JUDGMENT - MARLAPALLE B.H., J.:---Sarangdhar s/o Sandu Gadamode, the complainant (P.W. 1) gave his daughter Sunita in marriage to Kailash s/o Eknath Akkar, a resident of village Kundangaon, Taluka Sillod of Aurangabad district and the marriage was performed sometimes in the beginning of 1992. The couple begot a daughter and Kailash was trying hard to make his living. In the process, he shifted to Aurangabad to take the occupation of vegetable vendor. He had taken a room on rent and was residing at Aurangabad alongwith his wife. In due course, he shifted to a room belonging to Shri Uttamrao Aherkar at Kiradpura, Roshan Gate Road in a Wada and adjacent to his father-in-law. This Wada had five rooms with an open courtyard in between. One room was occupied by Sarangdhar and one by the accused, whereas the remaining three rooms were in the possession of the landlord. Kailash (P.W. 3) is the son of the landlord Uttamrao Aherkar. It appears that in the course of his business, the accused became an addict of liquor as well as ganja and he started assaulting his wife Sunita under the influence of liquor. 2. As per the prosecution case, on 20th March, 1996 he came home in a drunken condition and assaulted Sunita. He slept in the open courtyard and so did Sunita in the night of 20th March, 1996. The accused got up at about 4.00 a.m., took his wife inside the room under his occupation, latched the door from inside, poured kerosene on her in sufficient quantity and set her on fire. Sunita started shouting "Dhawa, Dhawa". Her shouts were heard by Kailash Aherkar (P.W. 3) first and then by Sarangdhar (P.W. 1) as well as Pushpabai (P.W. 5). Kailash Aherkar was the first to go to the room of the accused and when he saw that it was latched from inside and there was fire in the room he started knocking on the door but it was not opened and, therefore, he broke open the door by giving a kick. He saw the accused inside and Sunita was set on fire. The accused ran away and he was chased by Kailash Aherkar alongwith another person and they caught hold of him at a distance of about 400 ft. near the Ram temple. He was then handed over to the police. He saw the accused inside and Sunita was set on fire. The accused ran away and he was chased by Kailash Aherkar alongwith another person and they caught hold of him at a distance of about 400 ft. near the Ram temple. He was then handed over to the police. Sunita sustained hundred per cent burn injuries and when she was taken to the hospital, she was declared dead. The police conducted the inquest panchanama (Exhibit 12) as well as Spot panchanama (Exhibit 18) and sent the body for postmortem examination. Dr. Anil Digambar Jinturkar performed the autopsy on 21st March, 1996 between 11.45 p.m. to 12.45 p.m. and opined that Sunita died due to shock due to 100% superficial to deep burns. The clothes on the person of Sunita were sent for chemical analysis and on completion of the investigation and on receipt of the Chemical Analyser's report the Investigating Officer (P.W. 7) Dhondappa Kamble submitted a charge-sheet. The case was committed to the Sessions Court for trial. The accused was charged for offence punishable under section 302 for causing the death of Sunita by setting her on fire and also for an offence under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code on account of cruelty meted to Sunita on or before 21st March, 1996. 3. The prosecution had examined in all 8 witnesses. The defence did not examine any witnesses and the statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code. While denying the charge the accused had taken a plea that Sunita died an accidental or suicidal death. The trial Court, on assessment of the evidence, as lead by the prosecution, held that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt its case regarding the guilt of the accused for an offence punishable under section 302 as well as section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and convicted the accused. The accused has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for an offence punishable under section 302 and he has been further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, both the substantive sentences to run concurrently under section 427 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The accused has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for an offence punishable under section 302 and he has been further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, both the substantive sentences to run concurrently under section 427 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Accused was in jail since 21st March, 1996 and hence he was given the set off under section 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the period undergone by him. 4. Shri Mohd. Asgar s/o Mohd. Musa (P.W. 4), who was at the relevant time, working as Maintenance Surveyor in the City Survey Office at Aurangabad, was directed to visit the spot and draw the map. Accordingly, Mohd. Asgar (P.W. 4) had drawn the map of the spot i.e. the room occupied by the accused in the Wada belonging to Shri Aherkar (Exhibit 23). He denied the suggestion that he had drawn the said map while sitting in the Police Station. This map at Exhibit 23 shows that the Wada of Shri Aherkar had in all five rooms with an open courtyard in between. One room admeasuring 8' x 8' was occupied by the accused as a tenant and the incident had taken place in the said room. The adjacent room was occupied by Sarangdhar, the complainant and father-in-law of the accused. All the five rooms have separate doors and they are not accessible to each other from within. 