JUDGMENT - A.B. PALKAR, J.:---The appellant has challenged the conviction and the consequent sentence for the offence punishable under section 306 of I.P.C. The appellant is sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, R.I. for one month. Similarly, the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 498-A of I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, R.I. for month. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that deceased Jayashri was married to accused No. 2 (appellant) on 16-6-89. After marriage, accused and Jayashri were residing at Gadhinglaj as the accused was serving as a lecturer in college at Gadhinglaj. Original accused No. 1 Smt. Pavitra @ Abi Rajaram Kamble is sister of the appellant who has been acquitted of all the charges. After some months of marriage, Jayashri was pregnant and delivered a child. She lived with her mother for about 2 1/2 months and went back to her husband. On holidays, Jayashri and her husband used to visit mother's house. However, she used to return back immediately. Jayashri never came alone to her mother's house as her husband was not sending her alone. For this reason, her mother (complainant) used to go to Gadhinglaj to see her and whenever she requested accused/appellant to send her, he refused to send her. Vijay (P.W. 5) younger brother of Jayashri aged about 12 to 13 years once had gone to Jayashri's house for Rakshabandhan festival. At that time in his presence appellant and the sister Pavitra @ Abi Kambale had beaten Jayashri when Jayashri expressed her intention to go to Kolhapur. At the time of Ganpati festival, Jayashri's mother along with one Gopala and his wife Savitri who are the in-laws of another daughter of Tolabai had gone to Gadhinglaj to bring Jayashri. The appellant refused to send Jayashri for Ganpati festival and on the contrary told them that he would bring Jayashri during the Ganpati holidays. Jayashri had complained with her mother that she was being ill-treated on the ground that accused has suspicion regarding her character and he also used to beat her. She told her mother that she would not reside at Gadhinglaj and also asked the mother to secure divorce. At that time the appellant had threatened her mother. Jayashri had complained with her mother that she was being ill-treated on the ground that accused has suspicion regarding her character and he also used to beat her. She told her mother that she would not reside at Gadhinglaj and also asked the mother to secure divorce. At that time the appellant had threatened her mother. Thereafter, her mother had returned back to Kolhapur. Thereafter, on Wednesday, Jayashri, accused and appellant had gone to Kolhapur to the house of Jayashri's mother. They stayed there for some time and returned back to Gadhinglaj. In this visit also Jayashri told her mother that her husband was suspecting her character and was beating her and her mother should therefore, visit her and also secure divorce. Thereafter, on the next Saturday, Jayashri's sister Rekha was informed on phone that Jayashri was burnt and was admitted to Miraj Hospital. Thereafter, all the relatives went to Miraj where they were informed that Jayashri died as a result of burns. After this, a complaint was lodged by Tolabai to the police station and the police started the investigation. During the investigation, the panchanama of the spot was prepared and the dead body was sent for post mortem and report was obtained. Police recorded statements of different witnesses, seized the burnt pieces of blouse and bangles and sent them to C.A. After investigation was over, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and his sister. 3. The accused denied the charge. His defence is that he never ill treated Jayashri and he had love and affection for her and it was for this reason he was not allowing her to go to her mother's house. On the contrary he often used to visit her mother's house alongwith her and there was absolutely no difference between them. On the date of the incident, he returned from College at 11.30 a.m. and he and his wife were sitting on the cot alongwith their newly born child. (a son who is still living with the appellant). He told Jayashri that after some time he would take meals. On hearing cries of the child, Jayashri went inside the kitchen for making preparations for serving milk and food to him and he took child to another room as the child was crying. In a short time he heard shouting from the kitchen side, it was Jayashri calling him as "Aaho-Aaho". On hearing cries of the child, Jayashri went inside the kitchen for making preparations for serving milk and food to him and he took child to another room as the child was crying. In a short time he heard shouting from the kitchen side, it was Jayashri calling him as "Aaho-Aaho". On entering the kitchen he found that Jayashri had caught fire. Therefore, after keeping the child on the cot, he embraced her in order to put off the fire and because of this he also received burn injuries. He was shouting and trying for help. Thereafter he does not know as to what happened afterwards because he was groaning with pains. Jayashri and her child were physically weak as the child was born in the 7th month of pregnancy. 