Judgment P.K.Deb and Surinder Sarup JJ. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 12-4-1990 passed by the then Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Sessions Gate No. 344 of 1938 convicting the accused-appellant under Section 302, I. P. G. and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. Admitted position remains that the deceased Aparna Banerjee daughter of PW 6, Sisthidhar Banerjee was married to the accused appellant, Ajit Kumar Mukherjee about one year prior to the occurrence i. e. 20-7-1985. The prosecution case is that the accused-appellant, Ajit Kumar Mukherjee was addicted to liquor to such extent that there was no adjustment between the husband and wife soon after the marriage and that quarrel was being ensued between the two. It appears that the accused-appellant is parentless and he was staying with his paternal uncles family and after marriage also he was residing in that house. It is the further case of the prosecution that on 20-7-1985 the accused appellant returned home lately in the night and both husband and wife went to sleep in the same room but at about 11 in the night, inmates of the house woke up on hearing the screams of the deceased, Aparna Mukherjee alias Aparna Banerjee saying Bachao-Bachao. On hearing this, the PW 1 Dilip Mukherjee, who happens to be cousion brother of accused appellant came out from his room and when he reached near the room of the accused, he saw flames of fire. The doors were closed from inside and windows were also closed from inside. He then dashed open the doors and found the accused-appellant, Ajit Kumar Mukherjee standing 2-3 feet away from his wife Aparna when she was burning from her lower side. Her clothes were almost burnt by that time. Another cousin of the appellant, PW 2 also reached the place of occurrence at that time and then they made an attempt to save the life of Aparna, but she was considerably burnt by that time. On being Hulla raised by Dilip Mukherjee and bis brother Anup Mukherjee, neighbours also came and tried to extinguish the fire with bed sheet, rugs etc. Aparna was then taken Bhoura Hospital for medical treatment, but when Bhoura Hospital referred her to Central Hospital, Dhanbad she was then tried to be carried there but unfortunately on the way she died due to the burn injuries on her person. Aparna was then taken Bhoura Hospital for medical treatment, but when Bhoura Hospital referred her to Central Hospital, Dhanbad she was then tried to be carried there but unfortunately on the way she died due to the burn injuries on her person. On the basis of Fardbayan of Dilip Kumar Mukherjee, an FIR was drawn up on the next day and the police started investigation. The accused-appellant was taken to custody on that very day. The deadbody was inquest-ed and then autopsy was held on her body. After closure of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant under Section 302, IPC. On being committed to the Sessions, charges were framed under Section 302 IPC vide order dated 4-2-1989 and when the same was read over and explained to the accused, he pleaded no guilty. 3. The defence place as is appeared from the tread of cross-examination of PWs and the statements made by the accused under Section 313, Cr. P. C, is that deceased Aparna Mukherjee tried to commit sucide by sprinkling Kerosine oil on her body and then set fire on her clothes and that the accused appellant alongwith others tried to extinguish fire and in the process he also received burn injuries on his right hand. 4. For and on behalf of the prosecution, in total eight witnesses have been examined. Out of them, PW 1 Dilip Kumar Mukherjee is the informant and cousin brother of the accused-appellant. PW 2, Anup Mukherjee is the another brother of the informant and cousin of the accused-appellant. Both of them have declined to support the prosecution case and as such they have been declared hostile. PW 3 and PW 4 are the neighbours. They have also not supported the prosecution regarding the mal adjustment and the strained relation between the wife and husband and they have also been declared hostile. PW 5 is the another neighbour and he has only been tendered. PW 6 Sisthidhar Banerjee is the father of the deceased. PW 7 is the doctor who held autopsy over the deadbody of the deceased and PW 8 is the Investigating Officer. 