JUDGMENT The Appeal is filed against judgment and order of Sessions Case No. 39/1998 which was pending in the Court of I Adhoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Ambejogai, Dist. Beed. The respondent came to be convicted for offence punishable u/s 498-A of IPC but he came to be acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 306 of IPC and so the Appeal is preferred. 2. Both sides are heard. This Court has perused original record. In short, the facts leading to institution of the Appeal can be stated as follows : 3. Deceased Ujwala was sister of complainant Gopal Phutane. The deceased was given in marriage to accused more than 8 years prior to the date of incident. The deceased gave birth to two issues from the accused and after that, ill treatment was started to her. Accused was asking deceased to bring Rs. 10,000/- from her parents and on that count, he was driving her out of matrimonial house. Due to the dispute, deceased then started living with her brothers and she stayed there for more than 8 months. 4. On 28/6/95, the deceased went to the accused to resume cohabitation. She wanted that accused should take a room on rent basis for her and there, he should keep her. She did not want to live with the husband in the house where the mother of husband was living. Husband did not make such arrangement. Ultimately, on 1/7/95, the deceased set herself on fire in the house of the husband and she died on 2/7/1995. Gopal gave report on 3/7/95. 5. During investigation, police recorded statements of relatives of deceased on parents side and filed charge sheet against the husband and his relatives for aforesaid offences. The accused took defence of total denial. Accused specifically contended that only because he refused to live in separate room, deceased set herself on fire. In view of the dying declaration of the deceased, the trial Court held that there was no abetment as defined u/s 107 of IPC from the husband and he came to be acquitted. 6. The dying declaration at Exh. 95 shows that the deceased gave entire history of her relationship with the husband and his relatives. The dying declaration shows that during cohabitation of 8 years, she had stayed in the house her husband on 2 occasions and for other time, she was staying with her brother. 6. The dying declaration at Exh. 95 shows that the deceased gave entire history of her relationship with the husband and his relatives. The dying declaration shows that during cohabitation of 8 years, she had stayed in the house her husband on 2 occasions and for other time, she was staying with her brother. She admitted that her husband then married second wife but the second wife was also not cohabiting with the husband. She had no grievance in respect of second marriage or against second wife of the husband. The dying declaration shows that on 28/6/95, she returned to the husband to resume cohabitation but she was not ready to live in the house where her mother in law was living. The dying declaration shows that she attempted to take room on rent basis but the landlords were not ready to give room by saying that it was necessary for her husband to approach them. As she could not get the room on rent basis, she set herself on fire on 1/7/95 in the noon time in the house of her husband. In the dying declaration, she has specifically informed that she had no grievance against husband, mother in law or the second wife of husband and only due to the aforesaid reasons, she set herself on fire. 7. In view of the aforesaid dying declaration, not much importance can be given to the evidence of 2 brothers. They have also given evidence that it was the desire of the deceased that she should live separate. Considering the period of cohabitation and the dying declaration, it can be said that the other allegations were made only to exaggerate the things. In any case, when such incident takes place after 7 years of the marriage, presumption available u/s 113-A of Evidence Act, cannot be used. When such presumption is not available, prosecution is required to prove abetment as defined u/s 107 of I.P.C. The aforesaid discussion shows that there is virtually no evidence to prove such abetment. Thus, there was no other alternative to trial Court than to acquit the husband of the offence punishable u/s 306 of IPC. This Court holds that interference is not possible in the decision of the trial Court and the Appeal stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.