P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) ACCUSED 1 and 2 in S. C. No. 55 of 1995 on the file of Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, vijayawada, preferred the present criminal Appeal as against the judgment dated 15-10-1998. ( 2 ) THE accused were found guilty of the offence punishable under section 306 of the indian Penal Code (for short ipc ) and the first accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and in addition to it, to pay a fine of rs. 5000/- (rupees five thousand) and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and the second accused to undergo simple imprisonment tor a period of one year. The s. I of police, Thotlavalluru police Station, filed charge sheet against appellants/a-1 and A-2 alleging that due to the harassment caused by the appellants Padma Kumari-the second wife of first accused committed suicide by burning herself on 3-5-1995 at 9 p. m. The learned V. Metropolitan Magistrate, vijayawada, registered the same as PRC no. 11/94 and the same was committed to the Court of Session at the Metropolitan sessions Judge, Vijayawada and the same was transferred to Sessions Judge, Mahila court, Vijayawada and the learned judge recorded the evidence of P. W. 1 to P. W. 11 and marked Exs. P. 1 to P. 11 and also M. Os1 to 3 and convicted and sentenced the accused as referred to supra. ( 3 ) SRI Pradumna Kumar Reddy the learned counsel representing the appellants would submit that the very cause of death had not been established and hence it is futile on the part of the prosecution to contend that the ingredients of Section 306 IPC had been established. The learned counsel also would contend that Ex. P-8 the post mortem certificate was not marked through any witness and how this document was brought on record is to be explained by the prosecution. The learned counsel also would submit that the same was not marked though the investigating officer, but simply the investigating officer deposed about the post mortem report and nothing more. The doctor who issued the post mortem certificate or at least some other doctor acquainted with the signature had not been examined and hence the very cause of death had not been established by the prosecution. The doctor who issued the post mortem certificate or at least some other doctor acquainted with the signature had not been examined and hence the very cause of death had not been established by the prosecution. The learned counsel also would submit that P. W. 4 and p. W. 5 were declared hostile and the evidence of P. W. 3 the mother of the deceased alone is available on record and apart from this aspect of the matter, even if Ex. P-5 is carefully scrutinized, there is nothing to suggest that the ingredients of Section 306 IPC had been attracted and this is the statement of dying declaration said to have been recorded by the Head constable-P. W. 10. The learned counsel also would point out that the very framing of the charge that "a1 having married the said Veerla Padma Kumari suppressing the fact that A. 1 already was married to A-2" itself is a defective charge since it is contrary to the very version of the prosecution. The learned counsel would conclude that on the strength of such evidence, the convition recorded and the sentence imposed definitely cannot be sustained. ( 4 ) PERCONTRA, the learned Additional Public prosecutor would contend that, even in the absence of medical evidence, the evidence of P. W. 3 is natural and apart from this aspect of the matter, P. W. 10 had recorded Ex. P-5 wherein it was specifically stated by the deceased that she was vexed with the life, went into house and poured kerosene and lit fire. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also would explain that in Ex. P-5 it was clearly stated that the husband and the step wife (first wife) of the deceased beat her and abused her. This would be sufficient to sustain conviction under section 306 IPC. ( 5 ) HEARD the counsel and also perused the findings recorded by the learned judge ana the evidence available on record. The prosecution version in nutshell is as hereunder:"the accused are residents of garikaparru village. They are wife and husband. A-1 again married the deceased at Lord Venkateswara temple in Mantada about 8 years prior to her death. Both of them married without informing theirfamily members. Even by the time of marriage the deceased was pregnant. Out of their wedlock two children were born. They are wife and husband. A-1 again married the deceased at Lord Venkateswara temple in Mantada about 8 years prior to her death. Both of them married without informing theirfamily members. Even by the time of marriage the deceased was pregnant. Out of their wedlock two children were born. As a-1 was coming home in drunken state and beating the deceased, P. W. 3 the mother of the deceased sent them from her house. A-1 and the deceased were living separately. But the children were with the P. W. 3. One day, P. W. 3 went to the house of the deceased and saw a-1 beating the deceased, when inquired the deceased informed that a-1 was beating her and demanding to bring money from P. W. 3. When P. W. 3 asked the deceased to come to her home she refused. On the same day al about 9 p. m. , one person came and informed P. W. 3 that the deceased was in flames and that A. 1 took her to the government Hospital, Kataru. Immediately P. W. 3 and her husband went to the hospital. Then the deceased was shifted to the Government Hospital, vijayawada. The deceased was able to speak and when P. W. 3 tried to speak with the deceased, A. 1 prevented her by putting his hand on the mouth of the deceased. On 4-5-1994 at about 10. 