JUDGMENT Aftab H. Saikia, J. 1. Heard Mr. B. Kalita, learned Counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. B. Banerjee, learned Public Prosecutor, Arunachal Pradesh representing the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 2. The conviction under Section 302 IPC and resultant sentence to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 6 (six) months so handed down to the appellant by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Eastern Zone, Namsai by his Judgment and Order dated 17.5.2005 passed in Sessions Case No. 12/01 has been assailed by preferring this Criminal Appeal by the appellant. 3. The facts in brief as projected by the prosecution are that- One Smt. Durgabati Devi was murdered by her husband, the appellant on 14.11.91 and to this effect an FIR was lodged by one Sri A. Perme, S.I., P. W. 6 who was entrusted with the investigation of the case and after conducting an enquiry in the matter and on the basis of a written report filed by the accused himself with the concerned police station on 14.11.91, the investigating officer found that it was a case of homicidal one (strangulation). However, without making any inquest report over the dead body, which was found lying in the kitchen of the appellant's quarter, the dead body was sent for postmortem to be conducted by P.W. 4, the Dr. G N. Shyam (Pangyak). 4. The doctor, P.W. 4 on conducting the post-mortem over the dead body found the following injuries. On external examination, the dead body was stout, not emaciated, rigor mortis developed, hand were in claw-jaw position, both upper and lower limbs semi flexed position, face swollen, eyes were bulged out and pupils dilated on the left side, body was not decomposed. Her skull was burnt except on back of the head of occipital region, hairs black in colour, skull bones were not fractured, no injury to vertebrae, on throasic region, skin was burnt whole over chest. Deep bum on the breast area and upper limbs. Superficial burn on the back. Burned areas looked blackish in colour. Burned clothes found below breast. No demarcation of irregular red line with inflammation-reaction present, also blisters were not present. Pleurae (in plural numbers) extra vagaion of blood forming ecchymoses were found in sub-pleurae region. Deep bum on the breast area and upper limbs. Superficial burn on the back. Burned areas looked blackish in colour. Burned clothes found below breast. No demarcation of irregular red line with inflammation-reaction present, also blisters were not present. Pleurae (in plural numbers) extra vagaion of blood forming ecchymoses were found in sub-pleurae region. The larynx and tracheas were congested and contained forty-blood stain mucus substances. Bruising of larynx was seen. No sign of smoke in larynx and trachea seen. The lungs were congested and echymoses were present. On cut section dark fluid blood exuded, lungs were oedimetus and emplysinetus. Parichardiam show echymoses due to extra vogan of blood, madistinaum was congested. Right side of heart was full of dark fluid blood and distended but the left heart was empty. Besides burn injury whole over the body lacerated cut injury on right upper eyelid on the lateral side. The part was swollen and conjunctive, cornea and eye muscle lacerated. Burn was uniform whole over the body, no blisters were present. Red line with induration along with burn was not present. Signs of smokes within the pharynx, larynx trachea in other parts of the wind pipe were absent, bruising of neck muscle and other issues and thyroid gland were present. Signs of haemorrhage from nose, mouth and ears were seen. Changes of colour of blood, dark fluid blood in the heart and big vessels were present. A groove on the neck across thyroid cartilege was present. Signs of haemo concentration was not seen. Body was shrunken, face swollen, pupils of eye dilated, right eye was damaged. 5. In his opinion the Doctor stated that the burn injury seemed to be post-mortem one and the injuries found on the body were antemortem and age of the burn injury was about 10 to 12 hours after death. He also opined that death was due to asphyxia resulted from preclusion of air passage to lungs and blood supply to the brain causes asphyxia causing death, suspected strangulation or throttling. He also opined that the time of death was 20-24 hours before the post-mortem examination. 6. In cross, this witnesses in his medical evidence was categorical in deposing that the deceased died at about 1.00 a.m. on 13th night. He also opined that the time of death was 20-24 hours before the post-mortem examination. 6. In cross, this witnesses in his medical evidence was categorical in deposing that the deceased died at about 1.00 a.m. on 13th night. He evidenced a confusing deposition stating that no blisters and no vesicles were present even there was finding regarding healing and there was no finding of soot from respiratory track and carbondioxide, hemoglobin in blood. 7. On completion of the investigation so initiated, the police submitted chargesheet against the appellant under the aforementioned section and the case was committed to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Namsai for trial through the committal order of the concerned Magistrate. 8. The learned trial judge having considered the entire facts on record and evidence of as many as 7 witnesses so produced by the prosecution including the Doctor, PW 4 and the Investigating Officers, P.W. 5 and P.W. 7 as well as upon hearing learned Counsel for the parties found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC for killing his wife and accordingly he convicted and sentenced the appellant as already mentioned above. Hence this appeal. 9. In support of the appellant as well as assailing the impugned conviction and sentence, Mr. Kalita has strenuously urged that the findings arrived at against the appellant were wholly perverse and not tenable in law. According to him, since the conviction was passed solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence of P.W. 2, Smt. Madhumaya Thapa and P.W. 3, Smt. Boby Jaiswal being the witnesses who according to the prosecution had able to prove the circumstances. It is contended that their deposition was wholly contradictory and full of inconsistencies and the same cannot be relied upon so as to prove the circumstances to inflict the conviction upon the appellant as indicated above. It is also stated that the medical evidence was also fully unacceptable as the entire evidence of medical officer, P.W. 4 both in-chief and in cross demonstrated only contradictions and inconsistencies. It is also stated that the medical evidence was also fully unacceptable as the entire evidence of medical officer, P.W. 4 both in-chief and in cross demonstrated only contradictions and inconsistencies. Basically, with regard to the medical evidence it is contended that when the Doctor opined that it was a case of suspected strangulation by throttling, on the other hand the Doctor deposed categorically that death was concerned at the night of 13th night at about 1.00 a.m. Even this medical evidence went to indicate two different time periods as regards the time of death of the victim. In examination-in-chief itself, this medical evidence would clearly show that age of the burn might be of 10-12 hours after death and another place it was recorded that time of death was 20-24 hours before the post-mortem examination. Thus, this witness himself was confusing in his deposition and if this piece of medical evidence is accepted then the story of circumstances so tried to be projected by the prosecution through P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 would completely dislodge. 