5. Dr. Anil Jinturkar (P.W. 8) was working as Associate Professor, Forensic Medicine Department at the Government Medical College, Aurangabad and he stated before the trial Court that he alongwith Dr. S.R. Bhalchandra had conducted the postmortem examination on the body of Sunita Kailash Akkar on 21st March, 1996 between 11.45 a.m. to 12. 45 noon. On external examination he had noticed that the entire body had sustained burns to the extent of 100% and the burn injuries were antemortem in nature. On internal examination he had noticed congestion of lungs, brain and abdominal organs. The cause of death ascertained was shock due to 100% superficial to deep burns and accordingly a postmortem report was prepared under the signature of himself and Dr. Bhalchandra. He verified the contents of the same to be correct. On internal examination he had noticed congestion of lungs, brain and abdominal organs. The cause of death ascertained was shock due to 100% superficial to deep burns and accordingly a postmortem report was prepared under the signature of himself and Dr. Bhalchandra. He verified the contents of the same to be correct. He stated that the burnt tags were smelling of kerosene which went to show that large quantity of kerosene was used. He confirmed that considering the percentage of burns instant death was possible. In his cross-examination he stated that there were no findings suggestive of blast and, therefore, it was not possible that burns were caused by blast of stove. This medical evidence of the doctor, read with the postmortem report, unfailingly goes to show that Sunita died on account of 100% burn injuries. The accused had taken a defence that Sunita sustained the burn injuries on account of an accident (explosion of stove) or she had committed suicide by pouring kerosene and setting on fire to herself. 6. Pushpabai w/o Purshottam Dhahire (P.W. 5) is the daughter of Uttamrao Aherkar. As per her testimony she had come to her paternal home for delivery 15 days prior to the date of the incident. She also stated that the accused had shifted to the Wada about a month before the date of incident as a tenant in one of the five rooms. Accused was residing in the said room with his wife and daughter and was in the habit of drinking liquor. He used to assault his wife under influence of liquor and on account of this behaviour he was told by her brother to vacate the premises to which the accused had assured. She stated that on the fateful day she was sleeping in the Wada alongwith her children (Wada terminology relates to the open courtyard). It was a Wednesday. The accused came around 9.00 p.m. in a drunken condition and was not in a position to stand or walk properly. He went inside his room and called his wife who followed. A quarrel between the two ensued and the accused started beating Sunita. Thereafter both of them came out of the room and slept in the Wada. In the morning at about 4.00 a.m. she had woken up for urination. She returned to her bed and accused got up at that time and went inside his room. A quarrel between the two ensued and the accused started beating Sunita. Thereafter both of them came out of the room and slept in the Wada. In the morning at about 4.00 a.m. she had woken up for urination. She returned to her bed and accused got up at that time and went inside his room. He called his wife to follow and, therefore, she went inside. The accused latched the room from inside and after 10 to 15 minutes she saw fire in the room. She heard shouts of Sunita saying "Babare, Babare". The witness, therefore, called her brother Kailash (P.W. 3) who was sleeping in the adjoining room. Kailash came out of the house and tried to open the door of the room occupied by the accused. The latch could not be opened and, therefore, Kailash kicked on the door about 4-5 times, as a result the door had broken open. At that stage, accused pushed him (P.W. 3) and ran away. She had seen fire inside the room and Sunita was burnt. Her brother poured 2-3 buckets of water at Sunita and at that stage the father-in-law of the accused raised shouts as he saw the accused running away. Kailash Aherkar, therefore, ran after him and caught hold of him. He was made to sit in front of the house and was subsequently taken to the Police Station. This testimony of Pushpabai (P.W. 5) remained unshattered during the cross-examination. Kailash Aherkar (P.W. 3) stated in his depositions that the accused had occupied one room on rental basis of Rs. 150/- p.m. about 27 days before the incident. He was residing in the said house with his wife Sunita and a small girl and was engaged in selling vegetables. The accused was in the habit of consuming liquor and ganja and used