JUDGMENT : M.G. Giratkar, J. By way of present appeal, the appellant/State of Maharashtra challenges the judgment of acquittal of all the respondents/accused dated 03.03.2009 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Sessions Trial No. 168 of 2007 for the offence punishable under Sections 304B, 498A, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution/appellant against the respondents (hereinafter referred as accused), in short, is as under :- Deceased Gayatri, daughter of complainant Suresh Waswani, was married to accused No.1 on 25th May, 2003. In the marriage, complainant had given everything to Gayatri as per his capacity. Gayatri delivered one male child from the said wedlock. At the time of incident, her son was about two and half years old. Gayatri was residing along with her husband in the joint family with all the accused persons. 3. After the marriage of Gayatri, marriage of her sister-in-law Manjusha was performed. Before the marriage of Manjusha, she used to harass Gayatri severely. After some months of marriage of Manjusha, her husband left her at the house of accused persons. 4. Since then, Manjusha was residing with her parents at Amravati. Gayatri's sister-in-law Manjusha was highly jealous. She always used to harass/taunt deceased Gayatri. Father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and husband of Gayatri used to take Manjusha's side. Many times, Manjusha used to give threat to Gayatri about dropping her to her parental house. Sometimes all the accused persons used to abuse Gayatri for no reason. 5. On 09.06.2007, at about 09:30 p.m., complainant was informed by his elder son Omprakash that Gayatri was seriously injured due to sustaining burn on account of burst of gas cylinder in her house at Amravati. Complainant, with his wife, went to Amravati. Gayatri was dead. Complainant saw the spot of incident. There was no such bursting of gas cylinder. He noticed smell of kerosene. He suspected that due to continuous harassment of accused persons, deceased committed suicide on 09.06.2007. Complainant lodged report on 10th July, 2007 in Police Station, Rajapeth, Amravati. 6. Before lodging report, ASI Ingole registered ADR No. 36/2007. ASI Ingole was informed by anonymous person on phone that at lane No.1, Dasturnagar, Amravati, there was gas cylinder burst and one lady died. He informed his superior officer Shri Atram. As per the direction of Police Inspector, he proceeded to the spot. 6. Before lodging report, ASI Ingole registered ADR No. 36/2007. ASI Ingole was informed by anonymous person on phone that at lane No.1, Dasturnagar, Amravati, there was gas cylinder burst and one lady died. He informed his superior officer Shri Atram. As per the direction of Police Inspector, he proceeded to the spot. Accused No.3 shown the spot of incident. He prepared spot panchnama (Exh.107). Articles lying on the spot were seized. Accused No.3 lodged report contending that there was gas cylinder burst and, therefore, Gayatri died. After lodging report by father of the deceased on 10.07.2007, crime for the offence punishable under Sections 304B, 498A, 201 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. 7. Police Inspector Atram investigated crime. Some part of investigation was done by Head Constable Kodape. After completing investigation, charge-sheet was filed before JMFC, Court No.4, Amravati. The same was committed to the Court of Session for trial. 8. Learned trial Court framed the charge at Exh.38 against accused Nos.1 to 5. The same was read over and explained to the accused, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution has examined ten witnesses. At the conclusion of trial, all accused came to be acquitted. Hence, the present appeal by the State of Maharashtra. 9. Heard Shri Sonak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant/State. He has submitted that the evidence of PW Nos.3 and 4 show that all accused persons were harassing/ill treating the deceased. They were demanding rupees one lakh and ten tolas gold from the complainant. Due to constant ill treatment, deceased has committed suicide. The death of deceased was within seven years from the time of marriage. The death was unnatural due to burn. Deceased has committed suicide because of demand of money. Learned trial Court not considered the evidence properly and wrongly acquitted all the accused. At last, prayed to allow the appeal and convict the accused persons. 10. Heard S/shri R.M. Daga and S.G. Loney, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/accused persons. They have submitted that all the evidence on record clearly show that deceased was cooking in the kitchen. There was leakage of gas and, therefore, gas cylinder was burst. Deceased died on the spot. It was not a case of suicide. Shri Daga, learned Counsel has submitted that evidence of PW Nos.3 and 4 are not reliable. They have submitted that all the evidence on record clearly show that deceased was cooking in the kitchen. There was leakage of gas and, therefore, gas cylinder was burst. Deceased died on the spot. It was not a case of suicide. Shri Daga, learned Counsel has submitted that evidence of PW Nos.3 and 4 are not reliable. Complainant lodged report after one month from the time of incident. It is admitted that PW Nos.3 and 4 were present in the house of accused for 23 days after the death of Gayatri. During that period, they did not lodge any complaint. Learned Counsel has submitted that spot panchnama proved by PW1 clearly shows that there was no kerosene residue found on the spot. 11. Learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted that complainant/father of deceased wanted to invest huge amount in the fixed deposit for the welfare of minor son of deceased. He had contacted Shri Ratanlal Atal, Advocate (DW1). Accused persons not accepted the demand of complainant. Therefore, complainant belatedly lodge report against accused persons. 