JUDGMENT : The instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 24.03.2004 and order of sentence dated 29.03.2004, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court- VII, Giridih, in Sessions Trial No. 118 of 2000, whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the appellants Mango Mahto, Bodhi Mahto and Etwari Mahto have been awarded rigorous imprisonment for five years with a fine of Rs. 500/- each, for the offence committed and punishable under Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code whereas the appellant Saraswati Devi, considering her to be a female having three children has been awarded a lesser punishment of rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs. 500/-, for the offence committed and punishable under Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, all the convicts are directed to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2. The prosecution case is based upon the written report submitted by Dukhan Yadav before the officer-in-charge, Birni Police Station, Giridih on 13.06.1998 alleging therein, that informant solemnized the marriage of his daughter 15 years ago with Katti Mahto, as daughter of informant was suffering from paralysis of her left hand with Katti Mahto, who was also handicapped. After marriage, for a quite long time, they have not been blessed with any child and the relationship between the family was very cordial but after birth of a son from the said wedlock, the relationship deteriorated for last four years. The accused persons have started torturing the daughter of informant as they did not want to partition of paternal property in two shares. The accused persons were trying to usurp entire property by pressurizing the daughter and son-in-law of the informant, who were handicapped. The daughter of the informant used to disclose all these facts to the informant about mental and physical torture given to her at sasural by brother-in-law, sister-in-law and their children and also not provided proper food to the daughter of the informant. The informant has further alleged that a panchayati was also held with respect to their cruel behavior, subsequently, her daughter has been killed on 05.06.1998 and to conceal the dead body, the same has been thrown in the well. 3. The informant has further alleged that a panchayati was also held with respect to their cruel behavior, subsequently, her daughter has been killed on 05.06.1998 and to conceal the dead body, the same has been thrown in the well. 3. On the basis of the written report, police has instituted Birni P.S. Case No. 42 of 1998, dated 13.06.1998, under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. After investigation, the police submitted charge sheet vide charge sheet no. 02 of 1999, dated 13.01.1999, under Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants. 5. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 05.02.1999 and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 06.03.2000. 6. The charge has been framed against all the four appellants on 15.09.2001, under Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code, to which the appellants have pleaded their innocence and thus, they were put under trial. 7. The prosecution, to prove its case, has examined altogether six witnesses and also exhibited a number of documents. Dr. Kamleshwar Prasad, who has conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased Gunjari Devi has been examined as P.W. 1 and proved the post-mortem examination report, which has been marked as Exhibit- 1, Parmeshwar Mahto and Degan Pandit, independent witnesses of village Arwatand Kunda have been examined as P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 respectively and they have been declared hostile by the prosecution. Sita Devi, sister-in-law of the deceased, has been examined as P.W. 4 and Chhotu Prasad Yadav, brother of the deceased, has been examined as P.W. 5, who has proved his handwriting and signature on the written report, which has been marked as Exhibit- 2, Bhudev Choudhary, an advocate clerk, has been examined as P.W. 6, who has proved the inquest report in hand-writing and signature of S.I. Suresh Prasad Singh, which has been marked as Exhibit- 3 and the hand writing and signature of S.I. Suresh Prasad Singh on formal F.I.R. has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 4. 8. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused/appellants have been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 19.12.2003, where the accused/appellants have pleaded that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case without having any legal material but no defence witness or evidence has been adduced by the accused/appellants. 9. 8. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused/appellants have been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 19.12.2003, where the accused/appellants have pleaded that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case without having any legal material but no defence witness or evidence has been adduced by the accused/appellants. 9. After hearing the parties and on perusal of the records, the learned Trial Court has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the appellants. Being aggrieved at and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, passed by the learned Trial Court, the appellants have preferred the present criminal appeal before this Hon’ble Court, assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 10. Heard, learned counsels for the appellants, Ms. Reshma Kumari assisted by Dr. H. Waris, Advocates. Learned counsel for the appellants, Ms. Reshma Kumari has submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law and cannot sustain in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted, that earlier after death of Gunjari Devi an UD (Unnatural Death) case was instituted. Subsequently after seven days, the informant has filed a written complaint and on the basis of which, the F.I.R. has been lodged. