1. The appeal is filed against judgment and order of Sessions Case No.17/2001, which was pending in the Court of 4th Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Beed. The trial Court has acquitted the respondents of the offences punishable under sections 306, 498-A and 34 of Indian Penal Code. During pendency of the appeal, accused No.2 died and the appeal is abated as against accused No.2 - Shamrao.

2. Both the sides are heard. This Court has perused the original record.

3. In short, the facts leading to the institution of the appeal, can be stated as follows :-

Complainant Vijay Raut is maternal uncle of deceased Mandakini. She was given in marriage to accused No.1 about four years prior to the date of incident. The deceased has left behind one daughter, who was aged about 10 months at the relevant time.

3A. Ill-treatment was given to the deceased after two months of the marriage. Deceased used to disclose to her parents that accused were asking her to bring Rs. 50,000/- from her parents as they wanted this amount for redemption of their land, which was given by way of mortgage. She was complaining that the accused were starving her and occasionally her husband was giving beating to her after having drink. About one and half years prior to the incident, the complainant and his brother Gopinath had visited the house of the accused to convince them to behave well.

4. Deceased had visited lastly to the house of her parents on the occasion of Laxmi festival. On this occasion also she had disclosed that there was illtreatment to her from the accused. She had stayed in the house of her parents for about one and half months due to such ill-treatment. Accused No.2 - Shamrao had then visited to the house of parents of the deceased and after giving promise to behave well, he had taken the deceased to her matrimonial house. On 8.6.2000 the complainant had visited matrimonial house of deceased and on that occasion also she disclosed that the accused were still asking her to bring Rs. 50,000/- from her parents and they were giving ill-treatment to her.

5. On 10.6.2000 a nephew of the complainant had visited the village of accused and on that occasion, he has learnt that there was quarrel going on between the deceased and her husband. The incident took place on 14.6.2000. In the early hours of the morning deceased sustained burn injuries and she died due to 100% burn injuries. The report came to be given on 15.6.2000 and the crime came to be registered for aforesaid offences in Dindrud Police Station at Cr. No.65/2000.

6. During investigation police recorded statements of relatives of the deceased from parents side. The spot panchanama came to be prepared. After completion of investigation chargesheet came to be filed. To the charge, all the accused pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined in all ten witnesses for proving the offences. The trial Court has held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case of suicide. The trial Court has further held that the ill-treatment as defined in section 498-A of I.P.C. is not proved.

7. No dying declaration could be recorded. It is not the case of the prosecution that immediately after the incident some neighbours had rushed there or some disclosure was made by the deceased to anybody when the deceased sustained burn injuries. For proving the suicidal death, the prosecution could have relied on some record like spot panchanama and C.A. report. The spot panchanama shows that the incident took place in the kitchen and there were articles like kerosene stove, utensils. There was match stick near the stove. One can containing kerosene was there, but it was having lid and it was in closed condition. It appears that some pieces of partly burnt clothes were found there. Strangely, blood was found on two match sticks and one shirt. These articles were not forwarded to C.A. office to ascertain as to whether there was use of kerosene. In such a case, it is always desirable to examine the neighbours, who must have rushed to the spot after starting of the fire. The incident took place in the early hours of the morning and the A.D. was registered on the basis of report given by Police Patil of the village. The spot panchanama was prepared during inquiry of A.D. In view of these circumstances, the trial Court has held that there is the possibility that there was accidental fire. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case and the fact that the F.I.R. came to be given on the next day, after 24 hours, after learning about the incident, it can not be said that the trial Court has committed error in taking such view.

8. All the witnesses examined by the prosecution are interested witnesses. PW 1 is brother of deceased. PW 3 and PW 9 are uncles of the deceased. PW 4 is son of maternal aunt of the deceased. PW 5 is sister of deceased and PW 6 is mother of deceased. All the witnesses have given evidence that accused were asking deceased to bring Rs. 50,000/- as they wanted to get redeemed their agricultural land. The evidence of these witnesses show that they are not sure whether the accused owned an agricultural land. PW 3 has admitted that accused No.1 was not having any agricultural land. This admission falsifies the case of the prosecution that for redemption of mortgaged land, accused wanted amount. The incident took place after about four years of the marriage and it does not look probable that for continuous three years the same demand was made and on the count of the same demand, ill-treatment was given.

9. PW 9 has tried to say that he had sent a chit to mother of the deceased to send the deceased to matrimonial house as accused No.2 had undertaken to behave well. This chit is not produced and so there are only words of all the witnesses about the ill-treatment. The allegations with regard to so called ill-treatment of giving beating by husband and starving are vague. No specific instances are quoted. It can be said that the deceased used to visit the house of her parents on the occasion of the festivals and accused never prevented her for going to the house of her parents. The evidence given by PW 1, brother of deceased, is little bit different from the evidence of other witnesses and it appears that PW 1 has exaggerated the things.

10. When the prosecution is not able to prove that it is the case of suicide, the so called disclosures made by the deceased cannot be used under section 32(1) of Evidence Act. (Relied on 2001 AIR SCW 5092 [Inderpal Vs. State of M.P.]). As suicide is not proved, the evidence of all the witnesses, which is based on so called disclosures, cannot be used against the accused.

11. For the respondents reliance was placed on case reported as AIR 2000 SC 2324 [LQ/SC/2000/799] [Kans Raj Vs. State of Punjab and Others]. It is observed that it has become tendency to rope in all the relations of the husband of the deceased and so the Court should be very cautious and should see that overtacts attributed to such relatives are proved beyond reasonable doubt. In view of this possibility, the evidence as against bother in law of deceased needs close scrutiny. In any case, he is dead. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court holds that interference is not possible in the decision of the Trial Court and the appeal stands dismissed.

12. Advocate Mr. A.G. Godhamgaonkar is appointed by this Court as amicus curie to represent the respondents. His fees is quantified at Rs. 3500/- (Rupees three thousand five hundred).