20 a. m. the doctorsent Ex. P-7 the medical intimation to the police. P. W. 10-Head constable, Thotlavallur Police station received a phone from the hospital. Immediately he proceeded to the hospital and sent away all the persons who were near her and recorded the statement of the deceased between 2. 30 p. m. and 3 p. m. and Ex. P-5 is the statement. Then P. W. 10 registered it as Crime No. 13 of 1994 under section 498-A IPC and issued Express FIR s and Ex. P-6 is the FIR sent to the court. P. W. 11 S. I. of police, Thotlavalluru police station, took up investigation and visited university General Hospital, Vijayawada and examined the deceased and one china Pitchaiah and recorded their statement. Then he proceeded to the garikaparru village and prepared observation report Ex. P-3. He also seized MOs 1 to 3 and prepared ex, P-9 rough sketch. P. W. 11 S. I. of police, Thotlavalluru police station, took up investigation and visited university General Hospital, Vijayawada and examined the deceased and one china Pitchaiah and recorded their statement. Then he proceeded to the garikaparru village and prepared observation report Ex. P-3. He also seized MOs 1 to 3 and prepared ex, P-9 rough sketch. ( 6 ) ON 7-5-94 at about 2,45 a. m. , the deceased died in hospital. P. W-11 S. I on receiving the death intimation altered the section of law to 306 IPC. Ex. P-11 is the altered FIR. P. W. 11 S. 1 held inquest overthe dead body of the deceased between 2 p. m. and 4 p. m. on 7-5-1994 and Ex. P-4 is the inquest report. During the inquest P. Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and their statements were recorded. On 18-4-94 the accused were arrested and after completing the investigation P. W. 11 filed the charge-sheet on 12-7-94. ( 7 ) IN support of its case, the prosecution examined P. W.-1 to P. W-11 and marked ex P-1 to11, M. Os. 1 to 14. ( 8 ) THE plea of the accused is one of denial. ( 9 ) IT may be appropriate to have a look at the charge framed which reads as hereunder. "that on the 3rd day of May, 1994 at about 9 p. m. at the house of deceased veerla Padma Kumari situated in garikaparru village, the said Veerla padma Kumari committed suicide by setting fire to herself and that A-1 of you, having married the said Veerla padrna Kumari suppressing the fact that you (A-1) of you were already married to A-2 of you, and A-2 of you abetted the said commission of suicide. by beating her and insisting her to go away along with her two children, and that you (A-1 and A-2) thereby committed an offence punishable under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance, ( 10 ) NO doubt, submissions were made by both the counsel that the charge itself is defective since ft is contrary to the version of the prosecution on one hand and on the contra the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor contends that it cannot be a ground for recording an acquittal. Public Prosecutor contends that it cannot be a ground for recording an acquittal. ( 11 ) BE that as it may, the evidence of p. W. 10 is that he is working as Head constable in Thotiavallurpolice station since 2-3 1993 and he was in-charge of the police station from 3-5-93. On 4-5-93 he received a phone message from the Government hospital. He went there and found the deceased who was with burn injuries and he sent all the persons who were near the deceased and recorded her statement between 2. 30 p. m. , and 3 p. m. Ex. P-5 is the said statement and he registered Ex. P-5 as in Crime No. 13/94 under section 498-AIPC. He submitted the FIR Ex. P-6 to the Court and copies of the same to all the concerned officials and handed over the station FIR to the S. I of police. Ex. P-5 said to have been recorded by P. W. 10, which reads, as hereunder"my native place is Garikaparru village and I live by doing coolie works. My husband got first wife and children. Her name is Veerla Papamma. I got two male children. My husband is living with veeria Papamma, and he did not look after me Well. Every day he used to beat and harass me. On 3-5-94 nighttime at about 9 o clock my husband and my step wife (first Wife) by name Papamma beat and abused me. I controlled myself. At night, when all are sleeping, vexed on may life, went into the house and poured kerosene on myself and lit tire. On that, my husband took me to the government hospital of Vuyyuru in an rickshaw admitted me. I request to take necessary action against my husband and step wife (first wife) Papamma. When the police people asked I said the facts happened. Heard by read over and found correct. ( 12 ) P. W. 11 is the S. I of police, who had deposed about his taking up of the investigation and visiting the scene of offence. Ex. P-3 is the observation report drafted by him and M. Os. 1 to 3 are the objects which were seized at that time and he prepared ex. P-9 the rought sketch of the scene of incident and examined P. W. 4 and 3 others and recorded their statements. Ex. P-3 is the observation report drafted by him and M. Os. 1 to 3 are the objects which were seized at that time and he prepared ex. P-9 the rought sketch of the scene of incident and examined P. W. 4 and 3 others and recorded their statements. On receiving the death intimation on 7-5-94, he altered the section of law by adding Section 306 IPC. Ex. P-10 is the death intimation received by him. Ex. P-11 is the altered FIR and he issued a requisition to the MRO to hold an inquest overthedead body and he visited the government hospital and examined