4. The prosecution has examined 11 witnesses including Police Officer, panch witnesses and relatives of Jayashri and some of the residents of the locality where Jayashri and accused/appellant were residing. After considering all the material on record, learned Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty of the charge and acquitted his sister Pavitra @ Aabi Rajaram Kamble and passed the impugned order for conviction and sentence againt the appellant. 5. In this Court, the appellant was initially represented by Shri A.Y. Sakhare. After Shri Sakhare joining the Bench, notice was issued to the appellant. Inspite of the service of that notice, the appellant did not bother to engage Advocate. Shri Sakhare who had by then left judiciary and started practice informed the Court that after he handed over the brief to the client, the appellant has not contacted him. He is therefore, not appearing for the appellant. As the appellant did not make any arrangement for appearance, I heard learned A.P.P., and with his assistance, perused the entire record. On going through the entire evidence and considering the arguments advance before me by the learned A.P.P., I am of the view that the conviction is legally unsustainable and deserves to be set aside. 6. From the post mortem report, and from the injuries mentioned therein, it is clear that Jayashri had received 100% burns and died as a result of the burn injuries. Learned Sessions Judge found that the death was suicidal. 6. From the post mortem report, and from the injuries mentioned therein, it is clear that Jayashri had received 100% burns and died as a result of the burn injuries. Learned Sessions Judge found that the death was suicidal. It is pertinent to point out that the charge-sheet filed against the appellant and his sister was for the offence punishable under sections 498-A and 304-B of I.P.C. The committal order also indicates the same charges. However, the learned Sessions Judge framed charge only for the offence punishable under sections 498-A and 306 of I.P.C. 7. In order to consider the case of the prosecution, it is necessary to point out that admittedly during the life time of Jayashri, there was never any complaint made either by Jayashri or by her relatives any where indicating thereby that Jayashri was being ill treated on the ground of appellant suspecting her character. The entire evidence about the so called ill treatment of Jayashri is allegedly complained to mother/relatives was not disclosed by any one of them any where before this incident. It is obvious that there could be no eye witness to the incident as the incident took place inside the four walls of the house of accused/appellant. In cross-examination, Jayashri's mother Tolabai (P.W.1) who lodged the complaint has admitted that at the time of marriage the appellant told her that he did not want any money or dowry and he only wanted to marry Jayashri and accordingly the marriage was performed. She further stated that Jayashri was married on 16-6-89 and she delivered child on 26-1-90. Jayashri delivered a child in the hospital at Gadhinglaj where she was residing with her husband and it was the appellant who spent for the delivery. On realising that this statement may not be very much favourable to the case made out by her, she volunteered that she also spent some money at that time. As it was a pre-mature delivery, her earlier statement that it was accused who spent for delivery goes againt the prosecution case that precisely for this reason, he suspected her character. She further admitted that the appellant was loving Jayashri but tried to explain that it was blind love because on the other hand he ill treated her. As it was a pre-mature delivery, her earlier statement that it was accused who spent for delivery goes againt the prosecution case that precisely for this reason, he suspected her character. She further admitted that the appellant was loving Jayashri but tried to explain that it was blind love because on the other hand he ill treated her. She also admitted that the appellant and Jayashri decided to have particular name for the child and child was accordingly named as Pratik and the appellant also spent for the treatment of the child at Kolhapur. She further admitted that the appellant and Jayashri visited us once or so in a month whenever there was a holiday. She further stated that whenever she visited Gadhinglaj to bring Jayashri, the appellant refused to send Jayashri and used to tell that he would bring Jayashri with him. According to the appellant he was not sending Jayashri because he was not willing to live without her company. And it is now tried to be shown by Jayashri's mother and other relatives that because of appellant's suspicion regarding character of Jayashri, he never sent her alone. All this appears to be quite unnatural. If the appellant had slightest suspicion regarding character of Jayashri, then he would not have so much love and affection for her. 8. In order to prove the ill-treatment, the evidence of Jayashri's brother (P.W.5) has been adduced by the prosecution. However, the admission of Tolabai that she did not state before the police about the visit of Vijay to Jayashri's house and about the incident of accused beating Jayashri in his presence and accused also beating Vijay, the excuses she gave of this material omission was that she was not in fit mental condition at that time due to the death of her daughter on the previous date. She