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted, that the medical evidence completely belies the prosecution case, which has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 1. Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn attention of this Court towards the finding given by P.W. 1, Dr. Kamleshwar Prasad, in the post-mortem report (Exhibit- 1). As per the post-mortem report, the cause of death is Asphyxia as a result of drowning in water. Learned counsel for the appellants, Ms. Reshma Kumari has further submitted that husband of the deceased Katti Mahto has not been examined in this case and as such, the conviction of the appellants under Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code cannot sustain in the eyes of law, in the background that investigating officer of the case has also not been examined. Reshma Kumari has further submitted that husband of the deceased Katti Mahto has not been examined in this case and as such, the conviction of the appellants under Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code cannot sustain in the eyes of law, in the background that investigating officer of the case has also not been examined. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance upon a judgment as reported in (2017) 1 JBCJ 288 in the case of K.V. Prakash Babu versus State of Karnataka, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that: “ingredients are to be brought home so that it would constitute a criminal offence”. In the present case no ingredient has been adduced by the prosecution to suggest that victim was compelled by the accused persons to commit suicide. Under the aforesaid background, the appellants deserve to be acquitted of the charge and conviction under Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 11. Heard, learned counsel for the State, Mr. Tapas Roy, Additional Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for the State has submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is based on the material available on record and the learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellants under Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code as the lady had died in the house of her in-laws, she may have committed suicide or she may have died because of accidental death but admittedly the death of the lady has taken place in her sasural, where she was living and under compelling circumstances, led to commit suicide. 12. Heard, learned counsels for the appellants, Ms. Reshma Kumari assisted by Dr. H. Waris, Advocates and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Tapas Roy, Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the evidence brought on record i.e. the First Information Report, framing of charge, evidence of six prosecution witnesses, four exhibits, statement of the appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as well as the impugned judgment. This Court has scrutinized the evidence of Dr. Kamleshwar Prasad (P.W. 1) who conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased Gunjari Devi and has proved the post-mortem report as Exhibit- 1. In the post-mortem report, the doctor has not found any external or internal injury on the person of the deceased rather the death has been caused because of drowning in the well. Kamleshwar Prasad (P.W. 1) who conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased Gunjari Devi and has proved the post-mortem report as Exhibit- 1. In the post-mortem report, the doctor has not found any external or internal injury on the person of the deceased rather the death has been caused because of drowning in the well. An UD case was instituted and after seven days, the informant Dukhan Yadav has filed a written report, which was the basis of the First Information Report. Parmeshwar Mahto (P.W. 2) and Degan Pandit (P.W.3), both are resident of the village, where occurrence took place, but they have been declared hostile by the prosecution as they have not supported the prosecution case. Sita Devi (P.W. 4) is the sister-in-law of the deceased, whose evidence is not in consonance with the prosecution case. Same is the version of Chhotu Yadav, who has been examined as P.W. 5. He has proved his hand writing on the written report which has been marked as Exhibit- 2. Bhudev Choudhary, an advocate clerk, has been examined as P.W. 6. He has proved the handwriting and signature of S.I. Suresh Prasad on the inquest report, which has been marked as Exhibit- 3 and endorsement on the formal F.I.R. of S.I. Suresh Prasad has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 4. From perusal of the same, this Court is of the opinion that the ingredient to constitute an offence under Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code is completely lacking in the present case coupled with the fact that the investigating officer has not been examined in this case and as such, under the aforesaid background as stated above, this Court is of the opinion that the appellants cannot be convicted under Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 13. In the result, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 24.03.2004 and order of sentence dated 29.03.2004, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court- VII, Giridih, in Sessions Trial No. 118 of 2000, in connection with Birni P.S. Case No. 42 of 1998, corresponding to G. R. No. 970 of 1998, is hereby set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charge and conviction under Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code by giving benefit of doubt. 14. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is allowed. 15. 14. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is allowed. 15. The appellants, who are on bail, are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds. 16. Let the lower court record be sent along with a copy of this judgment to the court concerned, at once for necessary action. Appeal allowed.