JUDGMENT : D.Dash, J. The Appellants, by filing this Appeal, have called in question the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25th August, 2012 passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Khurda in S.T. Case No.33/122 of 2011/2010 arising out of G.R. Case No.619 of 2007 corresponding to Bolagarh P.S. Case No.55 of 2007 in the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S.D.J.M.), Khurda. The Appellants (accused persons) thereunder have been convicted for committing the offence under section 302/201/34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’) and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Accordingly, each of them has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six (6) months for commission of the offence under section 302 of the IPC; rigorous imprisonment for three (3) years and pay fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand) in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two (2) months for commission of the offence under section 201 of the IPC; and rigorous imprisonment of one (1) year and pay fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand) in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one (1) month for commission of the offence under section 4 of the D.P. Act with the stipulation that the substantive sentences would run concurrently. It is pertinent to mention here that during pendency of this Appeal, the Appellant No.3, namely, Hari Pradhan, the husband of the deceased, having died; this Appeal has abated as against him. So, now this Appeal is confined to Hari’s father, mother and younger brother, i.e., the parent-in-laws and borther-in-law of the deceased Banita. 2. PROSECUTION CASE:- One of the accused persons, namely, Hari Pradhan (since dead), had married Banita (deceased) on 27.02.2001 as per the caste, custom and rites. It is stated that the father of deceased, namely, Jogendra Naik (P.W.8) had given a sum of Rs.95,000/- (Rupees Ninety-Five Thousand) to accused Achuta, who happens to be the father of accused Hari. The amount had been paid towards the dowry as per the demand. It is also stated that he had given some gold and silver ornaments as well as other household articles to the accused persons in the said marriage. The marriage was not successful. The amount had been paid towards the dowry as per the demand. It is also stated that he had given some gold and silver ornaments as well as other household articles to the accused persons in the said marriage. The marriage was not successful. Two years after the marriage, accused Achuta and his wife Rangabati, who happens to be the parents of accused Hari with their son accused Hari and brother- in-law of Hari further demanded a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) and for that reason, they illtreated Banita (deceased) and assaulter her to mount pressure upon her parents to fulfil the demand of dowry. It is stated that such ill-treatment from their side continued and on 21.06.2007, the accused persons intentionally caused the death of Banita by pressing her neck by means of a crowbar and then it is said that they consigned the dead body into flames with the help of other accused persons without intimating anything to the family members of Banita. A telephonic call, however, being given by one of the co-villagers of the accused persons to Karunakar (P.W.12), he sent the message to Prafulla Kumar Nai, the Informant (P.W.1) and he then intimated to one Prafulla Kumra Naik (P.W.11) and then both went to the Banki Police Outpost at Banki under jurisdiction of Bolagarh Police Station and submitted the written report being scribed by one Mayadhar Barada (P.W.15) with Sub-Inspector (S.I.) of Police (P.W.18), who, after entering the said fact in the Station Diary Book maintained at the Police Outpost and conducting preliminary enquiry, sent the same to the Officer-in-Charge (O.I.C.) of Bolaragarh P.S. for registration of the case. The O.I.C. of Bolagarh P.S., receiving the written report from P.W.18, treated the same as F.I.R. (Ext.7) and upon registration of the case, directed the S.I. of Police (P.W.18) to take up the investigation. 3. The Investigating Officer (I.O.-P.W.18), in course of the investigation, examined the informant (P.W.11) and recorded his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. The I.O. (P.W.18), having gone to the spot, prepared the spot map (Ext.8). The I.O. (P.W.18) seized half burnt bone, ashes from the burial ground at Mathapaida in presence of witnesses under seizure list (Ext.2). On 23.06.2007, he (P.W.18) arrested accused Rangabati and seized the dowry articles from the house of accused Rangabait and under seizure list (Ext.1). The seized incriminating articles were sent for chemical examination through Court. The I.O. (P.W.18) seized half burnt bone, ashes from the burial ground at Mathapaida in presence of witnesses under seizure list (Ext.2). On 23.06.2007, he (P.W.18) arrested accused Rangabati and seized the dowry articles from the house of accused Rangabait and under seizure list (Ext.1). The seized incriminating articles were sent for chemical examination through Court. On completion of investigation, the Final Form was submitted placing these accused persons with three others to face the Trial for commission of the offence under section 498-A/302/304-B/201/34 of the IPC read with section 4 of D.P. Act. 4. Learned S.D.J.M., Khurda, on receipt of the Final Form, took cognizance of the said offences and after observing the formalities committed the case to the Court of Sessions for Trial. That is how the Trial commenced by framing the charge for the aforesaid offence against all the accused persons. 5. The prosecution, in support of its case, has examined in total eighteen (18) witnesses during Trial. Out of them, the informant, who happens to be the brother of the deceased, is P.W.11. P.Ws.1 to 5, 10, 16 & 17 have turned hostile. P.W.6 is the Doctor, who preliminarily treated the deceased as an outdoor patient and as the condition of the deceased was not good, he referred her to Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar. P.W.7 is the wife of the Informant (P.W.11) whereas P.W.8 is the father of the Informant. P.W.9 is the auto driver, who took the deceased to Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar. P.W.12 is maternal uncle of the Informant & the deceased. P.W.15 is the scribe of the FIR (Ext.4). The I.O. of the case, at the end, has come to the witness box as P.W.18. 6. Besides leading the evidence by examining the above witnesses, the prosecution has also proved several documents which have been admitted in evidence and marked Exts.1 to 18. Out of those, the important are, the FIR (Ext.4) and the spot map (Ext.8). The report of the chemical examiner had been admitted in evidence and marked Ext.18. 7. The plead of the accused persons is denial and false implication due to hostility between the family of accused Hari and Prafulla as Naba, one of sons of Prafula, eloped the daughter of Rangabati and married her. They have also took another plea that accused Basanti met her natural death while undergoing treatment for fever. 