admitted that when she visited the accused before Ganpati festival along with the parents in-laws of Rekha, she did not ask him the reason for ill-treatment of Jayashri. She went to the extent of saying that when she asked the persons who had brought Jayashri regarding the cause of burning, they told her that Jayashri was killed by the accused. She went to the extent of saying that when she asked the persons who had brought Jayashri regarding the cause of burning, they told her that Jayashri was killed by the accused. If this is so, then she would have definitely named those persons or would have given some clue to the police so as to approach them and to investigate by recording their statement regarding the cause of Jayashri's death. This clearly shows that witness is competent to go to any extent because in statement before the police she had stated that Jayashri has committed suicide. And this statement before the police was denied by her without giving any explanation as to how such statement came to be recorded. She even admitted to deny that accused made any attempt to save Jayashri by extinguishing fire. Her statement was recorded twice by the police. First statement was recorded on 1-9-90 in which she stated that she was sure that appellant might have set her to fire. In the second statement dated 3-9-90 she has given explanation that when for the first time her statement was recorded, she was in a state of shock due to death of Jayashri. She has clearly stated that she filed complaint only on the basis of suspicion. It is therefore, obvious that from no other person she had come to know that it was accused who was responsible to cause to death of Jayashri either directly by setting her on fire or indirectly by abetting her to commit suicide and she had made such allegation against the accused on the basis of her own suspicion. Sou. Savitri Kamble (P.W.2) mother-in-law of Rekha, stated that when she used to visit Jayashri, Jayashri used to tell her that her married life was some what better but her husband ill-treates her and does not send her to her parent's house and nothing else. In cross-examination, she admitted that after coming to know that Jayashri was burnt, they had come to Kolhapur and at that time even the appellant was also admitted in the hospital where Jayashri was admitted. It is her further admission that when she made enquiry from the persons coming from Gadhinglaj about the cause of burning, they told that she was burnt due to the explosion of stove. It is her further admission that when she made enquiry from the persons coming from Gadhinglaj about the cause of burning, they told that she was burnt due to the explosion of stove. There are two contradictory versions, one wherein Tolabai stated that the persons coming from Gadhinglaj told her that Jayashri was killed and second of Savitri that the persons coming from Gahinglaj told her that Jayashri was burnt due to explosion of stove. 9. Sou. Rekha Kolhapure (P.W.3) clearly stated in examination-in-chief that Jayashri used to tell her that her married life is good and in a next sentence stated that she also told her that her husband used to beat her and used to suspect her character. She then referred to the incident which took place in presence of Vijay, of course, she is not witness to that incident and she cannot make any statement regarding that incident. Prosecution then relied on a suspicious document which is in the form of inland letter (Ex. 19) which according to this witness is in the hand writing of Jayashri. The Investigating Officer has made no attempt to find out as to who is the author of this letter and who has signed this letter. On careful perusal of this letter, it is clear that nobody has signed this letter and only capital alphabet in English J.P.S. are written, and the prosecution wants Court to accept that this is a letter signed by Jayashri without making any attempt as to find out whether Jayashri used to sign or whether she was putting the letter J.P.S. as her signature. The entire letter is in Marathi and therefore, is it not possible that it would be signed as J.P.S. in English. She also admitted that at the time of marriage, appellant told that he does not want any money or dowry. When she specifically referred to the incident regarding beating by the accused to Jayashri and Vijay at the time of Rakshabandhan, she admitted in cross examination that this is an improvement to the earlier statement to the police. She also admitted that letter (Ex. 19) was never shown to her by the police, which shows that Investigating Officer was not interested in finding out that who is the author of the letter. It was not shown to anybody and specially to this witness who in Court identifies handwriting of this letter. She also admitted that letter (Ex. 19) was never shown to her by the police, which shows that Investigating Officer was not interested in finding out that who is the author of the letter. It was not shown to anybody and specially to this witness who in Court identifies handwriting of this letter. No further attempt was made out to verify the handwriting of Jayashri and merely because her sister stated that it is a handwriting of Jayashri, the learned Sessions Judge accepted it to be the handwriting of Jayashri and also accepted the contents thereof as true. The contents of the letter show