R.C. CHAVAN, J.:- Vexed by the respondents acquittal recorded by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha, for offences punishable under Section 498-A and 307 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, the State has preferred this appeal. 2. Facts, which led to prosecution of the respondents, are as under: 3. Complainant's daughter Mala was married to accused No.1 Vishnu on 3-5-1990. Accused No.2 and 3 parents of accused No.1 Vishnu. Accused No.4 is sister of Vishnu, whereas accused No.5 to 7 are Vishnu's cousins. According to the prosecution, since the marriage, the respondents were abusing Mala and had asked her to bring a cow, a cot and gram dal from her parents. On 7-5-1990, in the morning, accused No.1 called Mala and all of them fell her on the floor. Accused No.2 sat on her chest. Other accused persons held her. Accused No.1 Vishnu poured liquor in her mouth, released smoke of cigarette in her mouth, dragged her to the verandah of the house, told the passers-by that Mala had an epileptic seizure, again dragged Mala inside the house, poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire. The accused bolted the door of the house and left the place. After her cries, they opened the door. Mala, who had fallen unconscious, was taken to the hospital of Dr. Pravin Gupta. 4. Mala's parents reached the hospital, learned of the incident from their daughter and gave a report. Police had also caused the staJements of Mala to be recorded. Mala was hospitalised at Dr. Gupta's hospital and later at Sewagram Medical College Hospital for about 2½ months on having sustained burn injuries. 5. In course of investigation, police performed panchanama of spot, secured medical certificates of Mala, recorded statements of witnesses and arrested and charge-sheeted the accused before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hinganghat, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Wardha. 6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge to whom the case was made over, charged all the accused of offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 307 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. All the accused pleaded not guilty and hence were put on trial. The prosecution examined in all seven witnesses in its attempt to bring home the guilt of the accused. All the accused pleaded not guilty and hence were put on trial. The prosecution examined in all seven witnesses in its attempt to bring home the guilt of the accused. The defence of the accused is that except accused No.2., nobody else was at home when Mala sustained burn injuries. Accused No.2 had extinguished the fire and taken the victim to Dr. Gupta's hospital. They denied that they had made any demand from the victim or had ill-treated or abused her. The accused examined two witnesses in their defence. After considering the entire evidence on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to acquit all the seven accused, leading the State to file the present appeal. 7. We have heard Adv. Shri. D.B. Yengal, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant/State, and Adv. Shri. S. B. Bangde for the respondents/accused. With the help of both the counsel. we have gone through the entire record. In this case, the victim complained of ill-treatment on the very next day of her marriage and sustained burn injuries on the fourth day of her marriage, which is quite unusual. The prosecution has not examined any Medical Officer to prove the injuries sustained by the victim. On behalf of the accused, Dr. Gupta, who first treated the victim was examined as DW 1 at Exhibit 85. He stated that Mala had been admitted to his hospital on 7-5-1990 for burn injuries. He had immediately started treatment. He had produced an extract of his register, which shows that Mala had suffered 36% burns. He had also stated that he informed the police that Mala had been brought to his hospital. The letter sent by him to the police is at Exhibit 60 and it shows that on 7-5-1990, Dr. Gupta had informed the police that Mala was admitted to his hospital with 36% burns. This being the only medical record about Mala's burns, the account given by Mala will have to be judged with reference to this record. 8. PW 1 Mala gave a very curious account of the ill-treatment meted out to her, culminating into her being set on fire. She stated that after the marriage on 3-5-1990, she came to the village of the accused-Kaotha. On 4-5-1990, there was Satyanarayan Puja at the house of the accused. 8. PW 1 Mala gave a very curious account of the ill-treatment meted out to her, culminating into her being set on fire. She stated that after the marriage on 3-5-1990, she came to the village of the accused-Kaotha. On 4-5-1990, there was Satyanarayan Puja at the house of the accused. After the Puja, accused No.4 Prabha allegedly told Mala that she was black complexioned and looking like a sweeper. She asked Mala to bring a cow, a cot and gram dal from her parents. On 5-5-1990. Mala's brother Dnyaneshwar came to take her to parental home at Village Allipur for Puja. Accused No.1 husband. accused No.3 mother-in-law, and accused No.6 Suresh also came with Mala to her parental home. On 6-5-1990, Satyanarayan Puja was performed at the house of the parents of Mala and all of them returned back to Village Kaotha in the same night. 9. The incident occurred on 7-5-1990. PW. 1 Mala stated that after everyone had breakfast, she was in the bathroom for washing the clothes. Accused No. 1 called her from bathroom. All the seven accused persons pounced upon her and fell her on the ground. Accused No.2 sat on her chest, accused No.3 caught hold of hands, accused No.4 caught hold of her legs and accused No.6 Suresh held her mouth. Accused No. 1 poured liquor in the mouth of Mala and released smoke of cigarette in her mouth. She states that she was then dragged to Chhapari (verandah). 