Judgment H.B. Antani, J.—Instant appeal preferred under Section 374[2] of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“Code” for short], is directed against the judgment and order dated 30th June, 2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Amreli, in Sessions Case No. 20 of 2003, convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for 2 years. 2. Short facts giving rise to the present appeal are stated as under:— 3. Appellant got married as per Hindu rites with deceased Rekha, daughter of Jaskubhai Suragbhai before three years from the date of the incident which took place on 10.3.2003. The marriage between the appellant and the deceased was quite happy and they had cordial relationship. However, after some time, the deceased was not treated well and subjected to mental and physical cruelty for not bringing sufficient dowry. She narrated to her parents the mental and physical cruelty inflicted on her by the original accused No. 3. The incident in question took place on 10.3.2003 at about 5.00 a.m. The deceased received serious burn injuries in the early morning. A complaint was given by the deceased on 10.3.2003. On the strength of the complaint given by the deceased, investigation was set in motion. As the deceased was admitted in the hospital, Deputy Mamlatdar was called for recording dying declaration of deceased Rekha and the dying declaration was recorded on 10.3.2003. In view of the statement given by the deceased, a case was registered against the appellant and other three accused persons. Investigating Officer recorded statement of the first informant Jaskubhai Suragbhai-father of deceased Rekhaben. Place of the incident was visited and panchnama in respect thereof was prepared in presence of the panch witnesses and the appellant and other accused persons were arrested. Post-mortem on the dead body of deceased Rekha was carried out. On receipt of the post-mortem report and other material, the appellant along with other three accused persons were charge-sheeted and produced before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class at Dhari, who, in turn, committed the case to the Sessions Court under Section 209 of the Code as the case was exclusively Triable by the Court of Session. On receipt of the post-mortem report and other material, the appellant along with other three accused persons were charge-sheeted and produced before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class at Dhari, who, in turn, committed the case to the Sessions Court under Section 209 of the Code as the case was exclusively Triable by the Court of Session. Charge against the appellant and other accused persons was framed vide Exh.1 and the appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge levelled against him. Therefore, the matter was set down for full-fledged trial before the learned Sessions Judge. 4. The prosecution adduced following oral evidence in order to prove involvement of the appellant in the commission of offence. P.W. Name of Witness Exh. PW 1 Jaskubhai Suragbhai 10 PW 2 Dr.Pinakin Ranchhodbhai Patel 11 PW 3 Rajnikant Vrujlal Adhiya 16 PW 4 Dilubhai Valerabhai 18 PW 5 Parshotambhai Dayabhai 20 PW 6 Bhikhubhai Karsanbhai Parmar 22 PW 7 Kalubhai Bhagvanbhai Parmar 31 PW 8 Makubha Ranubha Gohil 34 5. Prosecution produced the following documentary evidence in order to bring home the guilt against the appellant and other accused persons:— Sr. No. Nature of document Exh. 1 Complaint given by Rekhaben 23 2 Yadi sent by Medical Officer, Amreli to PSI, Amreli. 24 3 Report sent to P.S.O., Chalala by P.S.O. Amreli City. 25 4 Panchnama of the scene of the incident of place. 26 5 Report of F.S.L. Regarding place of incident. 27 6 Certificate issued by Medical Officer, Amreli. 28 7 Receipt of dead body issued by Dilubhai Valerabhai. 19 8 Arrest panchnama of Manuben Punjabhai and Ramjuben Punjabhai. 30 9 Arrest panchnama of Jayrajbhai Punjbhai and Punjbhai Lakhabhai. 21 10 P.M. Report. 13 11 Map of place of incident prepared by Circle Inspector, Chalala. 32 12 Receipt of Muddamal issued by Chemical Analyzer. 33 6. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge recorded further statement of the appellant and other accused persons under Section 313 of the Code. The appellant stated that he was falsely implicated in the commission of offence under Section 302 read with Section 201 of IPC and a false case was foisted on him. 7. The learned Judge, on the basis of the oral depositions and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution held that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing that deceased Rekha died a homicidal death. 7. The learned Judge, on the basis of the oral depositions and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution held that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing that deceased Rekha died a homicidal death. The deposition adduced by P.W. 1 Jaskubhai Suragbhai vide Exh.10 was accepted by the learned Sessions Judge in convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. However, the learned Judge acquitted other accused persons, namely, original accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 from the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 201 of IPC. The learned Judge held that the prosecution, on the basis of the oral depositions and documentary evidence, has established the entire link connecting the appellant with the commission of offence. The deposition adduced by P.W. 1 Jaskubhai Suragbhai vide Exh.10 was trustworthy and reliable and, therefore, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. The learned Judge further held that although the complaint given by deceased Rekhaben vide Exh.23 and the dying declaration recorded by P.W. 3 Rajnikant Vrajlal did not indicate involvement of the appellant in the commission of offence, but oral dying declaration given by the deceased Rekhaben before her father-P.W. 1 is sufficient to convict the appellant and to punish him under Section 302 of IPC and therefore, the learned Judge convicted the appellant for the said offence. 