N. P. SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant was tried for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC by the 1st Addi. Sessions Judge, Camp Harda, District Hoshangabad in S. T. No. 86/85, and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo R. I. for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to undergo R. I. for 6 months. ( 2 ) ON 14. 6. 85 P. W. l Umesh Kumar, brother of the deceased, Sadhna, wife of the appellant, received telegram and telephonic message from the appellant, husband of his sister, Sadhna that Sadhna had suffered bum injuries. On receipt of this message he came to the house of the appellant on 15. 6. 84, where he learnt that Sadhna had been taken to Indore for treatment, and when he was proceeding to Indore, his maternal uncle P. W. 6 Shankerlal who had returned from Indore, informed him that Sadhna had died, then he submitted the written report at Harda Police Station, about the incident Ex. P. 1, on the basis of which formal FIR Ex. P. 2 was drawn up, and a case was instituted, and investigation proceeded. ( 3 ) POLICE after investigation submitted, charge-sheet against the appellant under Section 306 of the IPC. After the cognizance, and commitment, the case came up for disposal before the 1st Addi. Sessions Judge, Harda, District Hoshangabad. ( 4 ) THE defence was innocence, and further defence was that the deceased had caught fire accidentally, while she was preparing the tea, and he had also sustained bum injuries on his hands, while he made an attempt to extinguish the fire. ( 5 ) THE prosecution examined in all 14 witnesses at the trial. Out of whom P. W. l Umesh Khmer, brother of the deceased, Sadhna is the informant, P. W. 2 Padinakar is the witness of seizure of letters Exs. P. 3 to 15, P. W. 3 Hans Kumar is the witness of seizure of stove, blanket and a piece of jute bag Exs. P. 16, 17 and 18, P. W. 4 Chandra Gopal, had seen the bum injures of Sadhna, P. W. 5 Ashok, is a cloth merchant, and neighbour of the appellant he has not spoken anything incriminating against the appellant. P. 16, 17 and 18, P. W. 4 Chandra Gopal, had seen the bum injures of Sadhna, P. W. 5 Ashok, is a cloth merchant, and neighbour of the appellant he has not spoken anything incriminating against the appellant. P. W. 6 Shankerlal, is the maternal uncle of the deceased, and P. W. 1 Umesh he supports the defence version that the deceased had caught fire accidentally while she was preparing the tea, P. W. 7 Dr. Riyaz Hussain, who held the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and proved post mortem report Ex. P. 21, P. W. 8 Smt. Shoba Bai, is the sister of the deceased, P. W. 9 Smt. Chandrakal Agarwal, is the mother of the deceased, P. W. 10 M. L. Parkhi, Executive Magistrate had recorded the dying declaration of the deceased Ex. P. 22 at Harda. P. W. 11. Head Constable, Shiv Shanker recorded the dying declaration of the deceased, at Indore Hospital Ex. P. 23. P. W. 12 P. N. Guru, is the 10 of this case P. W. 13 P. S. Thakur, S. I. is the witness of seizure of Exs. P. 16, 17, 18 and also proved the C. D. statements of the deceased Ex. D. 7 and P. W. 14 Dr. Sighai, had examined the burnt injuries of the deceased at Harda, and proved his report Ex. P. 25. ( 6 ) THE learned Addi. Sessions Judge, disbelieving the dying declaration of the deceased Exs. P. 22 and 23 convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner mentioned aforesaid: ( 7 ) SHRI A. Usmani, learned Counsel for the appellant, has contended that the appellant has been convicted on mere conjecture and surmises. There is no legal evidence to sustain the conviction of the appellant. The defence case is very much supported by P. W. 6 Shankerlal, maternal uncle of the deceased and Exs. P. 22 and 23, and also the C. D. statement of the deceased Ex. D. 7 which was completely ignored by the learned Addi. Sessions Judge. ( 8 ) ON perusal, of the evidence of P. W. 8 Shobabai, sister of the deceased and P. W. 9 Chandrakala Agarwal, mother of the deceased, it appears that they have made general statement that the deceased was not happy at her matrimonial home, but this evidence of P. Ws. Sessions Judge. ( 8 ) ON perusal, of the evidence of P. W. 8 Shobabai, sister of the deceased and P. W. 9 Chandrakala Agarwal, mother of the deceased, it appears that they have made general statement that the deceased was not happy at her matrimonial home, but this evidence of P. Ws. 8 and 9 is not alone, sufficient to sustain the conviction of the appellant. The deceased, Sadhna in her 2 dying declarations Exs. P. 22 and 23 made by her when she was in fit state of mind, had categorically stated that she caught fire accidentally, when she was preparing the morning tea. ( 9 ) THE first dying declaration Ex. P. 22 was recorded by M. L. Parkhai, Executive Magistrate, at Harda and second dying declaration Ex. P. 23 by P. W. 11 Head Constable, Shiv Sanker at Indore Hospital. The deceased in her C. D. statement Ex. D. 7 which was recorded in the presence of Doctor and 2 witnesses as completely exonerated the appellant. ( 10 ) IT is well settled that conviction should be on the basis of substantive evidence made before the Court, and not on the basis of conjectures and surmises. ( 11 ) THERE is nothing, in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the appellant had abetted, aided and instigated the deceased in any manner, to commit suicide. The ingredient offence u/sec. 306 IPC is not established, therefore, no conviction can be sustained, on the strength of evidence available on the record. ( 12 ) FOR the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the conviction and sentence of the appellant are Set aside. In the result, appeal is allowed. The appellant is exonerated from the ability of the bail bonds. Appeal allowed. Conviction set aside. .