JUDGMENT - ROHEE K.J., J.:---The appellant (original accused No. 1) was prosecuted along with his father (accused No. 2) and elder brother (accused No. 3) for the offences punishable under sections 306, 304-B and 498-A of the I.P.C. They were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon, who by his judgment dated 19-12-1990 in Sessions Trial No. 22/1989 acquitted accused Nos. 2 and 3 of the charges and convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under section 304-B and 498-A of I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under section 304-B and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under section 498-A of the I.P.C. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The appellant has challenged the said conviction and sentence. 2. The facts which are not disputed are that the marriage between the appellant and Kusum, the daughter of P.W. 1 Pandhari Kisan Bochare resident of Ghirani, District Buldana took place on 12-6-1987. After her marriage, Kusum went to cohabit with the appellant at village Lipana, taluka Khamgaon, District Buldana. Out of the wedlock, she delivered a daughter Kusum however, died on 15-2-1989. Her death was in a mysterious circumstances in a well situated in the field. 3. The case of the prosecution is that after marriage, the appellant and his parents demanded buffalo, radio, watch, motor-pump etc. to P.W. 1 Pandhari through Kusum. P.W. 1 Pandhari supplied certain articles to secure happiness of his daughter Kusum. However, he was unable to provide motor pump to the appellant. The appellant also insisted P.W. 1 Pandhari to secure a job for him which could not be secured. For all these demands, the appellant and his parents harassed Kusum. They ill-treated her, the ill-treatment became unbearable to Kusum which ultimately resulted in her death in mysterious circumstances. 4. Initially P.W. 1 Pandhari lodged oral report with P.S.O. Pimpalgaon Raja. However, no action was taken on the report. Hence P.W. 1 Pandhari sent written report dated 25-2-1989 (Exh. 18) by post. Initially A.D. No. 2 of 1989 under section 174 of Cri.P.C. was registered. 4. Initially P.W. 1 Pandhari lodged oral report with P.S.O. Pimpalgaon Raja. However, no action was taken on the report. Hence P.W. 1 Pandhari sent written report dated 25-2-1989 (Exh. 18) by post. Initially A.D. No. 2 of 1989 under section 174 of Cri.P.C. was registered. After investigation Crime No. 15/1989 under sections 498-A, 304-B and 306 of I.P.C. was registered on 9-3-1989 against the appellant, his father and brother. After completion of the investigation, they were charge-sheeted. 5. The appellant and other accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. During trial P.W. 1 Pandhari Kisan Bochare (the father of deceased Kusum); P.W. 2 Ramesh Pandhari Bochare (brother of deceased Kusum); P.W. 3 Ramrao Deorao Ambhore (panch) and P.W. 4 PSI Deorao Maroti Divshe (Investigating Officer) were examed. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on the record, the learned trial Judge found that there was no convincing evidence against father and brother of the appellant. Hence he acquitted them. He, however, convicted the appellant as stated earlier. 6. The learned Counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned judgment. He submitted that the testimony of P.W. 1 Pandhari and P.W. 2 Ramesh is not convincing. Their testimony is not corroborated by any independent witness. He submitted that the learned trial Judge was not justified in convicting the appellant. 7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor tried to justify the impugned judgment. 8. I have carefully considered the submissions. I have also gone through the impugned judgment as well as evidence on record. It may be seen that even according to the prosecution there was no dispute between the parties about any demand as consideration for the marriage either at, before or after the marriage. The marriage was settled and everything went smoothly for some time. According to P.W. 1 Pandhari and P.W. 2 Ramesh the demand for certain articles was made by the appellant only after marriage P.W. 1 Pandhari fulfilled some of the demands. However, he could not provide motor-pump for the appellant and could not secure job for him. On these counts, it is alleged that, the appellant ill-treated Kusum and at times he beat her. Every time when Kusum used to go to her paternal house, she used to narrate about the ill-treatment to her by the appellant. P.W. 1 Pandhari used to console her and this went on for some time. On these counts, it is alleged that, the appellant ill-treated Kusum and at times he beat her. Every time when Kusum used to go to her paternal house, she used to narrate about the ill-treatment to her by the appellant. P.W. 1 Pandhari used to console her and this went on for some time. In the meanwhile, Kusum delivered a daughter. P.W. 1 Pandhari did everything as per convention to the satisfaction of the appellant. Even thereafter the demand by appellant continued. The appellant or his parents did not inform about the unexpected death of Kusum to P.W. 1 Pandhari. Subsequently, it was learnt that her dead body was found in a well in the field. Thereupon P.W. 1 Pandhari lodged oral report with the Police. However, no inquiry was done. P.W. 1 Pandhari inquired with the Police but no satisfactory answers were given. Hence he sent a report dated 25-2-1989 by post and thereafter investigation commenced. 9. The learned trial Judge found that there was no earthly reason for Kusum to finish her life particularly when she had to support a sucking child. The learned trial Judge also did not believe the defence about Kusum having met with accidental death, while considering this aspect, the learned trial Judge wrongly placed the burden of proving accidental death on the accused persons. Ultimately he came to the conclusion that the death was under mysterious circumstances. He was satisfied from the statement of the appellant under section 313 of the Cri.P.C. that demand of various articles was admitted by the appellant. He further found that there was unlawful demand by the appellant and there was scope for drawing presumption as to dowry death. 10. The entire approach of the learned trial Judge is wrong. The statement of the accused recorded under section 313 of Cri.P.C. cannot form basis of the conviction of the accused. The Court has to see the evidence placed by the prosecution for proving the charge in the instant case, except the interested words of P.W. 1 Pandhari and P.W. 2 Ramesh, there is no other evidence to show that even after marriage, there had been consistent demand of one or the other articles by the appellant to P.W. 1 Pandhari. 11. P.W. 1 Pandhari himself has produced an inland letter dated 6-9-1988 (Exh. 21) written by Kusum to him. 11. P.W. 1 Pandhari himself has produced an inland letter dated 6-9-1988 (Exh. 21) written by Kusum to him. It may be noted that the said letter was written by Kusum about six months before her death. The said letter no where mentions that there was demand for any article by her husband or in-laws or that there was harassment to her by them. On the contrary, the said letter clearly shows that she was happy at her matrimonial house. 12. After the said inland letter, the appellant wrote two post cards one dated 11-11-1988 (Exh. 20) and another dated 7-2-1989 (Exh. 19). The first was written to Ganesh (the brother of Kusum) and the another was written to P.W. 1 Pandhari. In both the letters, the appellant expressed his desire to secure some service for himself. He of course requested P.W. 1 Pandhari to help him in getting service. It may be noted that the said letter was just about a week before the death or Kusum, P.W. 1 Pandhari did not find anything abnormal in any of the letters. Perhaps that is why there was no compliance by him to the Police prior to the death of Kusum. 13. The evidence on record falls short to bring home the guilt to the appellant. The finding of the guilt of the appellant recorded by the trial Judge cannot be sustained and will have to be set aside. Hence the order: The appeal is allowed, the conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable under sections 304-B and 498-A of I.P.C. and sentence thereunder is set aside. His bail bonds stand cancelled. Appeal allowed. -----