12. Shri Daga, learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted that oral evidence of PW Nos.3 and 4 in respect of ill treatment/demand etc. are nothing but hearsay evidence. This evidence is not admissible in view of the judgment of apex Court in the case of Bhairon Singh v. State of M.P. (reported in 2010 ALL SCR 213). 13. Learned Counsel has submitted that deceased died due to bursting of gas cylinder. Cross-examination of PW3 shows that deceased was happy with all the accused persons. She was always visiting to her parents' house at Nagpur. Father of deceased was not willing to perform her marriage with accused No.1 and, therefore, he suspected accused. Father of deceased wanted to invest huge amount in the name of son of deceased. Accused persons not accepted his proposal and, therefore, after one month, he lodged report. No explanation was given by the complainant for lodging report belatedly. Learned Counsel further submitted that the trial Court rightly appreciated all the evidence on record and rightly acquitted all the accused persons. There is no merit in the appeal. Hence, the same is liable to be dismissed. 14. From the evidence on record, there is no dispute that deceased Gayatri died unnaturally due to burn injuries. Deceased died within seven years from the time of marriage. There is no merit in the appeal. Hence, the same is liable to be dismissed. 14. From the evidence on record, there is no dispute that deceased Gayatri died unnaturally due to burn injuries. Deceased died within seven years from the time of marriage. To prove the ingredients of Section 304B, following conditions should be established by the prosecution- (a) The death of a woman was caused by burns or bodily injury or had occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances; (b) such death should have occurred within 7 years of her marriage; (c) the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by any relative of her husband; (d) such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with the demand of dowry; and (e) to such cruelty or harassment the deceased should have been subjected soon before her death. 15. Evidence on record shows that deceased died accidental death. Evidence of PW1 shows that on 09.06.2007, there was commotion in front of the shop of accused No.3. He was told that gas cylinder had burst in the house premises of accused No.3. He went to the house of accused No.3. Fire Brigade was also called. He went inside the house. Police were present there. Police requested him to notice the things in the house of accused No.3. Spot panchnama was prepared in his presence. 16. PW1 panch witness has stated that he had noticed black smoke particles on the ceiling and the walls in the kitchen. The gas pipe was lying and it appeared to be partly burnt. He found vegetables on the gas stove. The gas cylinder was found in a corner of the kitchen. Police had seized some articles from the spot of incident. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the articles like can containing kerosene, empty cylinders and other goods were kept in the adjoining room. He noticed that there was water on the floor of the kitchen as well as the store room. When panchnama was drawn, number of articles were lying on the floor of the kitchen, but police seized few articles. 17. Evidence of PW2 (Dr. Varsha Rode) reveals that on 10.06.2007, she has conducted postmortem on the dead body of deceased Gayatri. Brother of deceased identified dead body. There was no smell of kerosene on the hair. Eyes were closed. Tongue was protruding out of the mouth. 17. Evidence of PW2 (Dr. Varsha Rode) reveals that on 10.06.2007, she has conducted postmortem on the dead body of deceased Gayatri. Brother of deceased identified dead body. There was no smell of kerosene on the hair. Eyes were closed. Tongue was protruding out of the mouth. On external examination, she had noticed following injuries- “1. Contusion on left side of fore head ½ inch x ½ inch within 12 hours. 2. Burn injuries second degree on head, neck and face – 9%. No smell of rokel. Eye lashes burnt out. 3. Second degree burn injuries over both upper limbs – 18%. 4. Second degree burn injuries on chest and abdomen – 18%. Skin is peeled off at many places. 5. Second degree burn injuries on back 18%. Epidermis peeled off at many places. 6. Second degree burn injuries on right lower limb 18%. 7. Second degree burn injuries on left lower limb 18%. No burn on private part. Burn injuries are more deep on upper half of the body and head, neck, fact.” 18. As per the evidence of Medical Officer Dr. Rode, all injuries were ante-mortem. Cause of death was due to 99% burn injuries due to shock. 19. There is no dispute from the evidence of Medical Officer that deceased died due to burn injuries, because of bursting of gas cylinder. Medical Officer not found any smell of kerosene. The prosecution has examined PW10. He has stated that he was working in National Fire Service College, Nagpur. He is a graduate in Fire Engineering. His evidence does not show that deceased died due to burn by kerosene. On the other hand, his cross-examination shows that gas cylinder might have burst. 