JUDGMENT A.D. Sated, J. - The State preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 18th December 1984 in Sessions Case No. 29 of 1984 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli, acquitted the respondents-accused of tl1e charge under sections 498A and 306 I.P.C. 2. This is a very unfortunate case wherein the daughter-in-law of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 accused Nos. 1 and 2, Sunita, committed suicide by burning within about seven months of the marriage. The accused No.1 is the father-in-law and the accused No.2 is the mother-in-law of the deceased. Respondent No.3 accused No.3 is the brother-in-law of the deceased. Mrs. Vimal Balkrishna Chikhalikar (P.W. 2) is the mother and Balkrishna Shripad Chikhalikar (P.W. 5) is the father of the deceased. The deceased at the age of about 22 years was married according to Vedic rites to Uday, son of the accused Nos. 1 and 2 and the brother of the accused No.3. The parents of Sunita resided at Miraj and her matrimonial house was at Sangli at a distance of about seven miles from Miraj, The marriage took place on 21st November 1983 and Sunita committed suicide by burning herself on 12th May 1984. On 12th May 1984 at about 8.30 a.m. Sunita poured kerosene on herself and set her on fire. She was admitted to the Mission Hospital, Miraj. The matter was reported to the police and the police arranged for recording her dying declaration. Naib Tahsildar Madhusudan Baburao Jadhav (P.W. 1) reached the hospital at about 2.25 p.m. and her recorded the statement of Sunita. It is at Ex. 13. Sunita had 90 degree burns and she succumbed to those burns at 4.30 p.m. In the dying declaration Ex. 13 she gave out that she was ill-treated by her father-in-law, mother-in-law and the brother-in-law (accused) and they often taunted her saying that she was of black complexion and was not a match for her husband Uday. She also stated therein that on the day before the date of the incident her mother-in-law (accused No.2) gave her abuses and rushed at her to beat her. She also stated that her mother-in-law asked her to leave the house and said that she should die, and, therefore, on the next day, that is, on 12th May 1984, in the morning she set herself on fire. She also stated that her mother-in-law asked her to leave the house and said that she should die, and, therefore, on the next day, that is, on 12th May 1984, in the morning she set herself on fire. The police after necessary investigation prosecuted the father-in-law, mother-in-law and the brother-in-law of the deceased for the offences mentioned above. The defence was of complete denial. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution found that the prosecution failed to prove that the deceased was treated with cruelty by the accused and as a result thereof she was driven to commit suicide. Therefore, he acquitted the accused. The State has preferred this appeal against the acquittal. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor Mrs. S.S. Keluskar took us through the dying declaration Ex. 13 of deceased Sunita and also other evidence on record. She contends that it is improbable that the deceased would make false allegations against her father-in-law, mother-in-law and the brother-in-law (accused) while she was on death bed. She also submits that the deceased, who had no complaint against her husband, would not be driven to commit suicide within about seven months of the marriage unless her living at the matrimonial house had been made miserable by the unbecoming conduct of the accused. She submits that the deceased hailed from a we1I off family from Miraj, at a distance of only seven miles from Sangli. The marriage of the deceased was an arranged marriage. The in-laws and the husband of the deceased had seen her and approved her before the marriage. She submits that after the marriage for some days they treated her well, but later on they started troubling her by saying that she, being of black complexion, was not a match for her husband. She also submits that the letter dated 25th April 1984 (Ex. 20) written by the respondent No; 1 accused No.1 father-in-law to the father of the deceased (P.W. 5) clearly indicates that the father-in-law had no good opinion about the deceased. On the contrary, he found fault with her behaviour at the matrimonial house and advised the father of the deceased to keep her in an or change. She submits that the father-in-law found fault with the childish behaviour of the deceased and as such he bore a grudge against her. On the contrary, he found fault with her behaviour at the matrimonial house and advised the father of the deceased to keep her in an or change. She submits that the father-in-law found fault with the childish behaviour of the deceased and as such he bore a grudge against her. She submits that a girl of the age of the deceased when goes to the matrimonial house, the members of the matrimonial house should not expect that she should at once give up her likes and dislikes and habits and should immediately adjust to the atmosphere in the matrimonial house. She submits that it was true that the matrimonial family of the deceased was not as affluent as her parents family, but at the same time the members of the matrimonial house of the deceased were not at all cultured and did not know how to treat the girl coming from another family with affection. She submits that on the contrary the members of the matrimonial family started teasing the deceased and found fault with every action of hers and, therefore, the deceased often had to go to her parents house. She submits that though she went to the house of her parents often, she did not reside there, and her husband admits that whenever she went to her parents house he accompanied her. Her husband had no grievance against her for visiting her parental house. 4. In the circumstances mentioned above, according to the learned Public Prosecutor, the father-in-law, mother-in-law and the brother-in-law (respondents-accused) of deceased Sunita should not have tormented her by finding fault with her every action, as has been depicted in the father-in-law's letter Ex. 20 addressed to the father (P.W. 5) of the deceased. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that though the investigating agency has acted foolishly in obtaining the certificates of the Executive Magistrate and that of the medical officer on the dying declaration Ex. 13 later on, her dying declaration should not be rejected only on that ground. She also submits that it is impossible to adduce any independent evidence to prove the ill-treatment by the parents-in-law of the deceased, as the ill-treatment was all through in the house, and, therefore, only the family members could depose about it and as they figured as accused in this case, no independent evidence regarding cruelty could be led in this case. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the Parliament enacted the provisions of section 498A Cr. P.C. and also the provisions of section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to curb the tendencies on the part of the members of the matrimonial home of newly wedded girls to treat them cruelly and drive them to commit suicide. We do find that the learned Public Prosecutor is right in her submission that those provisions have been made in order to curb the tendencies of the members of the matrimonial home to treat the newly wedded girls with cruelty so as to drive them to commit suicide and the courts have to properly appreciate the evidence, taking into consideration that no independent evidence regarding cruelty can be obtained, as none from the members of the house would give evidence against the other members of the family who subject the lady to cruelty. 5. Deceased Sunita had sustained 90% burns and they were all third-degree burns as per the medical evidence on record. She sustained those burns at about 8.30 a.m. She was taken from Sangli to Miraj and admitted in the Mission Hospital. Her statement was recorded by Shri Jadhav (P.W. 1), Executive Magistrate, at about 2.30 p.m. Her parents and other relatives had the opportunity of seeing her before her statement was recorded. As the time passes after receiving 90-degree burns, the patient becomes more and more restless and after about six hours the patient with 90-degree burns may not be in a normal position to make a long statement, as has been done in the present case. Therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly sought corroboration to the statement made by the deceased. Unfortunately that corroboration is wanting in this case. Vimal (P.W. 2), mother of the deceased, does say that the deceased used to tell her that her parents-in-law and the brother-in-law were always quarrelling with her and they were saying that she, being of black complexion, was not a match for her husband. She also states that the deceased told her that her parents-in-law were not giving her good food. According to Vimal, the deceased had been to her house about 10 to 12 days prior to the date of the incident and at that time she told her that she was driven out by her father-in-law (accused No. 1). She also states that the deceased told her that her parents-in-law were not giving her good food. According to Vimal, the deceased had been to her house about 10 to 12 days prior to the date of the incident and at that time she told her that she was driven out by her father-in-law (accused No. 1). She deposed that she persuaded the deceased to go back to her matrimonial house. Vimal had never been to the house of the deceased after her marriage and she had no occasion to make inquiry with the members of the family of the respondents accused regarding their treatment to the deceased. The father of the deceased (P. W. 5) also states that 10 to 15 days prior to the date of the incident the deceased had been to their house, as she was driven out of the house by her father-in-law (accused No. 1). The parents of the deceased are contradicted on this point by their police statements wherein they have not stated that about 15 days before the date of the incident the deceased had been to their house and told them that her father-in-law had driven her out of the house. The father of the deceased does not say that the members of the family of the accused did not treat them well and insulted them when they went to their house. On the contrary, he admits that the accused treated him and his family members well when they visited their house. 6. According to Balkrishna (P.W.5), father of deceased Sunita, he had sent some persons to the house of the respondents-accused after he received the postcard Ex. 20 from the accused No. 1. One Potdar, a relation of Balkrishna, is said to have been sent to the accused No.1 in order to inquire what was the matter. He was a mediator for arranging the marriage of the deceased with Uday. He has not been examined. Had he been examined, we would have known what transpired in the inquiry he made with the members of the family of the accused regarding their complaints against the deceased. As stated earlier, the deceased hailed from an affluent family and the accused were comparatively not well off. The husband of the deceased was drawing a salary of about Rs. Had he been examined, we would have known what transpired in the inquiry he made with the members of the family of the accused regarding their complaints against the deceased. As stated earlier, the deceased hailed from an affluent family and the accused were comparatively not well off. The husband of the deceased was drawing a salary of about Rs. 400/- per month and he was not in a position to meet the requirements of the deceased who was brought up in an affluent family. It is in the evidence of Uday, who has been examined as a defence witness, that the deceased wanted him to have a separate residence at Miraj, but he told her that he could not afford to have a house at Mirpaj. Under such circumstances, the possibility of the deceased getting disgusted with life, as she was married in a family where her needs could not be met, and ending it by committing suicide cannot be ruled out. The view taken by the learned trial Judge, who had heard the evidence and had seen the witnesses deposing before him, in the circumstances of the case, cannot be said to be unreasonable. Therefore, it would not be proper for this Court to take a different view of the matter and set aside the acquittal ordered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. As has been held by the Supreme Court in Ganesh Bhavan Patel and another v. State of Maharashtra1 where two reasonable conclusions can be drawn on the evidence on record, the High Court should, as a matter of judicial caution, restrain from interfering with the order of acquittal recorded by the court below. It has been further held by their lordships of the Supreme Court that if the main grounds on which the Court below has passed its order acquitting the accused are reasonable and plausible and cannot be entirely and effectively dislodged or demolished the court should not disturb the acquittal. In the present case on the evidence on record it cannot be said that the view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is unreasonable. 7. Consequently, we find that there is no substance in the appeal and it is hereby dismissed. The bail bonds of the respondents accused shall stand cancelled. 1. AIR 1979 SC 135 .