T. SURYA RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE State through the public Prosecutor has filed the present appeal assailing the Order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Guntur, in Sessions case No. 534 of 1993 by his judgment dated 19-7-1994. ( 2 ) THE gravamen of the charge against the accused was that A1 and A2 being the husband and mother-in law of the deceased -Sydamma used to harass her for getting the land registered by her father in her name, transferred to A1 towards dowry and in consequence of that harassment, the deceased consumed insecticide at about 8-00 a. m. , on 16-11-1992 and committed suicide within seven years of her marriage thereby they committed the offence punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. ( 3 ) IN order to bring home the charge to the accused, the prosecution examined in all 12 witnesses. Of them, PWs. 1 to 3 are the main witnesses to speak about the harassment and cruelty. PWs. 5, 6, 7 and 8 have not supported the case of the prosecution. PW4 was examined to show that A1 insisted to take his wife on Friday when his father-in-law PW1 objected to it. PW9 is the Village Administrative Officer of Macherla village and he is panch witness for seizure of MO1. PW10 is a private doctor - who first saw the deceased when she was brought by A1 and declared her to be dead. PW11 is Sub-Inspector of Police who registered the crime under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. PW12 is Inspector of Police and Investigating Officer. ( 4 ) SURPRISINGLY, the Doctor who conducted autopsy has not been examined in this case and the post-mortem report was marked by consent as Ex. P7. In Criminal jurisprudence, marking the documents by consent is totally alien except when the documents are sought to be introduced in accordance with Section 294 of the Code of criminal Procedure and that too for the limited purpose of proving the execution thereof. ( 5 ) POST-MORTEM report is not a substantive piece of evidence and, therefore, cannot be read in evidence in the absence of the examination of the Doctor who issued the same. ( 5 ) POST-MORTEM report is not a substantive piece of evidence and, therefore, cannot be read in evidence in the absence of the examination of the Doctor who issued the same. If for any reason, the doctor is not available either on account of his death or cannot be examined for the reasons enjoined under Section 32 of the indian Evidence Act in which event the document can be read in evidence. ( 6 ) AT any rate, there is no gainsaying that the deceased in this case died an unnatural death by committing suicide by taking insecticide poison. The question, therefore that crops up for consideration in this case is whether it was on account of any demand for dowry soon before her death in which event the presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act operates. As aforediscussed, the whole case revolves round the testimony of PWs. 1 to 3. PW1 no doubt did speak about the harassment meted out to the deceased from A1 and A2. His evidence being an interested witness is to be scrutinised carefully. A material part of his evidence has been omitted to have been mentioned in the First Information Report ex. P1. PW2 is the second daughter of PW1 and the younger sister of the deceased. Her evidence shows that prior to her marriage, the deceased informed her about the harassment and beating by A1. She did not know anything about the subsequent state of affairs after her marriage which admittedly took place 1 years after such information given by the deceased. Therefore, her evidence cannot help proving the case of the prosecution that the deceased was subjected to harassment and cruelty in connection with the demand for dowry soon before her death. PW3 is the sister of PW1. Her evidence shows that on one day when pw1 and herself visited the house of the accused, in their presence the deceased was beaten by A1 and when PW1 intervened he too was kicked by A1. This was after the delivery of the child by the deceased. This falls for short of the requisite proof of harassment and cruelty demanding dowry soon before the death of the deceased. ( 7 ) HAVING regard to the material omissions in the evidence of PW1 which amount to contradictions, it is not safe to place reliance upon the testimony of PW1. This falls for short of the requisite proof of harassment and cruelty demanding dowry soon before the death of the deceased. ( 7 ) HAVING regard to the material omissions in the evidence of PW1 which amount to contradictions, it is not safe to place reliance upon the testimony of PW1. As discussed by me herein above, the evidence of PWs. 2 and 3 also will not help proving the case of the prosecution. Under those circumstances, there has been no convincing evidence on the side of the prosecution to prove the grave charge of dowry death. The court below has rightly, therefore, recorded a finding of not guilty. ( 8 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, there is nothing to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions judge, Guntur. The criminal appeal therefore, fails and is dismissed.