JUDGMENT The Appeal is filed against judgment and order of Sessions Case No.20/2000 which was pending in the Court of At-hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Latur. The respondent is acquitted of the offences punishable u/s 498-A, 306 and 34 of IPC. 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 under: 3. Deceased Nathshila was daughter of complainant Shamalbai. The deceased was given in marriage on 29/4/1997 to the respondent. The respondent was relative of the complainant even prior to the marriage. After the marriage, for some time, deceased cohabited with the accused respondent in Yelnoor where the respondent was living with his parents. The respondent was working as a teacher in village Mulwad. Respondent was avoiding to go to the native place where the deceased was living. However, during last 15 days, deceased started cohabiting with the respondent in Latur. Deceased was carrying of more than 7 months at the relevant time. There was suspicion that the respondent had kept illicit relations with original accused no.2. Due to this suspicion, there was ill treatment and ultimately, on 24/10/99, deceased committed suicide by setting herself on fire. She died on the same day. The report came to be given on 27/10/99 and the crime came to be registered for aforesaid offences. 4. During investigation, police recorded statements of some neighbours of the accused and some relatives of the deceased. Death took place due to 100% bum injuries. Charge sheet came to be filed for aforesaid offences. 5. The charge came to be framed for aforesaid offences. Accused denied the charge. He took the defence that some amount was due from the father of the complainant to him and as he was insisting to return the amount, after incident, false report came to be given against him to pressurize him. He took defence that it was accidental death. 6. The trial Court has not believed the witnesses like complainant and other relatives of the deceased. The trial Court has referred the history recorded by Doctor immediately after admission of the deceased in the hospital. On the basis of history, trial Court has held that there was possibility that it was a case of accidental fire. 7. The learned APP submitted that in view of the serious allegations made against accused nos. The trial Court has referred the history recorded by Doctor immediately after admission of the deceased in the hospital. On the basis of history, trial Court has held that there was possibility that it was a case of accidental fire. 7. The learned APP submitted that in view of the serious allegations made against accused nos. 1 and 2, the trial Court ought to have believed the witnesses. He submitted that there was no reason for the witnesses to falsely implicate the respondent who was their close relative prior to the marriage. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent submitted that in view of the history given by deceased in the hospital, which amounts to dying declaration and in view of the other record like letters written by deceased, it is difficult to believe that the story given by the witnesses is true. 8. In this case, no dying declaration was recorded through Executive Magistrate. Dr. Parmeshwar [P.W.1] who was attached to civil hospital and who conducted post mortem examination has given evidence that at the time of the admission, deceased gave history that when she was cooking food, she caught fire accidentally. The record does not show that the trial Court attempted to collect the bed head ticket or case papers on which history was written by the Doctor. However, this evidence is not seriously disputed and so, this evidence cannot be ignored. Thus, it can be said that there is evidence u/s 32 (1) of Indian Evidence Act, which creates probability that the deceased sustained burn injuries in accidental fire. 9. The prosecution has brought on record two letters written by the deceased to her mother, complainant. These letters show that the deceased was not complaining to her mother against the accused. The second letter shows that 'it was written when she was carrying of 7 months. She did not express suspicion to her mother that her husband had illicit relations with any woman. The letters however, show that the husband had some grievance with the father of her mother and account was to be settled in respect of the amount due to her husband. Thus, the record is in favour of the respondent and as against that record, some allegations are made against the husband by relatives of the deceased and a neighbour of the deceased. 10. Thus, the record is in favour of the respondent and as against that record, some allegations are made against the husband by relatives of the deceased and a neighbour of the deceased. 10. The evidence of complainant Shamalbai [P.W.2] shows that she was not visiting matrimonial house of the deceased. She was living separate from her husband as she has some dispute with the husband. She has expressed suspicion that accused no.1 had illicit relations with accused no.2 but she has not given any source of information or reasons as to why she had suspicion. Only on the basis of such suspicion expressed, inference cannot be drawn that there was some relationship between accused nos. 1 and 2. In the cross examination, she has admitted that accused was known to her family right from his childhood and that is why marriage of the accused was settled with her daughter. She gave report after 3 days of the incident and she has not given any explanation for the same. It is not her case that in the two letters sent by deceased to her, she wanted to express some grievance against accused. 11. Fulchand Bhosle [P.W.3] is the husband of complainant and father of the deceased. He admits that accused no.1 was related as brother on maternal side to complainant [P.W.2] and so this marriage was settled. He tried to exaggerate the things by saying that deceased told him that accused was demanding 5 Grams of gold on the occasion of Dohal Jevan which was to be arranged. His evidence shows that he was not meeting accused no.1 frequently and he had not kept contact with him. Thus, his evidence shows that he has no personal knowledge about the relationship and grievance of the deceased. Ranjana [P.W.5] is sister of complainant. She has admitted that the accused was insisting that father of the complainant should settle the account as the accused no.1 used to hand over his salary to him prior to the marriage. This amount was not returned by father of the complainant even when the accused no.1 was in need of money for the marriage of his sister. Other evidence of this witness is similar to the evidence of [P.W.2]. 12. Lalita [P.W.4] has given evidence that she got acquainted with accused no.2 and the deceased few days prior to the date of incident. Other evidence of this witness is similar to the evidence of [P.W.2]. 12. Lalita [P.W.4] has given evidence that she got acquainted with accused no.2 and the deceased few days prior to the date of incident. She has tried to say that deceased had made disclosure to her on atleast 2 occasions and she had expressed grievance against the husband that the husband was not visiting the house where she was living. Her evidence shows that every time, deceased used to go to her with accused no.2. She has tried to say that there was probably illicit relations between accused nos.1 and 2. She has also tried to say that when she rushed to the house of the deceased after incident of fire, the deceased said to her that on the previous night, accused had given trouble to her and he had said that she should not live in that house. In view of history given by deceased to Doctor which came to be recorded, not much weight can be given to the so-called disclosure made by deceased to Lalita [P.W.4]. In the cross examination, she has admitted that she had not specifically informed to police that she has suspicion that accused no.1 was having illicit relations with accused no.2 13. The evidence of Investigating Officer shows that he did not take proper steps in respect of certain articles which were taken over from the spot of offence. When there is allegation that it is case of suicide, step like sending them to C.A. office is required to be taken. This is again a lacunae in the case of prosecution. 14. The deceased was carrying of more than 7 months. The deceased was not visiting the house of her parents as they were living separate from each other and they had the dispute. Deceased cohabited with the accused in the house of his parents and then with the accused and during short period of cohabitation, she became pregnant. She did not blame anybody when she gave history of the incident to the Doctor. All these circumstances are sufficient to create probability that it was accidental fire. There is possibility that due to the dispute which accused had with father of the complainant, the belated report came to be given to pressurize him. The trial Court has rightly not believed these witnesses. All these circumstances are sufficient to create probability that it was accidental fire. There is possibility that due to the dispute which accused had with father of the complainant, the belated report came to be given to pressurize him. The trial Court has rightly not believed these witnesses. The view taken by the trial Court is a possible view. So, the Appeal stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.