2-3 strangers came and accused told them that Mala had suffered a seizure of epilepsy. The persons then left the place. Thereafter, Mala was again dragged inside the house. The accused asked her to sleep, but she refused. Then all the seven accused assaulted her. Due to fear of beating, she claims to have agreed to lie down. All the accused persons poured kerosene on her person and accused No.3 Saraswati set her on fire by a matchstick. All the accused persons went out of the house and latched the door from outside, she started shouting. Thereafter the door was opened, she came out and fell unconscious. She regained consciousness only on 13-5- 1990 in the hospital of Dr. Pravin Gupta. 10. In cross-examination, Mala stated that she was wearing terricoat saree and petticoat. She stated that there was a can full of kerosene with the accused persons. Thereafter the door was opened, she came out and fell unconscious. She regained consciousness only on 13-5- 1990 in the hospital of Dr. Pravin Gupta. 10. In cross-examination, Mala stated that she was wearing terricoat saree and petticoat. She stated that there was a can full of kerosene with the accused persons. Half of the can was poured on her person. Her saree, petticoat and blouse had completely become wet with kerosene. However, there was no kerosene on her head and hair. Some kerosene had also fallen on ground. She claims to have been set on fire in this state. Yet, incredibly, she sustained only 36% burns. It is difficult to imagine a person set on fire after being doused with so much of kerosene and locked inside the room for at least some time sustaining only 36% burns. Further, Mala's account of the incident is extremely incredible. If the accused persons wanted to do away with Mala, there was no need for them to drag her first to the verandah of the house so as to make the public see what they were doing. The strangers, who had gathered, have not been examined. Therefore, the whole story sounds fishy. 11. The police performed panchanama of the spot on 16-5-1990, that is, almost nine days after the incident. The panchanama is, therefore, utterly useless. There is no reference of any article to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The police did get accused No.2 examined and his injury certificate is at Exhibit 57. This examination was conducted on 17-5-1990, that is ten days after the incident, wherein the doctor found that there were 8 to 10 days old burn injuries on the left lower arm and index finger. This would be consistent with the claim of the accused that accused No.2 was at home and he extinguished the fire. 12. PW 2 Wasudeo, victim's father, who gave a report at Exhibit 51 on 13-5-1990, that is six days after the incident. corroborated the version of his daughter that the accused had made some demands, which his daughter conveyed to him. Both the father and the daughter state that Mala was unconscious for a long time. Yet, while Mala denied that on 8-5-1990 her father asked her to identify a nephew, her father stated that he did ask his daughter to identify a nephew and she did identify the nephew as Bhau. Both the father and the daughter state that Mala was unconscious for a long time. Yet, while Mala denied that on 8-5-1990 her father asked her to identify a nephew, her father stated that he did ask his daughter to identify a nephew and she did identify the nephew as Bhau. Thus, on 8-5-1990, that is on the very next day of the incident, Mala was conscious. Report could have been immediately made and her statement could have been immediately recorded. This gives rise to the possibility of concoction of any imaginary story. 13. PW 1 Mala stated that on 7-51990, there was a marriage in their neighbourhood. But she denied that one Narayan Chincholkar had come as guest at their house on that day. She stated that she did not know whether marriage of Nathu's daughter was to be performed at Kaotha, that is the Village where the incident took place. Nathu has been examined by the defence as DW 1. He stated that there was a marriage of his daughter at his house at about 12 noon and accused Vishnu, Ramesh, Suresh and Vasanta were present for that marriage since 9 to 10 a.m. till the marriage feast was over. He stated that when the feast was going no, they heard shouts that there was a fire. All of them rushed to the house of the accused and found Mala in a burnt condition. She was then removed to the hospital. Thus, the evidence of Nathu would rule out the presence of most of the accused persons at the spot. 14. Mala curiously stated that she knew one Baban Chaudhari, who visited Mala's matrimonial house at 10 a.m. on 7-5-1990 when Mala had been given liquor by the accused. She was asked as to what was her relations with Baban Chaudhari, whereupon instead of stating relationship, she stated that he had come to the Village for marriage, but did not know at whose house the marriage was to be celebrated. Baban Chaudhari's presence, which had not been elaborated. seems to hold the key to the mystery of Mala' s suddenly catching the fire. Baban Chaudhari has not been examined as a witness. 15. The other witnesses examined are Head Constable Wankhede (PW 4), PSI Kayande (PW 5), and ASI Kurwade (PW 6), who do not throw any light on the manner in which the incident took place. seems to hold the key to the mystery of Mala' s suddenly catching the fire. Baban Chaudhari has not been examined as a witness. 15. The other witnesses examined are Head Constable Wankhede (PW 4), PSI Kayande (PW 5), and ASI Kurwade (PW 6), who do not throw any light on the manner in which the incident took place. With this state of evidence, the learned Trial Judge rightly came to disbelieve the story of Mala and her father Wasudeo and proceeded to hold that the offences charged are not proved. We see no reason to differ from the view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 16. Consequently, the appeal fails and is dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the respondents shall stand cancelled. Appeal dismissed.