JUDGMENT M.B. Ghodeswar, J- The appellant challenges the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. Buldana, on 20-10-1993 in Sessions Case No. 84 of 1993 convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C. and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer further R.I. for one year. 2. The appellant is charged for causing burn injuries to his wife Smt. Satyabhama, P.W. 2, on 2-5-1993 at about 2 P.M. at village Shelapur, by pouring kerosene and setting her on fire. The appellant/accused and P.W. 2-Satyabhama were married 17-18 years prior to the date of incident. They have two sons. P.W. 2-Satyabhama has deposed that on the day of the incident early in the morning, the accused/appellant took tea and went away. At about 1.30 P.M., the accused returned. He was under the influence of alcohol. He started beating her. She went outside of the house for answering nature's call. The accused followed her running. He was having an axe. When she returned to her house and while she was taking entry in the house, the accused poured kerosene on her person near the door and demanded money from her. She told him that she would not give money to him. Thereafter, the accused lighted a match stick and set her person on fire. She was burning. The accused pushed her and poured water on her person and ran away. She has further stated that she was crying 'Save' - 'Save'. Her elder son Rajendra came there. She asked him to call Sarpanch of the village. Sarpanch came. She informed the Sarpanch about the incident. Then she was taken to hospital at Malkapur. Her dying declaration came to be recorded in the hospital. The Medical Officer, Malkapur referred her to General Hospital, Buldana, for further treatment. During her cross-examination, material omissions are brought on record about her crying 'Save-Save', that accused demanded money from her and accused gave beating to her. She had never complained with the relatives or the Police about the rude behaviour of the accused anytime during the span of 17-18 years. But, she volunteered that because there are two sons, she did not complain. She denied that she stated before the doctor at Malkapur that she sustained burn injuries due to accident. 3. P.W. 1-Dr. She had never complained with the relatives or the Police about the rude behaviour of the accused anytime during the span of 17-18 years. But, she volunteered that because there are two sons, she did not complain. She denied that she stated before the doctor at Malkapur that she sustained burn injuries due to accident. 3. P.W. 1-Dr. Kelaro Jagan Mohanrao, at the relevant time, was working as Medical Officer, Cottage Hospital. Malkapur, P.W. 2-Satyabhama was brought by her relatives in the hospital and she was admitted. There were 70% burns on her body. First aid treatment was given to her. He informed the Police and referred the patient-P.W. 2 to General Hospital, Buldana. He issued the certificate Exh. 30. In cross-examination, he admitted that he brought the case papers of P.W. 2-Satyabhama. She informed that there was an accident and she received burns. It is so mentioned in the case papers. P.W. 3 is the Investigating Officer. The learned trial Judge believed the version of P.W. 2-Satyabhama and recorded the finding of conviction. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution failed to establish its case under Section 307 I.P.C. The material witness Rajendera, son of P.W. 2, is not examined. 5. When P.W. 1-Dr. Kelaro has admitted in cross-examination that P.W. 2 sustained burns, accidentally, no attempt is made by the prosecution to re-examine the witness. The case papers about the admission and treatment of P.W. 2-Satyabhama in Cottage Hospital, Malkapur, also are not produced on record. -The learned trial Judge has also not called upon the prosecution to produce the case papers on record and in his judgment, he has not discussed the evidence of this P.W. 1 regarding the accidental burns sustained by P.W. 2, Satyabhama and only observed that P.W. 2-Satyabhama has denied the suggestion given to P.W. 2 by defence that she sustained burns due to accident. The conduct of the prosecution is not fair. It would have been appropriate if the trial Judge had taken proper care to have the case papers of Cottage Hospital, Malkapur, on the record. The admission given by the P.W. 1 in his cross-examination, gives a deadly blow to that prosecution story though P.W. 2 has denied that she sustained burns due to accident. The doubt is created whether she sustained burns due to accident or somebody else has caused the burn injuries. The admission given by the P.W. 1 in his cross-examination, gives a deadly blow to that prosecution story though P.W. 2 has denied that she sustained burns due to accident. The doubt is created whether she sustained burns due to accident or somebody else has caused the burn injuries. The prosecution has not proved its case beyond doubt. The appellant/accused cannot be held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C. He deserves to be acquitted giving benefit of doubt. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Buldana in Sessions Case No. 84 of 1994 on 20-10-1993, are quashed and set aside. The appellant/accused be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. Appeal allowed.