that Jayashri wrote to the accused (sic witness) that she was beaten in presence of her mother, uncle and oldest family member. To this effect, none of the relatives of Jayashri has deposed except Vijay (P.W.5). Had Jayashri been beaten in presence of her mother, uncle and other elder family members, then they would have stated accordingly and even in the complaint, it would have appeared and that is why this letter appears to be a fabricated document prepared to suit the prosecution case. It is also stated in this letter that the accused told Jayashri in presence of her relatives like uncle and brother wives that he had incurred Rs. 5000 for medical expenditure, to which there is no reference in the evidence of any other witness and no relatives has made a grievance that there was any such talk by the accused/appellant. In my view, therefore, the learned Sessions Judge has totally made an error in relying on this document and accepting the same evidence in support of prosecution case of Jayashri's ill-treatment to such extent as to lead Jayashri to commit suicide. Mr. Basappa Gawane (P.W.4) is a Head Constable attached to Miraj City Police Station has clearly stated that a phone message was received that the appellant and Jayashri were burnt and were admitted to the hospital and further enquiry has to be made and he also received report from ASI Awale. Another report was given by the said ASI Awale that Jayashri was dead and therefore, on the said report, he made further endorsement. In cross-examination he admitted that on enquiry, he came to know that appellant has sustained burns while putting off the fire. I have already referred to the evidence of Vijay (P.W.5). Another report was given by the said ASI Awale that Jayashri was dead and therefore, on the said report, he made further endorsement. In cross-examination he admitted that on enquiry, he came to know that appellant has sustained burns while putting off the fire. I have already referred to the evidence of Vijay (P.W.5). In my view he is totally unreliable witness. At the time of incident, his age was about 12 years. He was not administered oath because of immaturity of age. He has stated for the first time regarding the incident of Rakshabandhan. It is obvious from the fact that no other witness referred to that incident and even the reference given by his sister was after entering into the witness-box, it is clear that child witness is not worthy of any credence. He admitted in cross-examination that child born to Jayashri was a pre-mature child and was required to be hospitalised after birth. And futher that the appellant and Jayashri were prepared to spend any amount for the child, which clearly shows that the appellant had absolutely no suspicion regarding character of his wife and paternity of child. If it was really so, then appellant would not have stated that he was so keen to save the child. It is further borne out from the conduct of the appellant that even today the child was living with the appellant and not with the relatives of Jayashri. It is surprising that one letter marked as Article A which is stated to be sent by her mother but it is not admitted in evidence. It is not found in any file and there is no mention anywhere as to what has happened to that document. Learned Sessions Judge has refused to rely on the document as it was not shown to Rekha and was shown only to Vijay. However, since the document is not on record, it is not proper to make any further reference. If at all such a document was there the question remains un-answered as to why Investigating Officer did not make any attempt to investigating and why the same was not shown to the witness who can make a statement as to who has written it. Mr. Vasant Jadhav (P.W.6) is a resident of the locality where the appellant was residing. If at all such a document was there the question remains un-answered as to why Investigating Officer did not make any attempt to investigating and why the same was not shown to the witness who can make a statement as to who has written it. Mr. Vasant Jadhav (P.W.6) is a resident of the locality where the appellant was residing. He immediately went after hearing the shouts from the premises where accused and Jayashri were residing. In his statement before the police, he has stated that the appellant had thrown water on the person of Jayashri and that the appellant was also burnt but he conveniently omitted this material portion of a statement and when he was confronted with this statement in the cross-examination, he had no explanation as to why such statement has been recorded by the police. In view of the fact that this witness has given some admission which would go against prosecution, it appears that learned Sessions Judge instead of appreciating his evidence, dis-carded his evidence, as totally unreliable. Mr. Ramchandra Kamble (P.W.7) is also a lecturer in the college where appellant is working as a lecturer. His evidence is that one of the students came to his house and told him that appellant and his wife were burnt and were admitted to the hospital of Dr. Kolhapure at Gadhinglaj. He has clearly stated that he asked Jayashri about the reasons of burns and Jayashri told him that she was making the food hot and further said stove, stove and nothing else. In cross-examination, he admitted that Jayashri told him that