to beat his wife regularly. He was, therefore, told to vacate the premises to which he had agreed and assured to vacate within four days. In the night of 20th March, 1996 he had seen the accused coming home around 9.00 p.m. and under the influence of alcohol. After his meals he was sleeping out side the room with his wife and child. Around 4.00 a.m. he heard shouts calling him and when he woke up he saw the house of the accused burning. He tried to kick the door but it was locked from inside. After his meals he was sleeping out side the room with his wife and child. Around 4.00 a.m. he heard shouts calling him and when he woke up he saw the house of the accused burning. He tried to kick the door but it was locked from inside. Finally he opened the door by giving multiple kicks and at that time the accused ran out of the house. The witness had seen Sunita lying on the ground in burning conditions and, therefore, he had thrown three buckets of water on her body. Sunita was not in a position to talk or move. He heard shouts that the accused was running away. He, therefore, ran after him and with the help of a Muslim gentleman the accused was caught and was subsequently taken to the Jinsi Police Station. Sunita was taken to Ghati hospital and she was declared dead. In the cross-examination he denied the suggestion that he had told the accused to vacate the room as there was a quarrel between his wife and Sunita and that he deposed falsely as the accused refused to vacate the premises. He also denied the suggestion that Sunita died while cooking food. He also denied that the accused had gone to attend the nature's call and he was caught when he was returning. 7. Sarangdhar Sandu Gadamode (P.W. 1) stated before the trial Court that he was a tenant with Uttamrao and the accused was occupying the adjacent room also as a tenant. The accused was ill-treating his daughter and was insisting that she should get cash from him (the complainant) or she should consent for divorce. He was also insisting that Sunita should sign on a bond paper to give consent for his second marriage. Before he moved to the house of Kailash Aherkar the accused was occupying a room belonging to Bhaskar Kanade, who was instigating the accused to take a divorce from Sunita so as to marry Kanade's daughter. The accused was assaulting Sunita under the influence of liquor. The incident had taken place on the Amawasya day of "Gudipadva". He was sleeping in his house and around 4.00 a.m., he heard shouts as "Dhawa, Dhawa". He came out of his room and saw fire in the room occupied by Sunita. The accused was assaulting Sunita under the influence of liquor. The incident had taken place on the Amawasya day of "Gudipadva". He was sleeping in his house and around 4.00 a.m., he heard shouts as "Dhawa, Dhawa". He came out of his room and saw fire in the room occupied by Sunita. He had seen that Kailash Aherkar, landlord was trying to extinguish the fire on the body of Sunita and at that time the accused ran away from his house. He, therefore, raised shouts and Kailash Aherkar chased the accused and caught hold of him near Ram Mandir which is located at about 400 to 500 ft. away from the scene of incident. He was brought by them. The witness lodged the complaint under his signature (Exhibit 16). He denied the suggestion that Sunita received burn injuries on account of stove blast while she was cooking. He also denied the suggestion that the accused never demanded cash from his daughter. 8. Dhondappa Kamble (P.W. 7) stated that inquest panchanama (Exhibit 12) was drawn by him and also spot panchanama (Exhibit 18). He had attached the clothes, kerosene cane and match-stick box under the same panchanama and he had sent these articles for chemical analysis. He had, thereafter, arrested the accused who was brought to the Police Station. He received C.A. report at Exhibit 28 and postmortem report (Exhibit 14). The C.A. report (Exhibit 28) detected kerosene residues on the clothes i.e. petty-coat, Sari and the plastic cane. 9. Admittedly, there was no eye-witness to the incidence of Sunita being set on fire. The prosecution case was, thus, based solely on the circumstantial evidence. The prosecution has established, on the basis of the evidence placed by it before the trial Court, the following circumstances; (i) Accused was married to Sunita and they had a daughter. (ii) Accused and Sunita alongwith their daughter were, on the day of incident, staying in a room belonging to Uttamrao Aherkar as a tenant. The said room was adjacent to the room occupied by Sarangdhar, the father-in-law of the accused. (iii) Accused had become alcoholic and also used to consume ganja and was selling vegetable to make his livelihood. (iv) He used to beat his wife Sunita under the influence of liquor and in the night used to come home in drunken conditions. The said room was adjacent to the room occupied by Sarangdhar, the father-in-law of the accused. (iii) Accused had become alcoholic and also used to consume ganja and was selling vegetable to make his livelihood. (iv) He used to beat his wife Sunita under the influence of liquor and in the night used to come home in drunken conditions. (v) On 