JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the parties. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants being aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.12.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-VII, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 283 of 2001 whereby and whereunder, the accused-appellants have been held guilty and convicted for the offences punishable under Section 498A of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. It is pertinent to mention here that during pendency of the appeal, it has been intimated by the learned trial Court that vide report dated 14.05.2018 submitted by the Nazarat, Civil Court, Giridih that the appellant nos. 5 and 6 died during pendency of the appeal, accordingly, this appeal abates so far as appellant nos. 5 and 6 are concerned. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainant married the appellant-accused no. 1, six years before filing of the complaint as per the Hindu rites and customs. On 1st April, 1996, the couple was blessed with a female child. It is alleged that after birth of the daughter, the complainant was ill-treated- physically and mentally and a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was demanded as dowry by all the accused persons of the case. On the plea of the complainant regarding the inability of her father to meet the said dowry demand, the complainant was assaulted and she became ill. The appellant nos. 4 and 6 administered country made herbal medicines to the complainant forcibly and proper treatment was not given to the complainant. The appellant-accused persons took all the silver jewelries worth Rs. 4,000/- on the pretext of meeting the expenses of her treatment but did not get her treated with any doctor. The complainant instituted the complaint case no. 113/99 and learned Magistrate, after enquiry found that offences punishable under Sections 498A, 379, 323, 506 and 328 IPC are made out and on the basis of the complaint and committed the case to the court of Session. 4. Upon commitment of the case to the court of Session, charges for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 379, 328, and 506 IPC were framed against the appellant –accused persons and upon the accused persons pleading not guilty to the charges, they were put to trial. 4. Upon commitment of the case to the court of Session, charges for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 379, 328, and 506 IPC were framed against the appellant –accused persons and upon the accused persons pleading not guilty to the charges, they were put to trial. In support of its case, the prosecution has altogether examined five witnesses and proved the complaint. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence. 5. PW1 – Biro Mahto is the father of the complainant. He has stated that the complainant was his daughter. He stated about her marriage with the appellant –accused no. 1- Kishore Mahto. He has further stated that the appellant –accused persons were not providing proper food to the complainant and were demanding cash of Rs. 20,000/- and used to assault the complainant. After birth of his granddaughter, the appellant –accused persons- Sundari Devi and Ambiya Mosomaat administered one herbal medicine to the complainant and thereafter, she became ill. The appellant –accused persons did not get the complainant treated. Four years before his deposing in the court, the appellant –accused persons drove the complainant out from her matrimonial house after assaulting her. The complainant disclosed all these facts to PW1. In his cross-examination, PW1 has stated that he cannot say the day, date of the first demand of the dowry. He does not have any document of the jewelry presented to his daughter. He cannot say the day or date when herbal medicine was administered to the complainant. Two to three months after the herbal medicine was administered to the complainant, he brought the complainant to his house and got her treated by Dr. G. D. Bagoria. 6. PW2- Lalan Prasad has stated about the marriage of the complainant with the appellant-accused no. 1, Kishore Mahto. After birth of the daughter of the complainant, the appellant-accused persons together used to assault the complainant. She was not provided food and the appellant-accused persons were telling the complainant to bring Rs. 20,000/- from her father. In this process, the complainant became ill. A panchayati was convened in the month of Aghan of year 1999. The appellant-accused persons told the complainant that unless money is given to them, they will not get the complainant treated. Though PW2 and others advised the appellant-accused persons to get the complainant treated but they did not get her treated. The appellant-accused nos. A panchayati was convened in the month of Aghan of year 1999. The appellant-accused persons told the complainant that unless money is given to them, they will not get the complainant treated. Though PW2 and others advised the appellant-accused persons to get the complainant treated but they did not get her treated. The appellant-accused nos. 4 and 6 administered herbal medicine to the complainant and her condition got deteriorated. Ten to twelve days after the panchayati, the appellant-accused persons drove the complainant out from her matrimonial house after assaulting her and then, the complainant came to her paternal house and instituted this case. The complaint died two and half years, after the institution of the case. In his cross-examination, PW2 has stated that he cannot say on which day, the complainant went to her matrimonial house after marriage nor he can say the day of complainant returning to her paternal house but it was in the month of January, of the year 1999. The complainant told about the ill treatment to PW2 in the year 1998. The complainant joined her matrimonial house after the birth of her daughter. The father of the complainant got her treated by Dr. Chelalapati. To a question by the court, PW2 stated that the complainant died in connection with the disease related to women and the complainant did not tell PW2 that she was administered herbal medicine. 7. PW3 – Bhagi Mahto has stated about the marriage of complainant and the appellant-accused no. 1- Kishore Mahto. He was declared hostile. Even though he was put leading questions still he did not support the case of prosecution. 8. PW4- Budhan Mahto has stated about the marriage of complainant with the appellant-accused no. 1- Kishore Mahto. After her marriage, the complainant resided only for three months in her matrimonial house. After that, she used to reside in her paternal house. Once there was quarrel between the mother-in-law of the complainant and the complainant. A panchyati was convened wherein it was decided that the husband of the complainant will get her treated. At this stage, PW4 was also declared hostile. Even though prosecution cross-examined by putting leading questions to him still he did not support the case of the prosecution. In his cross-examination PW4 stated that the reason for dispute is domestic quarrel. A panchyati was convened wherein it was decided that the husband of the complainant will get her treated. At this stage, PW4 was also declared hostile. Even though prosecution cross-examined by putting leading questions to him still he did not support the case of the prosecution. In his cross-examination PW4 stated that the reason for dispute is domestic quarrel. He also stated that the appellant accused person sold his land and got his wife treated. 