8. 7. The plead of the accused persons is denial and false implication due to hostility between the family of accused Hari and Prafulla as Naba, one of sons of Prafula, eloped the daughter of Rangabati and married her. They have also took another plea that accused Basanti met her natural death while undergoing treatment for fever. 8. Mr.A. Tripahty, learned counsel for the Appellants (accused persons) submitted that these Appellants, being the father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased, when no specific evidence has come against them that they all were assaulting and illtreating the deceased in order to fulfil the demand of money, their role in the death of Banita cannot even be remotely inferred. He submitted that here simply because the accused persons have taken the defence that the deceased, having taken poison on her own and that has not been detected by the expert, who had the occasion to examine the burnt bones of the deceased, the suspicion as regards the involvement of these accused persons, having been raised, they have been held liable for commission of the offence under section 302 of the IPC. He submitted that as there was no such clear, cogent and acceptable evidence in support of the charge under section 498-A/304-B of the IPC, they have been acquitted of the same. He further submitted that when the incident leading to the death of Banita took place, her husband, namely, Hari was also residing in the house with Banita and, therefore, in his presence when no other evidence is there to show that these accused persons were also joining hands with Hari either before or on that day in illtreating or torturing the deceased, the conviction of these accused persons for the offence under section 302 of the IPC is untenable. 9. Mr.S.K.Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate for the Respondent-State, while supporting the finding of guilt against these accused persons, as has been returned by the Trial court, contended that these accused persons, being very much there in the house on the day of occurrence and when they all were residing under one roof, having the special knowledge as to how Banita met her death, have gone to give false explanation that Banita had taken poison in order to commit suicide, the Trial Court has rightly held them guilty for commission of the offence under section 302 of the IPC. 10 . 10 . Keeping in view the submissions made, we have carefully read the impugned judgment of conviction. We have also extensively travelled through the depositions of the witnesses (P.W.1 to P.W.18) and have perused the documents admitted in evidence and marked as Ext.1 to Ext.18. 11. It be stated at first that these accused persons with the husband of deceased Banita had faced the trial for commission of the offence under section 498-A/302/304-B/201/34 of the IPC and section 4 of D.P. Act. The Trial Court has acquitted the accused persons, namely, Bhajaman, Biswanath, Rajib of the charge under section 498-A/302/304-B/201/34 of the IPC and section 4 of D.P. Act. The Trial Court, while acquitting these accused persons under section 498-A/304-B of the IPC, has held them liable for commission of the offence under section 302/201/34 of the IPC read with section 4 of D.P. Act. 12. Admittedly, the dead body of Banita was not available for post mortem examination. That, having been cremated in course of the investigation, some half burnt bones of the deceased, had been collected and sent for chemical examination. The report is to the effect that no metallic poison was detected. Taking a cue from that, it having said that since the accused persons have taken the plea that the deceased, in order to commit suicide, having taken poison, has died, they are held responsible for causing the death of the deceased. The prosecution, in this case, however, has found to have not examined any expert to establish that in case of death was on account of intake of poison, non-detection of metallic poison on the half burnt bones of the deceased totally overrules the possibility of death having been caused by intake of poison. Thus, we are not in a position to conclude with the available evidence that the cause of death of Banita as stated by the accused persons is false. P.W.7, who is the sister-in-law of the deceased, has simply stated that on 21.06.2007, the in-laws of the deceased had done her to death and thereafter consigned her dead body to flame. She has further stated that the deceased begotten two daughters and they were residing with the accused Rangabati, who is the mother-in-law of the deceased. She has, however, denied the suggestion that the deceased had any physical ailment and for that, the accused persons got her treated in the Government Hospital. She has further stated that the deceased begotten two daughters and they were residing with the accused Rangabati, who is the mother-in-law of the deceased. She has, however, denied the suggestion that the deceased had any physical ailment and for that, the accused persons got her treated in the Government Hospital. She has also denied the suggestion that they all had been informed about the deceased undergoing treatment in the Hospital and in fact they had been to the Hospital while the deceased was undergoing treatment and that the dead body of Banita was cremated in their presence. P.W.8, the father of the deceased, simply states that his daughter had told him about the ill-treatment and torture. But, his evidence is not to the effect as to what was his response thereafter. This witness has been examined fifteen days after the death and in fact the FIR had been lodged by Prafulla (P.W.11), the brother of the deceased on 22.06.2007. In the FIR, it is stated that these accused persons with the husband of the deceased caused the death of Banita by pressing a crowbar on her neck. But, as per the evidence of P.W.11, on 21.06.2007, his sister (deceased) had been assaulted and done her to death and the dead body had been cremated. There is no evidence as to from which source P.W.11 come to know that the accused persons caused the death of Banita by pressing her neck with the crowbar. P.W.12 is the maternal uncle of the Informant (P.W.11) and he has not stated anything about any reason/instance of torture upon the deceased and that is also not stated by other witnesses. With the above available evidence on record, when the accused persons have been acquitted of the charge under section 498-A/304-B of the IPC, their conviction for commission of the offence under section 302/201 of the IPC and section 4 of D.P. Act, in our considered opinion, cannot be sustained. 13. In the result, the Appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25th August, 2012 passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Khurda in S.T. Case No.33/122 of 2011/2010, are hereby set aside. The Appellants, namely, Achuta Pradhan, Rangabati Pradhan & Bhagirathi Pradhan, being on bail, their bail bonds shall stand discharged.