10. We have meticulously appreciated the deposition of P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 to find out to what the prosecution was successful in proving the case on the basis of circumstantial evidence as challenged by the learned Counsel representing the appellant. 11. P.W. 2, Madhumaya Thapa in her evidence-Claimed that she saw the victim at 8.00 a.m. on the day of occurrence sitting on the steps of verandah and she was crying. On asking she told that she had a quarrel with her husband in the last night. Thereafter, P.W. 2 went to the house of P.W. 3, Mrs. Boby Jaiswal, another witness brought forward by the prosecution. Thereafter, when P.W. 2 was sitting in front of her house she saw the appellant coming and entering into the house and immediately after entering into the house, he shouted 'jui lagishe, jui lagishe'. She also deposed that she did not hear any sound of her wife who was burning in the fire at that, time. She saw P.W. 3, entering into the house of the appellant with a bucket of water in her hand. In cross, she affirmed that she did not hear any quarrel before that incident and also any sound in the house of the appellant before shouting by the appellant about the fire. 12. She saw P.W. 3, entering into the house of the appellant with a bucket of water in her hand. In cross, she affirmed that she did not hear any quarrel before that incident and also any sound in the house of the appellant before shouting by the appellant about the fire. 12. In our opinion, this witness, except hearing the sound of 'jui lagishe' of the appellant did not see anything about what happened inside the house, even she had made no attempt to go into the house to find out the truth. Her only deposition was that while she was sitting in the verandah of her house, she saw the appellant coming and entering the house and then she heard the sound of his saying 'jui lagishe' and at that moment, P.W. 3 entering the house of the appellant with a bucket of water in her hand. 13. Let us examine the deposition of P.W. 3, namely, Smt. Boby Jaiswal, who in her testimony adduced that on 14.11.91 at about 10.30 a.m. while she was working in her kitchen garden, the appellant shouted 'chachi, chachi' and she look at the house of the appellant and she saw smoke of fire burning in his kitchen. She immediately rushed to the quarter of the appellant house, she saw a Sari and somebody lying on the ground and her feet was vibrating but there were no voice and being afraid of, she returned back. On her return, she saw the appellant crying in the backside of the quarter without helping the victim lady and at that time she saw an empty vessels which might been used for kerosene Oil. 14. In cross, P.W. 3, reiterated that the appellant was crying for his wife and she could not mark out any burnt injury in the hands and face of the appellant. When she reached the spot, according to her, she saw that legs of the victim were trembling and soon the neighbouring people gathered into the spot. She denied that the accused did not try to save his wife. 15. One amazing factor has come out the deposition of this witness. When she entered the kitchen of the appellant she did not try to identify the victim who was lying in the kitchen. She denied that the accused did not try to save his wife. 15. One amazing factor has come out the deposition of this witness. When she entered the kitchen of the appellant she did not try to identify the victim who was lying in the kitchen. According to her, she saw a Sari and somebody was lying on the ground and her feet was vibrating and being afraid of she returned back. Having discreet security, we are of the considered view that this piece of evidence has failed to persuade us to belief her story. On the one hand she told that she saw the appellant crying without helping the victim lady, his wife and at the same time she denied the suggestion that the appellant did not try to save his wife. 16. Be that as it may, if the testimony of this witness is accepted, the medical evidence of P.W. 4, the Doctor has to be discarded, who in his medical evidence demonstrated a different story. As per medical evidence, the deceased died in the night at about 1.00 a.m. of 13th night when as per P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 occurrence took place at about 10.30-11.00 a.m. Even the husband/appellant who lodged the information with the police (Ext. 3) clearly indicated that on the day of occurrence when he entered the house at about 11.00 a.m. in the morning his wife was burning. Secondly, the investigation report of the officer also did not impress us a wee bit. It is seen that no inquest was conducted by the investigating officer in the instant case and simply a report was filed with a description of place of occurrence as has been reflected in page-75 of the relevant paper book. 17. Given facts and circumstances of the case in its entirety and also having closely analyzed the evidence of P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 including the medical examination so done by P.W. 4, we are of the firm view that the prosecution has failed to make out a case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt in the backdrop of the factual circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the appellant, in our considered opinion, is entitled to get benefit of doubt. Consequently, we are inclined to acquit the appellant from the charges under Section 302 IPC. It is ordered accordingly. Accordingly, the appellant, in our considered opinion, is entitled to get benefit of doubt. Consequently, we are inclined to acquit the appellant from the charges under Section 302 IPC. It is ordered accordingly. The appellant be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not otherwise connected or wanted in any other criminal case. In the result, this criminal appeal stands allowed. Send down the LCR forthwith. Appeal allowed.