JUDGMENT Sadhana S. Jadhav, J. 1. Appellant herein who happens to be the original accused No. 2 in Sessions Case No. 480 of 2000 is convicted for offence punishable under section 498(A) r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- i.d. to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. He is also convicted for offence punishable under section 306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- i.d. to suffer rigorous imprisonment by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, vide Judgment and Order dated 16/05/2002. Hence, this appeal. Such of the facts which are necessary for the decision of this appeal are as follows. 2. Appellant herein was married to Mangal, daughter of P.W. 1 on 30/04/1985. On 19/05/1985 she was admitted in Sasoon Hospital with history of burn injuries. Her statement was recorded by the Special Judicial Magistrate on the same day. She had disclosed to the Special Judicial Magistrate IInd class, Pune, District: Pune, upon inquiry, that on that day, while she was preparing tea, her veil/pallu had fallen on the stove. Her saree had caught fire and she had sustained burn injuries. The woman living in the neighbourhood had extinguished the fire and had called upon her husband. He had admitted her in the hospital. She had specifically disclosed that she was married to the appellant just 15 days prior to the incident and there is no specific reason for the said incident. She succumbed to the burn injuries on the same day as she had sustained more than 90% burn injuries. The said statement is at Exhibit 35. 3. After the demise of Mangala, A.D. No. 62 of 1985 was registered. Investigation was set in motion. Spot panchanama, inquest panchanama were conducted in the A.D. inquiry. The body was sent for post mortem. Post mortem notes revealed that cause of death was shock due to burns. There were no other injuries on the person of the deceased. On 26/05/1985, father of deceased Mangala had approached the police station and lodged a report that soon after marriage, Mangala was harassed by her husband and her mother-in-law on account of demand of Rs. 5,000/-. Post mortem notes revealed that cause of death was shock due to burns. There were no other injuries on the person of the deceased. On 26/05/1985, father of deceased Mangala had approached the police station and lodged a report that soon after marriage, Mangala was harassed by her husband and her mother-in-law on account of demand of Rs. 5,000/-. She had also complained that her mother-in-law was annoyed since the golden chain and ring which was presented to the appellant was not of the same weightage which was assured/promised. It is also alleged that Mangala had specifically disclosed to her father that her husband i.e. present appellant is having illicit intimacy with a woman called Mumtaz who is residing just opposite her house. On the basis of his report, crime No. 89 of 1985 was registered at Yerawada Police Station against present appellant and his mother for offence punishable under section 306 and 498(A) of Indian Penal Code. Investigation was set in motion. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed on 12/08/1985. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and registered as Sessions Case No. 480 of 2000. Prosecution examined 4 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused. 4. P.W. 1 Dattu Jadhav is the father of the deceased Mangala. He has deposed before the Court that after marriage, Mangala had been to reside with the accused. When she had returned to her maternal house on the very first occasion, she has disclosed to P.W. 1 that her mother-in-law had demanded Rs. 5,000/-. On the same night, Mangala had also disclosed to P.W. 1 that her husband often goes to the house of Mumtaz who resides in front of her house. It was also disclosed that when she used to inquire from her husband as to why he visits Mumtaz, he used to beat her, however, she had consoled her parents by saying that they should not worry and she would be able to tackle her own problem. He has further deposed that after about 5 to 6 days, mother-in-law of Mangala had visited their house and had told him that the golden chain and golden ring which they had offered at the time of marriage, weighed less than agreed. He had also offered that he would take the said ornaments and exchange them. He has further deposed that after about 5 to 6 days, mother-in-law of Mangala had visited their house and had told him that the golden chain and golden ring which they had offered at the time of marriage, weighed less than agreed. He had also offered that he would take the said ornaments and exchange them. She had also complained that P.W. 1 had not given a non-vegetarian party and therefore on the very same day, he had given them a party. After 15 to 16 days of marriage, mother-in-law of Mangala had come to his house alone. Upon inquiry, as to why she has not brought her daughter-in-law, she has informed that Mangala & her husband were at home, there was no necessity of disturbing them. Soon after she had departed. Two women had come to the house of P.W. 1 and they had asked him as to why he had not visited the hospital. They had further disclosed that Mangala had received burn injuries. After sometime, Ramesh i.e. brother of the appellant had visited their house and informed them about the said incident. P.W. 1 & his wife had been to Sasoon Hospital. He had seen that present appellant was seated next to Mangala and was holding her hand. P.W. 1 had inquired with Mangala as to what had happened. She had only disclosed her depression and inability to say anything. According to them, the appellant had pressed her hand and she had screamed. She was saying "Raju, Raju". The name of his elder son is also Raju. P.W. 1 thought that she was calling her husband. Within half an hour, Mangala had succumbed to her burn injuries. He has deposed before the Court that in fact, he had lodged the complaint with the police either on 21/05/1985 or on 22/05/1985. The police had only asked his name. His complaint was not reduced into writing nor they had obtained his signature/thumb impression. P.W. 1 was confronted with the F.I.R. and the Court had posed a question as to whether he had signed the said F.I.R. and at that stage, P.W. 1 had denied his signature on the F.I.R. In the cross-examination, it is admitted that Mangala had not disclosed to him anything about the members in her house during her visit on 14/05/1985. The said omission is marked as Exhibit 21. The said omission is marked as Exhibit 21. He has also admitted that after 14/05/1985, she had never visited his house. He has also deposed that he has not made any inquiry regarding the illicit intimacy between the appellant and Mumtaz. It is also admitted that he did not know the 2 women who had informed about the incident to him after departure of Sakharabai. 