P. W. 3, p. W. 1 and P. W. 2 at the time of inquest and recorded their statements. On 18-5-94 he arrested A-1 and A-2 and on 19-5-94 forwarded the accused to judicial custody. This witness simply deposed that after he received the post mortem certificate, he filed charge sheet on 12-7-1994. This C. I of police verified the C. D. file maintained by him. This witness was cross-examined and certain omissions were put to this witness. ( 13 ) AS can be seen from the material available on record, Ex. P-8 the post mortem certificate is shown to have been marked. The doctor concerned to Ex. P-8 had not been examined nor any other medical evidence was produced in this regards. On a perusal of the records i. e. , on Ex. P- 8, it is not shown through which witness the same was marked and there was no endorsement made by the Court. Rule 58 of Criminal Rules of practice 1990 dealing with marking of exhibits reads:"rule 58-Marking of exhibits: (1) Exhibits admitted in evidence shall be marked as follows: (i) if filed by the prosecution with the capital letter "p" followed by a numeral, P-1, P-2, P-3 and the like; (ii) if filed by defence with the capital letter "d" followed by a numeral, d-1. D-2, D-3 and the like; (iii) in case of Court exhibits with the capital letter "c" followed by a numeral, C-1, C-2, C-3 and the like (2) All the exhibits filed by the several accused shall be marked consecutively. All material objects shall be marked in arabic numbers in continues sers as m. O. 1, M. O. 2 and M. O. 3 and the like, whether exhibited by the prosecution or the defence or the Court. All material objects shall be marked in arabic numbers in continues sers as m. O. 1, M. O. 2 and M. O. 3 and the like, whether exhibited by the prosecution or the defence or the Court. "while marking the documents, it is needless to say that either the author of the document or at least the person who is acquainted with the signature of the author, who issued such certificate, or at least the same could have been marked through the investigation officer who would have received the same. In the absence of any material available on record, especially on perusal of Ex. P-8, this Court is satisfied that Ex,p-8 post mortem certificate was not brought on record in accordance with law since the same was not exhibited in accordance with law nor the same was marked through any of the witness who had been examined. Courts are expected to be careful and cautious while conducting criminal trials and while marking very crucial documents like post mortem reports and post mortem certificates which would be very essential to prove the cause of death in grave crimes. P. W. 4 and P. W. 5 were declared hostile. P. W. 1 deposed that the deceased is the daughter of his younger brother and this witness specifically deposed that though it was within the knowledge of the deceased that A-1 was already married, the said marriage was proceeded with. P. W. 2 deposed that the deceased is his niece and she died by pouring kerosene and her husband harassed her. This witness does not know even the name of the husband of the deceased but had deposed that he (A-1) married the deceased as his second wife during the life time of his first wife. ( 14 ) P. W. 3 the mother of the deceased no doubt deposed that A-1 was beating her daughter and making demands for money and she expressed her inability to give money. On the strength of the evidence of P. W. 3 the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that though the cause of death, as such, had not been clearly established and proved by the prosecution in the absence of any medical evidence especially in relation to Ex.- P-8, definitely the offence under section 498-A IPC had been proved. ( 15 ) P. W. 6 deposed about the observation report Ex. ( 15 ) P. W. 6 deposed about the observation report Ex. P-3 and M. O-1 and M. 0-2 kerosene bottles seized in his presence. P. W. 7 also deposed about M. O. 1 and M. O. 2 and ex. P-3. P. W-8 deposed in relation to ex. P-4 the inquest report and also deposed that the MRO conducted inquest proceedings. P. W. 9 deposed that he was present at the time of inquest on the dead body of the deceased and Ex. P-4 bears his signature. P. W. 10 is the Head constable and P. W. 11 is the S. I of police and their evidence had already been discussed supra. ( 16 ) THE evidence of P. W. 3 is very vague. It is pertinent to note that the evidence on record would clearly disclose that the deceased married A-1 knowing that he had already a wife and hence the very framing of the charge no doubt is defective. Apart from this aspect of the matter, specific charge under section 498-A had not been framed. Even otherwise, except the evidence of p. W. 3 a vague statement that some money had been demanded, no specific allegation had been made by P. W. 3. Even in Ex. P-5, the dying declaration alleged to have been recorded by P. W. 10 of the deceased, no such allegations are there except beating and abusing. Hence, in view of the scant evidence available on record, the alternative submission of the Additional Public prosecutor that the accused may be convicted undersection498-Aalso cannot be accepted. Viewed from any angle the findings recorded by the learned judge cannot be sustained. Accordingly the said findings are not in conformity with the settled principles of criminal Jurisprudence and are liable to be set aside. ( 17 ) THE appeal shall stand allowed and the conviction and sentence are hereby set aside. The appellants are entitled to the refund of the fine amount. Bail bonds shall stand cancelled.