JUDGMENT Shivashankar Amarannavar, J. - This is an appeal filed by the appellantsaccused Nos.1 to 4 challenging the Judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30.07.2011 passed in S.C.No.69/2010 by the District and Sessions Judge, Koppal. 2. The accused Nos.1 to 4 have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each. In default to pay fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The accused Nos.1 to 4 were further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 R/W 34 IPC to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- each. In default to pay fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. 3. During the pendency of this appeal, appellant No.3 died and therefore, the case against accused/appellant No.3 is abated. 4. The factual matrix of the case is that PW-1 Smt.Rajmabegum has been given in marriage to accused No.1-Ajmeersab s/o Fakrusab Kukanoor and earlier to marriage they have loved each other and thereafter elders have performed their marriage. After the marriage, she started to lead maritallife with her husband in Ashrasya Colony of Yelburga and along with them her parent-in-laws were also residing. She while leading peaceful maritallife with her husband, her husband brought one Hindu girl Rajeshwari (accused No.4) stating that since one year he had love with her and about one month back he had taken marriage with her. After he bringing her to his house, he stated that he has committed mistake, somehow she has to adjust and go on leading peaceful married life. After that the accused started to say that in order to live in his house she has to bring dowry amount of Rs.25,000/- as well as to bring gold and they started to give mental and physicalill-treatment by her husband as well as by her parent-in-laws and accused No.4 was supporting to them. 5. On 25.10.2009 during night hours after taking meals she was preparing to sleep by that time her husband as well as her husband's second wife-Rajeshwari (A-4) stated that this complainant has to give divorce and she has to leave the house. She stated that why she has to leave the house because she is legally wedded wife. 5. On 25.10.2009 during night hours after taking meals she was preparing to sleep by that time her husband as well as her husband's second wife-Rajeshwari (A-4) stated that this complainant has to give divorce and she has to leave the house. She stated that why she has to leave the house because she is legally wedded wife. After that her husband brought louse powder and prepared the solution by putting this powder in the water and as per his instructions Rajeshwari as well as his parents have caught hold the complainant tightly and by that time her husband forcibly administered the poison into her mouth and she had made hue and cry and some how she escaped from their hands and by crying she came out of the house by that time it was 11.30. p.m. On hearing her cry, her elder brother Ashraf Ali and one Sangamesh Hosahalli were coming on the road and she has stated the fact of administering poison to her and they took her to Yelburga Government Hospital and while she was under treatment, Yelburga Police came to the hospital and there she has given her statement in the form of complaint. 6. Pw-9 registered the case for the offence punishable under Section 498-A and 307 R/W Section 34 of IPC and thereafter Investigating Officer has conducted the investigation and filed charge sheet in the Court of JMFC., Yelburga. The Court took cognizance and thereafter committed the case to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court framed the charge against accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A and 307 R/W Section 34 of IPC. 7. Prosecution in all examined PWs.1 to 12 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10 and also got marked M.O.1. The defence has got marked Ex.D-1 and Ex.D-2 in the cross examination of PW-1 and got marked Ex.D-3 in the cross examination of the witness-PW.8. The accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and thereafter the Trial Court after hearing the arguments on both sides framed the points for consideration and passed the impugned judgment. 8. The appellants-accused have challenged the said impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence on the following grounds. 1)The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge is contrary to law, facts and evidence and material on record. 8. The appellants-accused have challenged the said impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence on the following grounds. 1)The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge is contrary to law, facts and evidence and material on record. 2) The reasons assigned by the learned Sessions Judge, while passing the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence are erroneous. 