Deewali festival of 2004, Sushila had not visited her parents house. He has stated that he has visited the matrimonial house of Sushila during the said period on two occasions, however, he could not furnish the details of the said visits. PW-6 Shashikala has fairly admitted in her evidence that after marriage of Sushila, Shashikala had never visited the matrimonial house of Sushila. Had there been harassment and torture of Sushila by the appellants and it is improbable and unnatural that her parents and relatives would not have visited the matrimonial house of Sushila to enquire about her well being. Evidence of PW-7 Digambar brother in law of the deceased, that during his visit along with his father in law to bring Sushila back to her parents house for the festival of Panchami, the appellants had refused to sent her, as Rs.50,000/- were not paid by the parents of Sushila and at that time father of Sushila had assured to pay the same after selling the soyaben crop, cannot be accepted because the same has not been supported from the contents of the FIR. Even the FIR is silent on the aspect that PW-7 had accompanied father of Sushila to the house of the appellants. Though FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence, yet, the contents therein have to be proved by leading cogent evidence. Unfortunately, in this case, the complainant has expired during the pendency of the trial and hence could not be examined, however the fact remains that the evidence of PW-7 Digambar is not supported by the evidence of Bhujan and Shashikala. In the premise, we are of the considered view that the prosecution is also failed to establish that the appellants have committed an offence