20. Evidence of PW Nos.3 and 4 are only in respect of ill treatment and demand by accused persons. PW3 has stated in her evidence that Gayatri used to tell her that her sister-in-law Manjusha (accused No.5) used to harass her, taunt her and other accused persons were supporting accused No.5. Whenever Gayatri used to come to Nagpur, she used to disclose everything to her. She has stated that accused were demanding rupees one lakh and ten tolas gold. In the cross-examination, she has denied portion marked “A” and “B”. Material omissions are brought on record in her cross-examination. She has stated in her cross-examination as under :- “13. Whenever Gayatri used to come to Nagpur, she used to disclose everything to her. She has stated that accused were demanding rupees one lakh and ten tolas gold. In the cross-examination, she has denied portion marked “A” and “B”. Material omissions are brought on record in her cross-examination. She has stated in her cross-examination as under :- “13. I am not aware as to whether as on today the accused no.5 Manjusha resides at Pune. It is not true to suggest that I have deposed falsely that after few days of her marriage, the accused no.5 Manjusha, left her matrimonial home and came to reside at her parental home at Amravati. It is true to suggest that the son of accused no.5 Manjusha is now around two and half years old. It is true to suggest that the relations between the deceased and the accused no.5 Manjusha were like a sister-in-laws and with usual bickering. I had not stated before the police that all the family members of the accused were displeased, prior to the marriage of accused no.5 Manjusha, on account of non payment of dowry in the form of cash amount of Rs. One Lakh and ten to twelve Tola gold. It is true to suggest that raking up quarrel and pestering are two different things. I do not remember as to whether I had stated before the police that the accused no.5 Manjusha used to rake up quarrels with the deceased. I cannot assign any reason as to why term “(Accused No.5) used to rake up quarrels” does not find mention in my statement before police. I had not stated before the police that accused were quarreling with the deceased for coercing her to bring money and gold from her parents. I had not stated before the police that I did not disclose the ill treatment meted out to the deceased by the accused, which was narrated to me by the deceased, as my husband was not keeping good health. I had not stated before the police that my husband had intended to borrow an amount of Rs. One Lakh from one of his friend based at Amravati and thereafter pay the said amount to the accused. I had not stated before the police that my husband had intended to borrow an amount of Rs. One Lakh from one of his friend based at Amravati and thereafter pay the said amount to the accused. I had not stated before the police that at the house of the accused we noticed that there was no damage by fire or blast in the house of the accused and even a plastic jar/container was not burnt. I had not stated before the police that I had found that oil mixed water and glass shards were on the floor of the kitchen. I had not stated before the police that till the lodging of the report by my husband, my mental condition was unstable.” 21. PW4 disclosed everything to him but after the incident, she disclosed everything in respect of ill treatment of deceased by accused persons. He has stated in his evidence that something was disclosed by his wife. He came to know from Gayatri that accused persons were ill treating her. They were demanding rupees one lakh and ten tolas gold. He tried to get loan from one relative Shivkumar, but he did not give due to some financial crisis. This material evidence of PW4 is not reliable because relative namely Shivkumar was not examined by the prosecution. As per the evidence of PW4, he demanded rupees one lakh from Shivkumar. If he is closed relative then there was no hurdle for the prosecution to examine him. Material omissions are brought on record in his cross-examination. He has admitted that the deceased had informed him personally about the demand of accused persons. This type of evidence is not reliable. It is a natural conduct of father to get it verified from daughter about the demand of his son-in-law and other family members of deceased. Following material omissions are brought on record :- “I had not stated before the police while lodging the FIR that I met my maternal cousin Shivkumar and requested him to advance me a sum of Rs. One Lakh as I was facing a demand. I had not stated before the police while lodging the FIR that I was intent to pay the said amount to the accused as they were demanding the said amount and were harassing the deceased in connection with the said demand. One Lakh as I was facing a demand. I had not stated before the police while lodging the FIR that I was intent to pay the said amount to the accused as they were demanding the said amount and were harassing the deceased in connection with the said demand. I had not stated before the police while lodging the FIR that I had requested Mr. Shivkumar to lend me the said amount a month and half prior to the occurrence. I had stated before the police while recording my statement on 15-7-2007 that a month and half prior to the occurrence I had requested Mr. Shivkumar to lend me an amount of Rs. One Lakh. I cannot assign any reason as to why the period, “one and half month” prior to the occurrence, does not find place in my statement dt. 15-7-2007. I had not stated before the police while lodging FIR that I could