3) The evidence of complainant and victim was not credit worthy and the same had not received corroboration from any of the independent witnesses. 4) PW.10-PW11 who are none other than the father and brother of the complainant had deposed that the complainant was residing with them since two years, which itselfindicates that at the time of the alleged date of the offence the complainant was not residing with the appellant. 5) PW.5 and PW.6 who are examined as eye-witnesses are not the eyewitnesses because they came to know the incident from Asif Ali-PW.2. 6) PW.7 doctor stated that PW.1 has sustained two injuries and issued medical certificate at Ex.P.5. But it is not wound certificate, it is only a opinion. Evidence of PW.7 does not corroborate with medical certificate at Ex.P.5 and injury certificate is not produced. 7) The evidence of PW.1 and 2 are contradictory to each other.PW.1 states that first she was taken to hospital but PW.2 states that PW.1 was first taken to Police Station and Police instead of registering the case has sent him to hospital. 8) In the evidence of PW.1 there is lot of improvements and contradictions which goes to the very root of the matter. 9) Learned Sessions Judge has failed properly appreciate the evidence of doctor. When doctor has specifically stated that there were no externalinjuries. 10) The appreciation of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is not in proper perspective and as such the learned Sessions Judge has reached to a wrong conclusion. 11) Learned Sessions Judge has not drawn proper probabilities and inferences from the material placed on record having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and loose nature of evidence let in by the prosecution and the prosecution has not proved the case beyond all reasonable doubts. 12) Order of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court is erroneous and un-sustainable. 9. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the appellants-accused and learned HCGP for respondent-State. 12) Order of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court is erroneous and un-sustainable. 9. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the appellants-accused and learned HCGP for respondent-State. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the evidence of PW.1 is not supported by medical evidence and other evidence PW.5 and PW.8 who are neighbors are not eye witnesses. He further submitted that the PW.2- Ashraf Ali brother of PW.1 and he is an interested witness and he was not eye witness to the incident. He further submitted that even though PW.7- doctor has stated in his evidence that PW.1 has sustained two injuries but no wound certificate is produced. He has further submitted that there are no material evidence on record to show that the accused subjected PW.1 to cruelty to attract offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. He further submitted that the seizer of M.O.1 has not been proved by the prosecution. 11. On the contrary, the learned HCGP has submitted that the evidence on record is sufficient to convict the accused-appellants for offence punishable under Section 498-A and 307 R/W 34 of IPC and learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted them. He has supported the reasons assigned in the judgment of trial Court. He has further argued that the evidence of PW.1 who is victim is trust-worthy and trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and rightly convicted the appellant13 accused for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 307 R/W 34 of IPC. 12. On perusal of the grounds urged and arguments advanced the following point arises for my consideration. Whether the prosecution has proved that the appellants-accused have committed the offence punishable under Section 498-A and 307 R/W 34 of IPC? 13. My answer to the above point is in the negative for the following reasons. PW.1 is the wife of the accused No.1. Accused No.2 and 3 are in-laws of PW.1 and accused No.4 is stated to be the second wife of the accused No.1. The marriage between accused No.1 and PW.1 is a love marriage but subsequently marriage was performed by the family members. As per the PW-1, she was looked after by accused Nos.1 to 3 well for a period of five years. PW.1 has stated that accused No.4 had love affair with her husband accused No.1 and came behind him. The marriage between accused No.1 and PW.1 is a love marriage but subsequently marriage was performed by the family members. As per the PW-1, she was looked after by accused Nos.1 to 3 well for a period of five years. PW.1 has stated that accused No.4 had love affair with her husband accused No.1 and came behind him. PW.1 has further stated that her husband and in-laws started demanding Rs.25,000/- and one tola gold and started harassing her. She further deposed that on 25.10.2009 accused administered poison to her as she has refused to affix her signature on bond and refused to leave their house. PW.1 has further deposed that accused No.2 to 4 tightly held her and accused No.1 administered poison into her mouth and she escaped and went out of the house and at that time PW.2 and PW.3 were out side of her house coming on road and she intimated the same to them and they took her to Yelburga Police Station and thereafter to Yelburga Government hospital. PW.3 Sangamesh who is stated to have coming with PW.2 when PW.1 came out of the house has not supported the prosecution. 