5. On scrutinising the evidence on record, learned court below practically relied on the evidence on PW 6, the father of the deceased to arrive and record the order of conviction against the accused-appellant under Section 302. I. P. C. 6. Mr. 5. On scrutinising the evidence on record, learned court below practically relied on the evidence on PW 6, the father of the deceased to arrive and record the order of conviction against the accused-appellant under Section 302. I. P. C. 6. Mr. M. M. Banerjee, counsel appearing for and on behalf of the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground : (1) that the prosecution could not be able to prove the charge against accused-appellant in any way whatsoever as because although there was no eye-witness to the occurrence but the circumstantial evidence on which the prosecution tried to rely its case have been totally shattered as none of the witnesses from PW 1 to PW 4 have supported those circumstances and they have been declared hostile. (2) PW 6 Sisthidhar Banerjee, the father of the deceased come to the place of occurrence on receipt of information from the side of the informant party and in his presence, cremation etc. were held and he left the place on the next day without bringing any allegation against the accused-appellant and during the trial only he came up with the story of torture on his daughter. 7. It appears that this PW 6, Sisthidhar Banerjee has not been examined soon after the occurrence but he was examined at a very late stage by Investigating Agency and the place of the I. O. is that as he was living at Durgapur a far away place from the place of occurrence, his statement under Section 161, Cr. P. C. could not be recorded earlier. Now, this PW 6 has made statement before the trial court that the relationship between the husband and wife not good and his daughter used to complain to him that she was not happy with the marriage as her husband was a drunkard and due to such drunkenness, he used to torture her by giving scratches on her body by burning ciggaretes. But, peculiarly enough, although the PW 6 states that soon after the occurrence, he visited the place of occurrence, he did not make any complaint or any doubt to the effect that his daughter Aparna Banerjee was practically killed by his son-in-law, Ajit Kumar Mukherjee. 8. On careful and close scrutiny of the evidence on record, we find that there is no eye-witness to the occurrence and the whole case rests on circumstantial evidence. 8. On careful and close scrutiny of the evidence on record, we find that there is no eye-witness to the occurrence and the whole case rests on circumstantial evidence. According to the prosecution, the conduct of the accused-appellant, which is relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act goes to show that he is the person who had committed the offence of murder by burning his wife but there was an attempt from the side of the accused-appellant along-with his cousin to extinguish the fire and save the life of Aparna Banerjee is clear from the fact that the accused-appellant also sustained injuries on his right hand. The position of the room soon after the occurrence as is found by the Investigating Officer and the police personnel who held inquest over the deadbody go to show clearly that atleast there was an attempt for saving the life of Aparna Banerjee soon after the caught on fire. 9. From the evidence, it is further found that this Ajit Kumar Mukherjee was definitely a drunkard and because of his drunkenness, then was strained relationship between the two and that the deceased Aparna used to always raised objection on the drunkenness of her husband. So, there might be a possibility of that also when accused-appellant returned home in drunken state then Aparna Mukherjee raised objection, quarrel ensued and in the midst of that quarrel due to sudden impulse and frustration, she might have sprinkled kerosine oil on her body and gave fire to commit suicide and the accussed-appellant alongwith others tried to save her by extinguishing fire. So, the possibility of committing suicide by Aparna Mukherjee, the deceased cannot also be totally brushed aside from the circumstances proved from the side of the prosecution, and when two views are possible then the view which supports the accused is to be taken which is the settled principles of law. Even if that position is accepted then also the suicide committed by Aparna Mukherjee cannot be said to be without any abatement from the side of her husband, Ajit Kumar Mukherjee. Even if that position is accepted then also the suicide committed by Aparna Mukherjee cannot be said to be without any abatement from the side of her husband, Ajit Kumar Mukherjee. The drunkenness and behaviour must have caused her to take that extreme stage of putting end to ber life and in that way the accused-appellant, even if not liable for committing murder of his wife under Section 302, IPC, he is definitely liable for abetting his wife, the deceased Aparna Mukherjee to commit suicide and as such he is liable to conviction under Section 306, IPC. 10. In the result, the appeal is rejected with the modification that the conviction under Section 302, IPC against accused-appellant is reduced to conviction under Section 306, IPC. From the record, it is found that the accused-appellant is already in custody for more than five years and we feel that the accused-appellant may be sentenced for a period for which he has already undergone for the offence under Section 306, IPC. Accordingly, the order is passed. The accused appellant be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. Appeal rejected after modification in conviction and sentence.