JUDGMENT M.G. Giratkar, J. - The State has challenged the judgment of acquittal by the Sessions Judge, Amravati in Sessions Trial No.159/2008 on 08.10.2012. The case of the prosecution against the respondents/accused in short is as under: Marriage of accused No.1 with Ujjwala was performed on 28.05.2006. After the marriage Ujjwala was cohabiting with her husband. She begotten female child. After the marriage, accused No.1 and 2 gave good treatment to Ujjwala for about four months. Thereafter accused No.1 and 2 suspected character of Ujjwala. Accused No.2 was instigating accused No.1 to beat Ujjwala. 2. On 29.02.2008 at about 10:00 a.m. accused Rajendra quarreled with his wife Ujjwala and started beating her, he was saying that why she has not brought Rs. 1,00,000/from her parents house. Accused No.2 Manda came there and she took a can of kerosene and poured on the person of Ujjwala. Thereafter accused No.1 Jagdish set her on fire by igniting match stick. Ujjwala made hue and cry, neighbourers rushed to the spot. She was brought to the General Hospital, Amravati. On the same day Executive Magistrate Shri V.D. Kalkar recorded her statement. On the basis of statement of Ujjwala, Crime No.23/2008 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After complete investigation, chargesheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tiwasa. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, committed the case for trial to the Court of Session at Amravati. 3. Trial Court framed the charge against the respondents/accused at Exh.20 for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The same was read over and explained to the accused. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution has examined in all six witnesses. At the conclusion of the trial, learned Sessions Judge acquitted respondents/accused for the offence punishable under Section 307, 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Heard Shri S.M. Ukey, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant/State. None appeared for the respondents/accused. 5. The evidence of P.W.1 appears to be doubtful. She has stated in her evidence that after the marriage her husband and mother-in-law gave good treatment to her for about four months. But, thereafter they started illtreating her. The accused persons were suspecting her character. None appeared for the respondents/accused. 5. The evidence of P.W.1 appears to be doubtful. She has stated in her evidence that after the marriage her husband and mother-in-law gave good treatment to her for about four months. But, thereafter they started illtreating her. The accused persons were suspecting her character. On 29.02.2008 when she was cooking food, that time accused No.2 poured kerosene on her person and accused No.1 ignited match stick and set her on fire. Her neighbours rushed to the spot. They extinguished the fire. She was admitted in the Irwin Hospital, Amravati. Her statement was recorded by the Executive Magistrate in the Hospital. 6. Her brother P.W.5 has not stated about specific instance of illtreatment. He has stated that, he came to know that Ujjwala was admitted in the hospital. He went to the hospital and inquired with Ujjwala then she started weeping, she told that when she was cooking food, she was set on fire by her mother-in-law and husband. Therefore, she sustained burn injuries. Ujjwala was indoor patient in the hospital for about six months. 7. Evidence of P.W.3 Dr. Sangita Zakarde show that Ujjwala sustained 45 burn injuries. She has stated that the bed head ticket Exh.74 show that Ujjwala sustained accidental burn injuries. She has stated that her brother (P.W.5) was present when the bed head ticket was prepared and there is an endorsement. He was given idea about condition of patient. He also signed below endorsement. 8. The material omissions are brought on record. In the cross-examination of P.W.1 Ujjwala. She has stated that in her cross-examination as under: "I had not disclosed before the Medical Officer that I was frightened at the time of recording statement by Executive Magistrate. I had stated before police at the time of recording of my statement that I was frightened when Executive Magistrate recorded by statement. I do not know why this find no place in my police statement. I had not stated before police that Mandabai was also beating me 15 days before the incident. I had not stated before the police that I was driven out of the house and I had disclosed this to my brother and I had been to my brother''s house. I had not disclosed before police or the Executive Magistrate the name of Mandabai and that she had demanded the amount and that she had assaulted me. I had not stated before the police that I was driven out of the house and I had disclosed this to my brother and I had been to my brother''s house. I had not disclosed before police or the Executive Magistrate the name of Mandabai and that she had demanded the amount and that she had assaulted me. I had stated before police that Mandabai poured kerosene on my "shoulders", but, I do not know why this portion of body is not mentioned in my police statement. I had stated before police that after pushing me accused persons had gone out. I do not know why there is no mention in my police statement '' that they went out". 9. P.W.5 denied about the accidental burn injuries. But, he has admitted in his cross-examination that he was present when the statement of Ujjwala was recorded by the Executive Magistrate. 10. From the evidence of Medical Officer, bed head ticket Exh.74, clearly shows that Ujjwala sustained burn injuries accidentally. Her husband accused No.1 extinguished the fire and thereby he sustained 18% burn injuries. The Medical Officer P.W.3 has admitted in her cross-examination that accused Jagdiash was admitted in the hospital bed head ticket Exh.80 shows that Jagdish sustained 18% burn injuries to both the hands. Such injuries may cause while extinguishing the fire. 11. It was the defence that while cooking food Ujjwala sustained accidental burn. Her husband Jagdish extinguished the fire. Thereafter he taken her to the hospital. P.W.1 denied the suggestion. She has stated that neighbours rushed there and extinguished the fire. None of the neighbours examined by the prosecution. The defence appears to be more probable. Admission of the Doctor clearly shows that accused No.1 extinguished the fire. Therefore, he sustained 18% burn injuries. Had it been the intention of accused to kill, then he would not have extinguished the fire and would not have taken P.W.1 in the hospital. This itself shows that P.W.1 sustained burn injuries accidentally. After the discharge from the hospital she was not residing with her husband and therefore, possibility of deposing false against her husband and mother-in-law cannot be ruled out. 12. P.W.1 has stated against the accused Nos.1 and 2, but medical case papers Exh.74 clearly shows that those papers were prepared in presence of her brother (P.W.5). In the case papers history was stated as accidental burn. 12. P.W.1 has stated against the accused Nos.1 and 2, but medical case papers Exh.74 clearly shows that those papers were prepared in presence of her brother (P.W.5). In the case papers history was stated as accidental burn. Therefore, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that accused Nos.1 and 2 in furtherance of their common intention poured kerosene and set P.W.1 on fire. There is no instance of cruelty as defined under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution has failed to prove the offence punishable under Section 307, 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Trial Court rightly recorded its finding. There is no perversity or illegality in the judgment. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order: O R D E R [i] Criminal Appeal No.106/2013 is dismissed. [ii] The bail bond of accused/respondents stand cancelled. [iii] R & P be sent back to the Trial Court.