N. C. Jain, J- The appellant having been convicted for an offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code after finding him guilty has been ordered to undergo sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life. This appeal has been filed by him against the order of the Addl Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati in Sessions CaseNo.232(K)/95. 2. The prosecution story as has been unfolded in the First Information Report and the evidence brought on the record of the case, in short, is that the appellant-husband has burnt his wife alive by pouring kerosene oil on the night of 9.9.95 at about 10.30PM after a quarrel ensued between the two. She died on the next day at 5 AM. The prosecution has produced as many as 7 witnesses in order to bring home the guilt to the accused. The Addl Sessions Judge has primarily recorded the order of conviction on the sole testimony of maid servant (PW 5) Kantibala Roy who is alleged to have seen the entire occurrence. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant Shri JM Choudhury, a Senior Advocate at the very outset has strenuously argued that the conduct of the investigating agency in the instant case was not fair inasmuch as the-sole eye witness was kept under detention for a period of two days before leading her to the Court of Magistrate for recording the statement under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He has further argued that the sole eye-witness did not disclose at the earliest opportunity that it was the appellant who committed the prime. The counsel has argued several other points. However, we do not intend to refer to the detailed submissions of the counsel as we intend to remand this case for the simple reason that the statement of the sole eye-witness under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code has remained unexihibited. The maid servant did appear in the witness box as PW 5 as has been noticed above, but her statement under section 164 CrPC having remained unexhibited, we are of the view that the present is one of the few cases which need be remanded to the Court of Addl Sessions Judge for the reasons to be recorded in the latter part of the judgment. 4. 4. There cannot be any dispute with the proposition of law that it is the prosecution which is under legal obligation to get the statement under section 164 CrPC exhibited after summoning the concerned Magistrate, but we hasten to add that the Court of Sessions is also not absolved of its duty to record such a statement of an important witness. Even if the prosecution was negligent in summoning the Magistrate, the Court had sufficient power to summon the Magistrate as a Court witness in order to straighten the record and in order to make up its mind whether such a statement under section 164 CrPC could be relied upon or not. The prosecution may, in the ordinary course, not examine an ordinary witness and the Court in such a situation would hardly be concerned to order the examination of such a witness. But when a witness happens to be a Magistrate before whom sole eye witness has appeared at the earliest opportunity, such an important witness, in our considered view, should have been examined by the Court of Sessions. Where there is a statement under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, whether it be of an eye witness or a confessional statement of the accused, the same, in our considered view, must be exhibited even if the Court of Sessions has to summon the Magistrate as a Court witness. The case in hand pertains to non-exhibition of the statements of an eye witness. In another given case the Court of Sessions may not exhibit the confessional statement of an accused by remaining a silent spectator. The Court of Sessions while trying a case which is triable by it only has to be vigilant about the record of the case and as to what is the case of prosecution and defence. As to what evidentiary value has to be attached to such a statement under section 164 CrPC, it is for the Court of Sessions to see in a particular given case. The statement under section 164 CrPC may be used by the prosecution for the purpose of corroboration in one case and in another case it may be used by the defence for the purpose of contradiction, hi other words, in one case it may help the prosecution whereas in another case it may help the accused. The statement under section 164 CrPC may be used by the prosecution for the purpose of corroboration in one case and in another case it may be used by the defence for the purpose of contradiction, hi other words, in one case it may help the prosecution whereas in another case it may help the accused. The Court would oftenly and normally go through the statement under section 164 CrPC for arriving at the truth of the matter regarding the guilt or innocence of the accused persons. Since the Court cannot look at the unexhibited statement, there cannot be proper appreciation of evidence. 5. Neither the counsel for the accused nor the counsel for the State could point to any decided case during the course of arguments whether this Court should remand a case of the type in hand to the trial Court or not. Even if there is no decided case, we are of the view that this case must be remanded for the reasons recorded earlier and more particularly when the present case rests upon the statement of an eye witness. While remanding the present case we again want to emphasise and rather sound a note of caution to the Court of Sessions Judge or Addl Sessions Judge that it has to remain careful during the course of trial and must summon a Magistrate for exhibiting the statement under section 164. 6. This Court while remanding the case neither intends to permit nor would it be taken by the prosecution as if it is being permitted to fill up any lacuna in the case. Remand of the case is necessary in the present case for the reasons recorded above and more particularly, as has been observed above, the case hinges upon the sole testimony of the maid servant. Had there been more eye-witnesses to the occurrence or other evidence comprising of dying declaration or circumstantial evidence etc this Court might not have remanded the case and decided it here. We want to make it clear that remand in all cases where a statement under section 164 has remained unexhibited is not a must and it would depend on the facts of each case whether remand is necessary or not. Since this Court, in our considered view, has got ample powers to remand, the present case is being remanded. 7. We want to make it clear that remand in all cases where a statement under section 164 has remained unexhibited is not a must and it would depend on the facts of each case whether remand is necessary or not. Since this Court, in our considered view, has got ample powers to remand, the present case is being remanded. 7. At one stage we were inclined to summon the Magistrate in this Court but this is not being done as adoption of such a course would mean that either of the parties would lose a right of appeal. Moreover, in the case of remand, the accused has to be given an opportunity of leading defence evidence after his statement under section 313 CrPC is recorded once over again. 8. With the aforementioned observations the case is remanded to the Court of Addl Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati. He would summon the Magistrate and record his statement. Thereafter he would record the statement of the accused under section 313 of the CrPC and would grant him an opportunity to lead defence evidence, if any. It has remained undisputed before us that the evidence already recorded would remain in tact. The learned Addl Sessions Judge would after doing the needful redecide the case afresh in the light of the evidence already led and to be led. 9. We have taken proper care not to express ourselves on the merits of the case, we make it further clear that nothing observed herein would mean any expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the learned Addl Sessions Judge would be at liberty to take appropriate view on the merits of the case. The conviction and sentence is hereby set aside. The appellant is allowed bail on his furnishing bail bond in the amount of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati. the accused as well as the State through their counsel is directed to appear before the Addl Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati on 11.3.98. The records of the case along with a copy of the judgment of this Court be despatched by the registry to the concerned Court forthwith.