgment and order, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. On repeated calls, nobody appears on behalf of the appellants in both the appeals to argue the matter, as such Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate has been appointed as amicus curiae to assist this Court. 3. Appellant Kalawati Devi in Cr.Appeal No. 447 of 2003 and appellant Umesh Mahto in Cr.Appeal No. 481 of 2003 have been convicted under Sections 307 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and one year respectively in Cr.Appeal No. 447 of 2003 and 10 years and one year respectively in Cr.Appeal No. 481 of 2003 by the judgment dated 6.8.2003 and order dated 7.8.2003 passed by Sri Anil Kumar Verma, the then District and Sessions Judge, Buxar in Sessions Trial No.58 of 2002. 4. Prosecution case as per fardbeyan of Subhanti Devi (PW 4), wife of Umesh Mahto, appellant, in short, is that she was married to accused Umesh Mahto five years ago from the date of occurrence and her Gauna took place in the preceding year and she was residing in her sasural. Further prosecution case is that her husband and mother-in-law used to ask her to bring a she buffalo from her naiher and when protested, she was used to be assaulted by accused persons and accused persons also intended to second marriage of accused Umesh Mahto. It is alleged that on 22.11.2001 on the plea of treatment at Buxar, she was boarded in a bus at 3 P.M. near village Koransarai bus stand and they arrived at Buxar and after descending from the bus, the accused persons took her to Ganga bridge on the plea of showing the bridge to her and by that time they reached over the bridge and it was almost dark and she was asked to see the river Ganges and when she was looking towards river Ganges, her mother-in- law Kalawati Devi pressed her neck and her husband lifted her legs and they threw her in river Ganges. Further prosecution case is that when she came on surface she raised alarm, some fishermen who were fishing on the boat heard the alarm and rescued her and brought her on their boat and she was taken to the bank of river where with the help of the villagers, she was taken to a nearby Shivala of village Ahirouli where arrangement for fire was made to give heat to the body of victim lady and after sometime she gained her consciousness and then she disclosed her name to the boatman and villagers assembled and narrated the incident to them that she was thrown in river Ganges by accused persons and thereafter she was taken to the house of village Chaukidar where she remained during night and in the next morning Chaukidar took her to Buxar (Ind) Police Station where at 11.20 A.M. her fardbeyan was recorded by S.I. Ram Bahal Singh of Buxar (Ind) Police Station. 5. On the basis of aforesaid fardbeyan, Buxar (Ind) P.S.Case No. 244 of 2001 was registered. After investigation police submitted charge sheet, cognizance of the offence has been taken and after commitment the case ultimately traveled to the file of Sri Anil Kumar Verma, the then District and Sessions Judge, Buxar for trial and disposal. 6. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined altogether six witnesses, they are PW 1 Ganesh Mallah, PW 2 Brij Bihari Paswan, PW 3 Budhan mahto, PW 4 Subhanti Devi, PW 5 Satendra Singh and PW 6 Deoraj Manjhi, I.O., apart from that Ext.1 is fardbeyan and Ext.1/1 is formal FIR. It further appears that PW 1 Ganesh Mallah, who is said to have rescued the lady from river, has been declared hostile as he has not supported the prosecution case, PW 2 Brij Bihari Paswan is Chaukidar, who has informed the police, has also been declared hostile and it appears that the case is based on the evidence of remaining witnesses, PWs 3 to 5. 7. Defence of the accused persons is that the victim lady was suffering from disease and tried to commit suicide and as such they have falsely been implicated in this case. 8. Learned trial court on conclusion of trial has convicted the appellants under Sections 307 and 498A IPC and sentenced them as stated above. 9. 7. Defence of the accused persons is that the victim lady was suffering from disease and tried to commit suicide and as such they have falsely been implicated in this case. 8. Learned trial court on conclusion of trial has convicted the appellants under Sections 307 and 498A IPC and sentenced them as stated above. 9. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order the appellants in both the appeals have preferred this appeal. 10. Contention of learned amicus curiae is that the conviction is based only on the evidence of PWs 3 to 5 and PWs 3 and 5 are not eye-witnesses to the occurrence, rather PW 4 is the sole eye-witness to the occurrence and on perusal of evidence of PW 4 it appears that though she has supported the prosecution case in her evidence in chief but in her cross examination she has stated that whatever her father (PW 3) has stated, she has stated in her evidence in court and that clearly shows that her testimony is not free from reasonable doubt. Further her evidence in cross examination shows that she was fearful of water and light and also suffered with loss of sleep, etc. and further stated that she was residing with her father for the last five years and if her evidence is to be believed, it discloses that at the time of occurrence, she was living with her father and her evidence in cross examination further disclosed that she after the occurrence became unconscious and after four days she regained her consciousness which creates doubt about the genuineness of fardbeyan as fardbeyan has been recorded on 23.11.2001, i.e., just one day after the occurrence and, as such the impugned judgment suffers from inconsistencies and infirmities and the evidence of PW 4 does not appear to be reliable and trustworthy but in spite of that learned trial court has convicted the appellants under Sections 307 and 498 A IPC which does not appear to be just and proper. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has defended the judgment on the ground that evidence of PW 4 clearly disclosed that she was drown in river Ganges and she was saved by the fishermen and thereafter she lodged the fardbeyan. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has defended the judgment on the ground that evidence of PW 4 clearly disclosed that she was drown in river Ganges and she was saved by the fishermen and thereafter she lodged the fardbeyan. Her evidence also shows that there was demand of she buffalo from her by the accused persons and though PWs 3 and 5 are not eye-witnesses to the occurrence but their evidence supports the drowning of the informant by appellants and as such the conviction of the appellants under Sections 307 and 498A IPC appears to be just and proper and does not require any interference by this Court. 12. Having heard both sides and on perusal of the evidence, as discussed above, it appears that PWs 1 and 2 have been declared hostile and evidence of PW 1 shows that he rescued the lady from river Ganges and taken her to Shivala and thereafter he went for fishing and he has been declared hostile and PW 2 is Chaukidar, who informed the police and has been declared hostile and he has further stated that fishermen saved the girl and he has also stated the girl has not disclosed anything else. PW 3 is father of PW 4 and his evidence shows that about six years ago her daughter was married with appellant Umesh Mahto and they were demanding buffalo and thereafter they have taken her to Ganga bridge on the pretext of her treatment and they threw her in the river of Ganges and when he came to know about the incident he informed the police and her daughter disclosed that her mother-in-law and husband used to assault her and had thrown her into river Ganges by taking her to Ganga bridge. This witness has been cross examined and in his cross examination he has admitted that he had not seen the occurrence and he has also stated that her daughter has not written any letter to him about her complaint. This witness has come with a new story that poisonous injection was also given to her and his daughter was suffering from dogbite and for that injunction was given. This witness has come with a new story that poisonous injection was also given to her and his daughter was suffering from dogbite and for that injunction was given. PW 5 is brother-in-law (jija) of PW 4, informant and his evidence disclosed that informant was not well and her husband has taken her to Buxar for treatment and on the next day her family members came and they disclosed that she was severely assaulted and caused her death and her dead body was cremated by them. However, I find that no such story has been given by PW 3, father of the informant. On the other hand, evidence of PW 4 in her cross examination shows that she does not understand the court queries and not answering the question in proper manner and her evidence in chief discloses that whatever she has stated in her evidence, is based on the instruction of her father PW 3 and that shows that her evidence is not free from embellishment. Her evidence further shows that she regained her consciousness after four days of the occurrence and if it is believed to be true, the fardbeyan does not appear to be believable as fardbeyan was recorded just after one day of the occurrence. Similarly she has stated that for the last five years she was residing with her father and she was deposing in the year 2002. All the above discrepancies in the evidence of PW 4 create a serious doubt about the credibility of PW 4, who is sole eyewitness to the occurrence. PW 5 is the I.O. in this case and he has submitted charge sheet also. Considering the evidence of PW 4, the sole eye-witness, the same does not inspire confidence and it is not free from inconsistencies and infirmities. However, learned trial court has convicted the appellants on the basis of the testimony of PW 4, even though the court has found that she is a rustic lady and she does not understand the court question. 13. In view of the discussions made above, the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the appellants beyond all shadow of reasonable doubts. Hence, the appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt. 14. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment and order are set aside. 13. In view of the discussions made above, the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the appellants beyond all shadow of reasonable doubts. Hence, the appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt. 14. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment and order are set aside. As the appellants are on bail, they are directed to be discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.