not lodge report earlier as my mental condition was not good. I had stated in my statement in writing dt. 15-7-2007 that I could not disclose few things as my mental condition was not good. The said fact does not find mention in my statement in writing dt. 15-7-2007 now shown to me.” 22. In view of the material omissions and contradictions, proved by Investigating Officer, it is clear that evidence of PW Nos.3 and 4 in respect of cruelty and demand are not reliable. Moreover, whatever PW Nos.3 and 4 have stated before the Court are not in respect of cause of death of deceased. Hence, the evidence of PW Nos.3 and 4 are not admissible, in view of the decision of apex Court in the case of Bhairon Singh .v. State of M.P. (cited supra). The Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under :- “11. The moot question is whether the statements attributed to the deceased could be used as evidence for entering upon a finding that the accused subjected Ranjana Rani @ Raj Kumari to cruelty as contemplated under Section 498A, IPC. In our considered view, the evidence of PW4 and PW5 about what the deceased Ranjana Rani @ Raj Kumari had told them against the accused about the torture and harassment is inadmissible under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act and such evidence cannot be looked into for any purpose. In our considered view, the evidence of PW4 and PW5 about what the deceased Ranjana Rani @ Raj Kumari had told them against the accused about the torture and harassment is inadmissible under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act and such evidence cannot be looked into for any purpose. Except Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, there is no other provision under which the statement of a dead person can be looked into in evidence. The statement of a dead person is admissible in law if the statement is as to the cause of death or as to any of the circumstance of the transactions which resulted in her death, in a case in which the cause of death comes into question. What has been deposed by PW4 and PW5 has no connection with any circumstance of transaction which resulted in her death. The death of Smt. Ranjana Rani @ Raj Kumari was neither homicidal nor suicidal; it was accidental. Since for an offence under Section 498A simpliciter, the question of death is not and cannot be an issue for consideration, we are afraid the evidence of PW4 and PW5 is hardly an evidence in law to establish such offence. In that situation Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act does not get attracted.” 23. Not a single neighbour of accused persons examined by the prosecution. Admission of PW Nos.3 and 4 clearly shows that, PW4, father of deceased, was not ready to perform the marriage of Gayatri with accused No.1. PW4 admittedly lodged report after one month. It is the defence of accused persons that complainant (PW4) insisted accused to invest huge amount in the name of son of deceased. They had contacted DW1 Adv. Ratanlal Atal. As per the evidence of Adv. Atal (DW1), brother of accused No.1 namely Rajesh along with father of deceased came to him and they were requesting him to prepare a draft for the welfare of minor child. Then he suggested that draft of trust deed can be prepared but thereafter they did not approach to him. 24. The defence appears to be probable, because complainant and his wife (PW Nos.3 and 4) have stated in their evidence that they received information about the incident. They went to the house of accused. They were in the house of accused for about 34 days. 24. The defence appears to be probable, because complainant and his wife (PW Nos.3 and 4) have stated in their evidence that they received information about the incident. They went to the house of accused. They were in the house of accused for about 34 days. They were present in all the religious ceremonies, funeral, Uthavana etc. During this period, they did not suspect anything against the accused. As per their admission, police visited to the spot of incident in their presence. There was ample opportunity for the complainant to lodge immediate report against the accused. But, they did not do so. 25. Incident took place on 09.06.2007. Complainant lodged report on 10.07.2007 i.e. after lapse of one month. In the report, he did not state anything about the delay. He has stated in his evidence the reason for delay which is not acceptable because he could have given the reason in the report for lodging report after one month. Probable defence that he was insisting accused to invest huge amount in the name of son of deceased. Accused persons not accepted his demand and, therefore, after making deliberations, he lodged report. 26. Prosecution has proved that deceased died due to burn injuries within seven years from the time of marriage, but failed to establish other ingredients or Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. To prove the offence punishable under Section 304B, prosecution has failed to prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by accused persons (her husband and relatives of her husband). Such cruelty or harassment was in connection with demand of money and such cruelty or harassment was subjected soon before her death. Hence, material ingredients of Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code are not proved by the prosecution. Learned trial Court rightly recorded its findings. There is no perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment. Hence, we are inclined to dismiss the appeal. In the result, appeal is dismissed.