due to the ablgze (sic) of stove she was burnt and her husband tried to put off the fire and in that attempt he was also burnt. He also stated that Jayashri was demanding water and in that condition she was making enquiry about her child and husband. This evidence appears trustworthy because even though the prosecution has suppressed the fact that the appellant was also burnt, it is apparent that appellant was burnt. He was treated by Dr. Kolhapure and also admitted to the hospital where Jayashri was admitted and for this reason his entire evidence was tried to suppressed by the Investigating Officer. Dr. This evidence appears trustworthy because even though the prosecution has suppressed the fact that the appellant was also burnt, it is apparent that appellant was burnt. He was treated by Dr. Kolhapure and also admitted to the hospital where Jayashri was admitted and for this reason his entire evidence was tried to suppressed by the Investigating Officer. Dr. Shivkumar Kolhapure (P.W.9) who was the first person to examine Jayashri has also stated that the accused had also come to his hospital alongwith Jayashri and he advised both of them to be sent to Miraj Hospital. He has not maintained any record but he admitted that in his statement before the police, he has stated that husband of Jayashri was brought alongwith Jayashri and he has given medicine to both of them. The evidence shows the defence version that the appellant was burnt in that incident and he was alongwith Jayashri is truthful. When he was admitted to the Miraj Hospital he was burnt to such extent that required him to be admitted to the hospital and the prosecution made no attempt during the entire investigation to find out extent of burns. In my view, to cover up deficiency and dishonesty the Investigating Officer chose not to collect any evidence regarding burn injuries and suppressed that evidence but unfortunately this important aspect of the matter was totally overlooked by the learned Sessions Judge. The Investigating Officer also admitted that appellant was admitted to Miraj Hospital but he does not even know how many days he was in the hospital. When the appellant was arrested, the witness who is the Investigating Officer is not in a position to tell the Courts as to how many days he was in the hospital. He also admitted that the burn injuries caused to the appellant were caused while putting off the fire when Jayashri was burnt and it was also disclosed in the investigation that Jayashri was burnt due to stove and he also found a stove and the stove pin at the spot of the incident. He also admitted that the burn injuries caused to the appellant were caused while putting off the fire when Jayashri was burnt and it was also disclosed in the investigation that Jayashri was burnt due to stove and he also found a stove and the stove pin at the spot of the incident. This being the state of affairs regarding the evidence of the prosecution, it is obvious that during the investigation, Investigating Officer had come to know that the appellant was burnt while extinguishing fire but a clear attempt was made by the Investigating Officer to surpress this aspect of the matter with the only design to involve the appellant and his sister in the serious charge. The evidence of the relatives of Jayashri also shows that the appellant and Jayashri had love for each other. Even Jayashri in the burnt condition, and that also 100% burns, was enquiring about her husband and the child and in that condition she told the visitors that she was burnt due to bursting of stove and her husband attempted to save her by extinguishing fire. This clearly shows that the entire story of the prosecution that it was accused who was responsible for abeting Jayashri to commit suicide or Jayashri died as a result of suicide is not at all credible. The evidence of ill-treatment is also after thought. It is totally unreliable. The evidence shows that Jayashri had love and affection to her husband. It was a case of clear accident and merely because there was 100% burns, it was clearly erroneous on the part of the learned Sessions Judge to reach to the conclusion that it was a case of suicide and further that the appellant has abetted his wife in commission of suicide. It is obvious from the earlier discussed evidence that relatives of Jayashri made after thought attempt to involve appellant in a serious charge by making some allegations of ill-treatment to Jayashri by the appellant. For the reason that the prosecution has not been able to prove that Jayashri died due to suicide. There is also no reliable evidence that she was ill-treated and that also to such an extent that it would lead her to end her life. 10. In this view of the matter, I find that conviction and consequent sentence of the appellant is totally unsustainable and will have to be set aside. There is also no reliable evidence that she was ill-treated and that also to such an extent that it would lead her to end her life. 10. In this view of the matter, I find that conviction and consequent sentence of the appellant is totally unsustainable and will have to be set aside. Appeal is allowed. Conviction of the appellant for the offence under section 498-A and section 306 of I.P.C. is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all the charges. His bail bond is cancelled. Appeal allowed. -----