JUDGMENT : Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J. The appellants have preferred these appeals under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of conviction dated 31.07.2017 and order of sentence dated 15.09.2017 passed by the learned Adhoc Additional District and Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, Fast Track Court No. VI, in Sessions Trial No. 425/90/73/17, arising out of Rafiganj P.S. Case No. 44 of 1986, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:- Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1211 of 2017 Convicted under sections Sentence Dhanraj Sharma Imprisonment Fine (Rs.) in default of fine 302 of the Indian Penal Code R.I for life 15,000/- R.I for one year 201 of the Indian Penal Code R.I for seven years 5,000/- R.I for six months 498A of the Indian Penal Code R.I. for three years - - Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1223 of 2017 Murli Manohar Sharma Convicted under sections Sentence Imprisonment Fine (Rs.) in default of fine 302 of the Indian Penal Code R.I for life 15,000/- R.I for one year 201 of the Indian Penal Code R.I for seven years 5,000/- R.I for six months 498A of the Indian Penal Code R.I. for three years - - All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. The father of the deceased Gopal Sharan Singh is the informant of Rafiganj P.S. Case No. 44/86, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302, 201 read with 34 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which culminated into the aforementioned Sessions Trial No. 425/90/73/17. It is his case disclosed in the written report that his daughter Kamlesh Devi was married few years ago to the appellant Dhanraj Sharma. He alleged that this appellant and his elder brother Murli Manohar Sharma (also appellant) and other family members used to taunt her and torture her for not giving enough dowry and they used to make demand of dowry. According to the informant, his younger brother Brij Nandan Singh (DW 1) had got an information on 04.05.1986 that the deceased had called him for something urgent and when he went there, the deceased complained about demand of dowry and threats issued by her in-laws of killing her if the demand of dowry was not met. She had showed to DW-1 marks of injuries on her body said to have been caused by these appellants. She had showed to DW-1 marks of injuries on her body said to have been caused by these appellants. On 09.05.1986, he learnt from his brother (DW 1) that the deceased had been killed and the dead-body had been cremated. Thereafter, he went to the matrimonial home of the deceased and inquired from his son-in-law (the appellant, Dhanraj Sharma) about the occurrence, whereafter both the appellants fled away from their house. He further mentioned that on enquiry from a lady (mahuariwali-Mossamatt), he learnt that the victim had died and the dead-body had been cremated. 3. Two things emerge from the contents of the First Information Report. Firstly, the informant was informed by his brother Brij Nandan Singh (DW-1) that the victim had been killed and the dead-body was cremated by these appellants and, secondly, the informant had learnt from some of the co-villagers of these appellants that the victim had died and the dead-body was cremated. In the FIR, these appellants and the said Mossmatt Mahuariwali was named as accused. The police, upon completion of investigation, initially submitted charge-sheet against the appellant Dhanraj Sharma only and subsequently against the appellant Murli Manohar Sharma, showing the third named accused person as dead. Cognizance was taken and charges were framed against these appellants for commission of offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302 and 201 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The appellants denied the charge and claimed to be tried. 4. At the trial, five prosecution witnesses, namely, Balram Paswan, a labour working under the informant (PW 1), Kamta Singh (PW 2, declared hostile at the instance of the prosecution), the informant Gopal Sharan Singh (PW 3), Kailash Paneri (PW 4) and Ramjee Sharma, a co-villager of the informant (PW 5) were examined. The Investigating Officer was not examined at the trial. The appellants were questioned under Section 313 of the CrPC so as to give them an opportunity to explain the incriminating circumstance emerging against them in compliance with Section 313 of the CrPC. The appellants completely denied their complicity in response to the said questions. The Investigating Officer was not examined at the trial. The appellants were questioned under Section 313 of the CrPC so as to give them an opportunity to explain the incriminating circumstance emerging against them in compliance with Section 313 of the CrPC. The appellants completely denied their complicity in response to the said questions. Following are the questions, which were put to these appellants, and their answers under Section 313 of the CrPC :- /kujkt 'kekZ iz'u%& vkiuss xokgksa dk O;ku lquk gS\ mRrj%& th gkW iz'u%& xokgksa dk dguk gS fd vki fnukad 8-5- 86 dks xzke yV~Vk Fkkuk jfQxat] ikSFkw] ftyk vkSjaxkckn esa oknh dh yM+dh deys'k nsoh dks ngst ds fy, gR;k dj yk'k dks lk{; feVkus ds fy, tyk fn;k gS \ mRrj%& th ughaA iz'u%& lQkbZ esa D;k dguk gS\ mRrj%& funkZs"k gwWaA eqjyh euksgj 'kekZ iz'u%& vkiuss xokgksa dk O;ku lquk gS\ mRrj%& th gkW iz'u%& xokgksa dk dguk gS fd vki fnukad 8-5-86 dks xzke yV~Vk Fkkuk jfQxat] ikSFkw] ftyk vkSjaxkckn esa oknh dh yM+dh deys'k nsoh dks ngst ds fy, gR;k dj yk'k dks lk{; feVkus ds fy, tyk fn;k gS \ mRrj%& th ughaA iz'u%& lQkbZ esa D;k dguk gS\ mRrj%& funkZs’k gwWaA 5. The defence examined on its behalf one witness namely Brij Nandan Singh as DW-1. The trial court after having appreciated the evidence adduced at the trial, has held the appellants guilty of offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 498A of the IPC by the impugned judgment dated 31.08.2017 and has sentenced to imprisonment and fine, as noted above. 6. Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, has submitted that as is evident from the narration in the written report of the informant, which is the basis for registration of FIR, the informant had received the information about the killing/death of the deceased from his brother Brij Nandan Singh (DW 1). In his deposition at the trial, the informant (PW 3) introduced improvement by saying that he had learnt from the villagers that these appellants had killed the deceased and cremated the dead-body. In his deposition at the trial, the informant (PW 3) introduced improvement by saying that he had learnt from the villagers that these appellants had killed the deceased and cremated the dead-body. He has further submitted that the entire accusation of demand of dowry stands falsified by the evidence of the defence witness Brij Nandan Singh, who in his evidence has clearly deposed that there was no demand for dowry, rather the appellant Dhanraj Sharma used to give due love and affection to the deceased and had transferred half of his property in her name. The deceased was married to the appellant Dhanraj Sharma in the year 1975 and she died in 1986. He has also argued that it is also evident from the evidence of the informant that the distance between matrimonial home of the deceased and the informant’s house was merely six kilometers. To say, in such circumstance, that the informant did not have any knowledge about the death of the deceased before she was cremated, is unbelievable. He has further submitted, referring to the depositions of the witnesses that it is apparently a case of circumstantial evidence and it cannot be deduced from such circumstances that guilt of these appellants could be the only hypothesis excluding any other possibility. 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State while defending the finding of conviction recorded by the trial court, has argued that apparently the deceased died in her matrimonial home. The matrimonial discord between the deceased and the appellant Dhanraj Sharma is a proved circumstance which was subsequently compromised through reconcilliation with the intervention of the family members and others. The deceased died in unnatural circumstance and the dead-body was cremated without informing the family members of the deceased. These are the circumstances, which conclusively point out towards the guilt of the appellants and the trial court has rightly convicted them of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 8. We have perused the impugned judgment of the trial court and the lower court’s records. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. 9. 8. We have perused the impugned judgment of the trial court and the lower court’s records. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. 9. It is manifest from the First Information Report itself that the informant, i.e., the father of the deceased, had received information from his brother Brij Nandan Singh (DW 1) that the deceased was being tortured by her in-laws for non-fulfilment of demand of dowry. The informant’s brother Brij Nandan Singh has not supported the prosecution’s case as disclosed in the fard-beyan and has deposed at the trial as DW-1. Further, the informant (PW 3) also claimed that he had learnt about his daughter having been killed from his brother Brij Nandan Singh (DW 1) on 09.05.1986. This disclosure made in the fard-beyan goes to suggest that the family members of the deceased knew about the death of the deceased, inasmuch as brother of the informant (DW 1) was in know of the fact that the deceased had died. The deposition by the informant (PW 3) that his brother (DW 1) had informed him that the deceased was murdered by her in-laws has been specifically contradicted by DW-1 in his evidence. DW-1 deposed that the appellant Dhanraj Sharma bestowed all love and affection on his deceased wife and had transferred half of the property in her name. He denied, in his deposition, the charge of demand of dowry or any torture meted out by the in-laws to the victim. 10. We need to emphasize, at this juncture, that the informant, in his deposition, testified that he was informed by the sister-in-law of the appellant Dhanraj Sharma that the victim was killed on 08.05.1986. He further deposed that the information about the death of the deceased was given to him by his brother on 09.05.1986. The informant deposed at the trial that the fact about the death of the deceased was not communicated to him before 09.05.1986. It is worthwhile mentioning that according to the evidence of the informant himself the distance of the matrimonial home of the deceased from his house was merely six kilometers. In his cross-examination, he reiterated that the information regarding the deceased having been murdered was sent by his brother through a labour, working in his agricultural field, Balram Paswan (PW 1). 11. In his cross-examination, he reiterated that the information regarding the deceased having been murdered was sent by his brother through a labour, working in his agricultural field, Balram Paswan (PW 1). 