20th March, 1996 he returned home at about 9.00 p.m. in a drunken condition and was not able to talk or stand. (vi) He took his wife inside the room, shouted at her, beat her and both of them came out and slept in the open courtyard. (vii) After the midnight he woke up at about 4.00 a.m. and took his wife inside the room. The room door was latched from inside and immediately thereafter Sunita's shouts were heard. Pushpabai (P.W. 5) was the first person to hear the shouts as she was also sleeping in the courtyard and she had seen the accused taking Sunita to the room at about 4.00 a.m. She looked at the room of Sunita and noticed that there was fire inside. (viii) On the alarm raised by Pushpabai, Kailash Aherkar (P.W. 3) came out of his room and saw that there was fire in Sunita's room. He, therefore, broke open the door of the said room and at that time the accused was inside and he started running away. (ix) Kailash Aherkar tried to extinguish the fire by pouring 2-3 buckets of water on Sunita's body and she was lying on the floor in burn conditions. (x) Sarangdhar (P.W. 1) also got up after hearing the shouts and came to the room of Sunita. He saw Kailash Aherkar extinguishing the fire on Sunita's body and noticed the accused running away. He, therefore, raised alarm and Kailash chased the accused. (xi) Accused was caught at about 400 to 500 ft. away near the Ram Mandir and was subsequently handed over to the Jinsi Police Station. (xii) Sunita was taken to the Ghati hospital and was declared dead. (xiii) The burnt clothes pieces, including a plastic cane lying at the spot of incident were collected and sent for chemical analysis. The C.A. report indicated the presence of kerosene on these pieces. (xiv) Sunita had received 100% burn injuries right from head to toe. (xii) Sunita was taken to the Ghati hospital and was declared dead. (xiii) The burnt clothes pieces, including a plastic cane lying at the spot of incident were collected and sent for chemical analysis. The C.A. report indicated the presence of kerosene on these pieces. (xiv) Sunita had received 100% burn injuries right from head to toe. (xv) Medical evidence as well as the circumstances surrounding the spot of incident ruled out the defence of the accused that Sunita died either an accidental death or a suicidal death. (xvi) Medical Officer had opined that a stove blast could not be cause for the burn injuries sustained by Sunita. 10. The trial Court rightly noted that the accused had taken alternate defence pleas, one that of accident and the other of suicide. His presence in the company of the deceased was duly established at the time of occurrence. His defence was found to be false, and rightly so, by the trial Court. This would be an additional circumstance adding to the chain of circumstances pointing out the involvement of the accused in the crime. 11. So far as the charge under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, beyond the depositions of Sarangdhar (P.W. 1) there is nothing on record in support of this charge. The other two witnesses viz. Kailash Aherkar (P.W. 3) and Pushpabai (P.W. 5) were the immediate neighbours and residing in the same Wada for about 27 days, did not corroborate the statement of Sarangdhar (P.W. 1) that accused was demanding money from him and was stating that he would marry second time if money was not given to him. In the circumstances of this case, it was necessary that the statements of ill-treatment, as came through the testimony of Sarangdhar (P.W. 1) were corroborated by other witnesses. It would not be safe to accept the testimony of Sarangdhar (P.W. 1) alone in the facts and circumstances of this case and more so when all the witnesses were staying in the same premises. Kailash (P.W. 3) and Pushpabai (P.W. 5) specifically stated that the accused used to beat Sunita under the influence of liquor and thus caused physical ill-treatment. Kailash (P.W. 3) and Pushpabai (P.W. 5) specifically stated that the accused used to beat Sunita under the influence of liquor and thus caused physical ill-treatment. However, these acts will not come within the ambit of section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code unless the physical ill-treatment was connected to the unlawful demands for any property or valuable security or such treatment was on account of failure by Sunita or any person related to her to meet such demand. There is no evidence which would inspire confidence in respect of the charge under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code against the accused. The findings recorded by the trial Court that the said charge was proved against the accused, therefore, cannot be sustained. 12. In the result, we allow the appeal partly and quash and set aside the order of conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code as passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad on 20th May, 1997 in Sessions Case No. 193 of 1006. The accused is hereby acquitted of the said offence. However, we confirm the order of conviction and sentence for an offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code against the accused/appellant. Appeal allowed partly. -----