14. Pw.3 has stated that accused were looking after well the PW.1 and he do not know anything regarding administering poison to PW.1. PW.5 and PW.8 are neighbors who came near the house of accused on hearing the cry and before him PW.1 has stated that accused administered the poison to her. PW.5 and PW.8 are also not eye witness to the incident. The sole witness to the incident is victim PW.1. Her evidence has to be scrutinized carefully and it is also to be seen that her evidence is corroborated by the medical evidence. 15. Pw.1 has stated that the accused asked her to affix signature on bond and go out of the house and she has refused. Investigating Officer has not seized a bond on which accused have insisted PW.1 to put her signature. Ex.P.1 is the complaint wherein PW.1 has stated that her husband took louse powder and mixed it in water. PW.1 has not stated the same in her evidence and she had stated that she do not know from where they brought the poison. 16. As per PW.1 when she came out of the house PW.3 and PW.2 were coming towards her house one after the other. PW.1 has not stated the same in her evidence and she had stated that she do not know from where they brought the poison. 16. As per PW.1 when she came out of the house PW.3 and PW.2 were coming towards her house one after the other. PW.2 who is brother of PW.1 has stated that when he was sleeping in his house, he heard the sound of hue and cry and came out and saw that it is his younger sister Rajmabegum who was making hue and cry. Therefore, the evidence of PW.1 is contrary to the evidence of PW.2. In the cross examination of PW.1, it is elicited that her matrimonial house is situated after 50 to 60 house of her mother's house. PW.2 has stated that his house is situated at a distance of 100 to 150 feet from the house of accused. If the house of PW.2 is situated after 50 to 60 house, whether it can be believed that PW.2 has heard the galata from his house when he was sleeping at his house. 17. Pw.1 in examination in chief has stated that she was earlier taken to Police station and thereafter to Yelburga Government Hospital. But, in the cross examination she has stated that she has taken to Yelburga Government Hospital first and thereafter to Police Station. Therefore, there is a contradiction in that regard. 18. Pw.1 has deposed that after one year of her marriage, the accused used to ill-treat her and elders used to advice him. PW.1 has not chosen to file any complaint against the accused with regard to ill-treatment to her. PW.1 has given her statement as per Ex.D1 before PW.12, wherein she has stated that her husband and in-laws have not demanded to bring the money and gold and not ill-treated in that regard. PW.12 has admitted that PW.1 has given statement before him as per Ex.D-1. PW.1 denied that she has given statement as per Ex.D-1. 19. Pw.1 has deposed that she has not stated before the Police that her husband was in love affair with accused No.4 since one year and the said portion in the complaint has been marked as Ex.D-2. PW.9 who recorded the statement of PW-1 has stated that PW.1 has given statement before him as per Ex.D-2. 20. 19. Pw.1 has deposed that she has not stated before the Police that her husband was in love affair with accused No.4 since one year and the said portion in the complaint has been marked as Ex.D-2. PW.9 who recorded the statement of PW-1 has stated that PW.1 has given statement before him as per Ex.D-2. 20. Pw.1 has stated that when she came out PW.2 was coming on the road near the house. PW.2 has stated that when he was sleeping, he heard the sound of galata and he came out and at that time her younger sister is on half way towards his house. Therefore, the said aspect is a material contradiction. PW.5 and PW.8 who heard the sound of galata came out and saw that it is PW.1 who was making hue and cry and neighbours told PW.5 that the family members of PW.1 have administered poison to her and her elder brother took her to hospital. PW.8 has deposed that when he came out of his house on hearing hue and cry and at that time PW.1 was there and accused Nos.1 to 4 were there and PW.1 told him that she was administered poison. She has not deposed who administered the poison to her. Ex.D.3 is portion of the statement of PW.8 wherein it is stated that he came to know about the incident from others. Therefore, the evidence of PW.8 that PW.1 told him that she was administered poison is an improvement. In the cross examination it is elicited that he has not seen any galata. 