11. On perusal of the evidence of the PW-1, it seems that he has supported the prosecution’s case of matrimonial dispute between appellant Dhanraj Sharma and the deceased. He denied suggestion made in the cross-examination that he had not given any such statement before the police that the deceased was killed by her in-laws. It is noteworthy that the Investigating Officer, in the present case, has not been examined at the trial. PW-2 has not supported the prosecution’s case and has accordingly been declared hostile. PW-3 supported the prosecution’s case of demand of dowry and torture meted out by the in-laws of the deceased. On close reading of the evidence of PW-4, it is evident that he claimed to be witness of the circumstance that he had met the deceased and had noticed marks of injuries in the arms and back of the victim and that the in-laws were making demand of dowry of a sum of Rs.25,000/-. He had disclosed these facts to the informant. Four years thereafter the deceased was killed, according to PW-4. 12. It is evident from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that there are mainly three circumstances, which the prosecution intended to prove at the trial to prove the charge against the appellants of commission of offence punishable under Sections 498A, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Firstly, there was demand of dowry made by these appellants, which was communicated to the informant through his brother, who has not supported the prosecution’s case and has deposed as defence witness (DW 1) at the trial. Secondly, the victim died in unnatural circumstance. It is the case of the defence, on the other hand, that the victim died of diarrhoea. We do not find any evidence on record to suggest that the victim died in unnatural circumstance. Thirdly, the death of the deceased was not communicated to the informant before cremation. 13. The above are the only circumstances, based on which the prosecution attempted to establish the charge of commission of the offences punishable under the aforementioned sections of the IPC. 14. Thirdly, the death of the deceased was not communicated to the informant before cremation. 13. The above are the only circumstances, based on which the prosecution attempted to establish the charge of commission of the offences punishable under the aforementioned sections of the IPC. 14. It is a settled legal position that in a case of circumstantial evidence, it is necessary to find out whether the circumstances on which the prosecution relies are established by satisfactory evidence, often described as clear and cogent. Secondly, the Court is required to see whether the circumstances are of such nature as to exclude every other hypothesis, save the one that the accused is guilty of an offence, of which he is charged. The circumstances have to be of such nature as to be consistent with the sole hypothesis that the accused is guilty of the crime imputed to him. 15. In the present case, the evidence of the most important witness, i.e., the informant (PW 3) that the family members of the deceased were not knowing about her death is discredited by the evidence of DW-1. It is to be kept in mind that whatever information the informant claims to have received regarding the torture meted out to the victim and her subsequent killing was received by him through his brother Brij Nandan Singh, who has not supported the prosecution’s case at all. The informant in his evidence deposed that there was demand of dowry consistently being made by the in-laws of the deceased, which has been denied by his brother Brij Nandan Singh (DW 1). 16. The evidence of the informant (PW 3) adduced at the trial, disclosures made by him in the fard-beyan and the deposition of the informant’s brother (DW 1) creates a reasonable doubt about the entire prosecution’s case. On a cumulative analysis of the evidence of the witnesses and other materials on record, in our opinion, it cannot be conclusively held that the prosecution was able to establish before the trial that it was a case of homicide, let alone the culpable homicide, amounting to murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Further, based on evidence of the prosecution witnesses, in our opinion, it cannot be conclusively held that the prosecution could prove beyond all reasonable doubts the commission of offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Further, based on evidence of the prosecution witnesses, in our opinion, it cannot be conclusively held that the prosecution could prove beyond all reasonable doubts the commission of offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. For the same reason, we are of the view that charge under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code can also not be said to have been proved at the trial. 17. In view of the discussions noted above, we are of the opinion that the appellants deserve acquittal by giving them benefit of doubt. Accordingly, they stand acquitted of the charge of commission of offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 18. The impugned judgment of conviction dated 31.07.2017 and order of sentence dated 15.09.2017 passed by the learned Adhoc Additional District and Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, Fast Track Court No. VI, in Sessions Trial No. 425/90/73/17, arising out of Rafiganj P.S. Case No. 44 of 1986, are set aside. 19. The appellant Dhanraj Sharma is in custody. Let him be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 20. The appellant Murli Manohar Sharma is on bail. Upon suspension of the sentence, he stands discharged of all the liabilities of bail bonds and sureties, if any. 21. Consequently, both the appeals are allowed.