9. PW5- Lalan Prasad is a formal witness. He is an advocate’s clerk. He has proved the complaint, which has been marked as Exhibit 1. 10. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the appellant-accused persons were recorded by the learned court below regarding the circumstances appearing in evidence against them. The appellant-accused persons denied the allegations against them and pleaded innocence. 11. Taking into consideration the evidence available in the record, learned court below convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused persons as indicated above only for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC but acquitted appellant-accused persons for rest of the charges. 12. Mr. Arvind Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that learned court below failed to appreciate the evidence in the record in its proper perspective. It is further submitted that learned court below failed to take note of the fact the allegations against the appellant-accused persons are vague and omnibus in nature. It is next submitted that learned court below failed to take note of the major contradictions between the testimonies of PW1, PW 2, PW3 and PW4, and that the PW4 has categorically stated that the complainant was all along in her paternal house, since three months after her marriage, raises doubt about the veracity of the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 that the complainant was ill-treated only after the birth of her daughter. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the testimony of PW4 that the appellant-accused persons got the complainant treated by selling their land, contradicts the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 that the appellant-accused did not get the complainant treated. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the testimony of PW4 that the appellant-accused persons got the complainant treated by selling their land, contradicts the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 that the appellant-accused did not get the complainant treated. It is also submitted that since PW4 has categorically stated that the reasons for dispute was normal wear and tear in the relationship between the members of the family hence in the absence of any specific evidence as to who demanded money and on which date, the case of the prosecution becomes highly improbable and certainly insufficient to base a conviction, more so, when learned court below has disbelieved the case of the prosecution regarding the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 506, 328 and 379 IPC. Learned counsel for the appellants further drew attention of the court to the compromise petition appearing in the trial court record and submitted that learned court below failed to take note of the fact that compromise having been entered into between the parties while imposing the sentence upon the appellant-accused persons. It is lastly submitted that the evidence in record is insufficient to establish the charge for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC, hence, the appellants be acquitted of the said charge by at least giving them the benefit of doubt. 13. Learned Addl. PP on the other hand, defended the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submitted that PW1 and PW2 have categorically stated about the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC and it is not disputed that the appellant no. 1 was the husband of the complainant and other appellant-accused persons are relatives of the husband of the complainant and these two witnesses have categorically stated about the complainant being subjected to cruelty, hence, learned court below having rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant –accused persons and thus, this appeal being without any merit be dismissed. 14. Having heard submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the evidence in the record, it is found that the evidence regarding the complainant being subjected to cruelty is general and omnibus in nature. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant herself has not been examined in this case as a witness. There is no specific evidence as to who ill-treated in what manner to the complainant. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant herself has not been examined in this case as a witness. There is no specific evidence as to who ill-treated in what manner to the complainant. It is highly unlikely that all the appellant–accused persons in unison, at any point of time, would have demanded Rs. 20,000/- or that they together assaulted or deprived the complainant of proper food. There is also no evidence of the fact that the appellant –accused persons together subjected the complainant to cruelty on any particular day or occasion. The testimony of PW4 tells a different story which certainly cannot be discarded. As already indicated above, PW4 has categorically stated that the dispute was regarding the normal wear and tear in the family and there is no evidence in the record to suggest that any of the accused persons have contribution to the illness suffered by the complainant and to which, the complainant apparently succumbed two and half years after institution of the complaint. Rather there is evidence in the record as already indicated above that the complainant died of some disease. There is no evidence in the record that at the time of marriage, there was any promise to pay Rs. 20,000/- subsequently by the father of the complainant to the appellant–accused persons. PW1 being the father of the complainant has categorically stated that he brought the complainant to his house 2-3 months after she was administered herbal medicine and the fact that PW1 brought the complainant to his house, falsifies the case of the prosecution that the appellant–accused persons drove the complainant from their house after assaulting her or that the complainant fled from her matrimonial house and went to her paternal house. 15. In view of the discussions made above, I have no hesitation in holding that the evidence in record is insufficient to establish the charge for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC against the appellant–accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt and this is a fit case, where the appellant–accused persons be acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt. 15. In view of the discussions made above, I have no hesitation in holding that the evidence in record is insufficient to establish the charge for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC against the appellant–accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt and this is a fit case, where the appellant–accused persons be acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the appellant–accused persons, namely Kishore Mahto, Ramdeo Mahto, Ashok Mahto and Sundari Devi are acquitted of the charge for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.12.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-7, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 283 of 2001 being not sustainable in the law, is set aside. 16. Perusal of the record reveals that the appellant-accused persons namely Kishore Mahto, Ramdeo Mahto, Ashok Mahto and Sundari Devi are on bail and in view of their acquittal, they are discharged of the liability of their bail bonds. 17. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the learned Court below forthwith, along with a copy this Judgment. 18. In result, this appeal is allowed.