21. Pw.10 is the father of PW.1. PW.11 is the brother of PW.1 and they have deposed that PW.1 is residing in their house since two years as there was a dispute between her and her husband's family members. Therefore, the evidence of PW.10 and PW.11 creates a doubt with regard to the PW.1 residing in the house of accused-appellants on the date of incident. PW.10 and PW.11 have deposed that they do not know the accused administering the poison to PW.1. 22. Ex.P-4 is a seizer panchanama. M.O.1 is the poison bottle which has been seized under it. PW.4 and PW.6 are panchas to Ex.P-4 Seizer Panchanama. PW.4 and PW.6 have not supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the seizer of M.O.1 poison bottle at the instance of accused No.1 in his house. 22. Ex.P-4 is a seizer panchanama. M.O.1 is the poison bottle which has been seized under it. PW.4 and PW.6 are panchas to Ex.P-4 Seizer Panchanama. PW.4 and PW.6 have not supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the seizer of M.O.1 poison bottle at the instance of accused No.1 in his house. Therefore, prosecution has not proved seizer of M.O.1-poison bottle from the house of accused at the instance of accused No.1. 23. M.O.1-Poison bottle has been sent to FSL for chemical examination and Ex.P.10 is the report of FSL wherein it is opined that M.O.1- poison bottle contains Carbonate insecticide. On the basis of this Ex.P.10 FSL report PW.7 doctor has issued Ex.P.5 wherein it stated that PW.1 consumed powder Carbonate insecticide on 25.10.2009. There is no connecting evidence that PW.1 was administered poison from the M.O.1 poison bottle. The doctor who treated PW.1 has not preserved her stomach wash and sent for chemical analysis but he has only given Ex.P.5 certificate on the strength of RFSL report-Ex.P.10. PW.7 doctor has deposed that PW.1 has sustained two injuries. No injury certificate has been produced. The prosecution has also not secured MLC register to establish the same. PW.7 has deposed that PW.1 was admitted in the hospital for nine days. No discharge summary has been produced to show what is the treatment given to PW.1. There is a missing link of evidence with regard to PW.1 consuming powder carbonate insecticide. 24. Pw.9 is the Head constable who registered the complaint-Ex.P-1. PW.9 has deposed that on 26.10.2009 at about 1.00 mid night PW.1 came along with one person and stated that she was administered poison by accused Nos.1 to 4 and she immediately sent to Yelburga Government Hospital with Police constable Basavaraj and thereafter first aid treatment given to her and she came back to Police Station along with others and she gave oral complaint and he reduced the same into writing and registered the same. PW.1 has stated that when she was in hospital, Police recorded her complaint as per Ex.P-1. But as per PW.9 she came to Police Station and gave oral complaint. Therefore, there is a contradiction in the evidence of PW.1 and PW.9. 25. Pw.1 is the only material witness to the incident. There is lot of material contradiction and discrepancies in her evidence and therefore her evidence cannot be believed. But as per PW.9 she came to Police Station and gave oral complaint. Therefore, there is a contradiction in the evidence of PW.1 and PW.9. 25. Pw.1 is the only material witness to the incident. There is lot of material contradiction and discrepancies in her evidence and therefore her evidence cannot be believed. PW.2 is the brother of PW.1 and he is not an eye witness and his evidence will not help the prosecution to establish that accused administered poison to PW.1. PW.5 and PW.8 are neighbours and they are hearsay witnesses before whom PW.1 stated regarding the incident. Therefore, the evidence of PW.5 and PW.8 cannot be believed as there is a improvement in their evidence and as they are not eye witnesses to the incident. 26. The trial Court without considering all the above aspects has committed an error in holding that the appellant-accused committed offence punishable under section 498A and 307 of IPC. Therefore, the conviction of appellants-accused for the offence punishable under Section 498-A and 307 R/W 34 of IPC requires to be set aside. Accordingly, I pass the following ORDER The appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.07.2011 passed in S.C.No.69/2010 by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Koppal is set aside. The accused Nos.1 to 4 are acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 307 of IPC. The bail bonds and surety bonds executed by appellants/accused stands cancelled. Refund fine amount if any, paid by the accused-appellants.