5. P.W. 2 Sunita Rathod, sister of deceased Mangala. She has also reiterated the story put forth by P.W. 1. P.W. 2 has deposed before the Court that Mangala had disclosed to her that whenever she objected the appellant, going to the house of Mumtaz, she was beaten by him. She has further stated that when she had been to visit her sister in the hospital, she had seen that accused/appellant was standing near Mangala. She was persistently saying "Raju, Raju". However, P.W. 2 would not be able to say as to whether, she was calling her husband or her brother. In her examination-in-chief, P.W. 2 has stated that when she had noticed that accused/appellant was pressing the hand of Mangala, she had accosted him and asked her husband to take him out. According to her, accused was not allowing her to talk and Mangala had helplessly said that she would not survive. In the cross-examination, the entire narration in respect of the appellant influencing Mangala not to talk or the allegation that he was pressing her hand is a material omission and therefore, it can only be treated as improvement. It is also elicited in the cross-examination that P.W. 2 had not stated in her statement under section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 that accused had intimacy with Mumtaz. In her statement dated, she had disclosed to the police that when she had inquired with Mangala, she was informed that everything was alright. She had neither disclosed about the fact that accused was staying in the house of Mumtaz when she had been to visit Mangala. The allegation that the appellant used to beat Mangala when she inquired about his intimacy with Mumtaz is also a material omission. 6. P.W. 3 is brother of deceased Mangala. He has simply reiterated the story put forth by P.W. 2. 7. P.W. 4 Ranjit Abhinkar is police officer who was attached to Yerawada Police Station on the date of incident. 6. P.W. 3 is brother of deceased Mangala. He has simply reiterated the story put forth by P.W. 2. 7. P.W. 4 Ranjit Abhinkar is police officer who was attached to Yerawada Police Station on the date of incident. He has deposed before the Court that on 20/05/1985, A.D. No. 62 of 1985 was registered under section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. On 26/05/1985, P.W. 1 had lodged a complaint that his daughter received burn injury and is no more. P.W. 4 had recorded the complaint. He had arrested the appellant and his mother (since deceased) original accused No. 1. It is elicited in the cross-examination that he had recorded the statement of one Usman Shaikh Mohammad who is the husband of Mumtaz who resides with his wife and children. He has deposed in his cross-examination that P.W. 1 had signed on the complaint in his presence and he had also signed on the said F.I.R. P.W. 4 has also proved the F.I.R. which is at Exhibit 33. 8. The spot panchanama which was recorded in the A.D. inquiry, clearly indicates that the incident had occurred in the kitchen of the house. On the spot, they had seen one stove and a vessel used for making tea. Inquest panchanama was also recorded in A.D. inquiry. It is clear that prosecution witness Nos. 1, 2 & 3 were present at the time of spot panchanama as well as inquest panchanama and have not raised any suspicion in respect of death of Mangala. They had not complained to the police that Mangala must have committed suicide due to the demand from the appellant and his mother. Crime is registered on 26/05/1985 on the basis of the statement of P.W. 1. Complainant i.e. P.W. 1 has denied his signature at Exhibit 33 and therefore, there is room to doubt that he had read the F.I.R. which was lodged. There is inordinate delay in filing the complaint and there is no plausible explanation for the same. 9. The Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that the dying declaration of the victim was recorded on the very same day by Special Judicial Magistrate and she had specifically stated that it was an accident. There is nothing to indicate that it could not have been an accidental death as disclosed by the victim herself. 9. The Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that the dying declaration of the victim was recorded on the very same day by Special Judicial Magistrate and she had specifically stated that it was an accident. There is nothing to indicate that it could not have been an accidental death as disclosed by the victim herself. Dying declaration, inquest panchanama, spot panchanama were admitted by the accused under section 294 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and therefore, prosecution has not examined the Special Judicial Magistrate who had recorded the dying declaration which is at Exhibit 35. The conviction can be recorded on the basis of dying declaration, which appears to be voluntary, truthful and would inspire confidence of the Court. The same parameters can be applied to exonerate the accused of all the charges levelled against him. Prosecution has to prima facie prove that the death of victim has occurred in suspicious circumstances. In instant case, the onus was upon the prosecution to prove that Mangala had committed suicide and only then a charge under section 306 could be levelled against the accused. 10. Upon perusal of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is clear that there is nothing to indicate that Mangala had committed suicide. Even according to the deceased, it was an accident. The incident has occurred within 18 days from the date of marriage and therefore, it is difficult to believe that there was a continuous harassment and ill-treatment which would amount to a willful conduct of such a nature, as would likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health of the woman. The element of alleged demand has also not been established beyond reasonable doubt and hence, accused would be entitled to acquittal. For the reasons stated above, following order. ORDER (i) Appeal is allowed. (ii) Conviction passed vide Judgment and Order dated 16/05/2002 by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No. 480 of 2000 is hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) Appellant is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. (iv) Fine amount, if paid, be refunded. (v) Bail bonds of the accused stand cancelled. Appeal stands disposed of. Appeal Allowed.