8. Ms. Sona Sagar with Ms. Bharti H. Rana appearing on behalf of Mr. Anil S. Dave, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the order of conviction passed by the learned Judge is based on the deposition Exh.10 adduced by P.W. 1 Jaskubhai Suragbhai. Learned Advocate submitted that save and except the deposition of the father of deceased Rekhaben, there is nothing on record to indicate involvement of the appellant in the commission of offence and, therefore, the appellant cannot be convicted solely on the basis of the deposition adduced by P.W. 1 Jaskubhai Suragbhai vide Exh.10. Learned Advocate submitted that deceased Rekha gave complaint vide Exh.23, wherein, she stated that some unknown person had entered the house on the date of the incident, poured kerosene on her clothes and set her ablaze. She does not indicate involvement of either appellant or any of the other accused persons in the commission of offence. Learned Advocate submitted that deceased Rekha gave complaint vide Exh.23, wherein, she stated that some unknown person had entered the house on the date of the incident, poured kerosene on her clothes and set her ablaze. She does not indicate involvement of either appellant or any of the other accused persons in the commission of offence. The complaint given by deceased Rekha gets further corroboration from the deposition adduced by P.W. 3 Rajnikant Vrujlal vide Exh.16. He is the Deputy Mamlatdar who recorded dying declaration of deceased Rekha. In his deposition, he has stated the manner in which the incident took place as narrated by deceased Rekha and on perusal of his deposition, it becomes clear that the deceased had not indicated involvement of the appellant in the commission of offence. Likewise, on perusal of the dying declaration recorded by the Deputy Mamlatdar which is produced vide Exh.17, it becomes clear that there was no involvement of the appellant in the commission of offence. Learned Advocate submitted that when there are two sets of evidence, then, in such circumstances, one set of evidence which is in favour of the appellant [accused] requires to be accepted and the appellant be acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. 9. Learned APP Ms. Chetna Shah representing the State submitted that P.W. 1 Jaskubhai Suragbhai, father of deceased Rekha stated in his deposition recorded vide Exh.10 about the involvement of the appellant in commission of the offence and therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve or discard the deposition adduced by him. Nothing turns out from the cross-examination of P.W. 1 Jaskubhai Suragbhai so as to dislodge his version given in his examination in chief. Learned APP submitted that Jaskubhai Suragbhai had no axe to grind against the appellant so as to falsely implicate him in the commission of offence and therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the version given by P.W. 1 Jaskubhai Suragbhai vide Exh.10. Learned APP submitted that the deposition Exh.10 given by P.W. 1 Jaskubhai Suragbhai gets necessary corroboration in the form of deposition Exh.11 of P.W. 2 Dr. Pinakin Ranchhodbhai and post-mortem report given by the doctor vide Exh.13. Panchnama of the scene of incident vide Exh. 26 further corroborates the prosecution story about involvement of the appellant in the commission of offence. Pinakin Ranchhodbhai and post-mortem report given by the doctor vide Exh.13. Panchnama of the scene of incident vide Exh. 26 further corroborates the prosecution story about involvement of the appellant in the commission of offence. Learned APP placed heavy reliance on the reasoning given by the learned Judge while convicting the appellant and submitted that the learned Judge has assigned sufficient reasons while convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Learned APP therefore submitted that there is no reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned Judge and as the appeal is devoid of merits, the same deserves to be dismissed. 10. We have heard learned Advocate Ms. Sona Sagar with Ms. Bharti H. Rana, appearing for the appellant and Ms. Chetna Shah, learned APP representing the State at length and in great detail. We have also perused the reasoning given by the learned Judge in convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. We have reappreciated and reevaluated the evidence on record of the case. 11. The incident in question, as per the prosecution case took place on 10.3.2003 at 5.00 O’clock in the morning in the house of the appellant. The deceased sustained burn injuries in the incident. As soon as deceased Rekha sustained burn injuries, she was immediately rushed to the hospital where she gave complaint on 10.3.03, wherein, she narrated as to in what manner the incident took place and how unknown person came to her house in the morning, poured kerosene on her clothes and set her ablaze. The prosecution, in order to establish the involvement of the appellant in the commission of offence has examined as many as 8 witnesses and produced documentary evidence. Father of deceased Rekha, i.e. P.W. 1 Jaskubhai Suragbhai is examined vide Exh.10. He has deposed in his testimony about the manner in which the incident took place in the house of his daughter Rekhaben. In para-4 of the deposition adduced by him, he has stated that deceased had told him that the appellant took deceased Rekha from the bedroom to kitchen by dragging her and thereafter she could not see as to who had poured kerosene on her clothes and who had set her ablaze. We have also perused cross-examination of this material witness P.W. 1 Jaskubhai Suragbhai, but nothing turns out from his cross-examination. P.W. 2 Dr. We have also perused cross-examination of this material witness P.W. 1 Jaskubhai Suragbhai, but nothing turns out from his cross-examination. P.W. 2 Dr. Pinakin Ranchhodbhai has been examined vide Exh.11. He performed post-mortem on the dead body of deceased Rekha. He has narrated the internal injuries and external injuries sustained by the deceased. Detailed Post-mortem note is also produced by the doctor, wherein, in Col.No.23, cause of the death is mentioned as “shock due to burn”. P.W. 3 Rajnikant Vrajlal has been examined vide Exh.16. He was working as Deputy Mamlatdar on 10.3.2003. He was called to record dying declaration of deceased Rekha. When he reached at the hospital, he had ascertained from the doctor as to whether patient was in fit mental state and condition to record dying declaration. When the doctor replied in the affirmative, he recorded the dying declaration of Rekhaben. He has further deposed that the deceased had narrated the incident, wherein, it was mentioned that some unknown person visited her house, poured kerosene on her clothes and set her on fire. Thereafter, she was admitted in the hospital. Dying declaration which was given by deceased Rekha is produced vide Exh.17, wherein, she has narrated as to how she was admitted in the hospital after sustaining burn injuries. She has further stated that some unknown person came to her house when all the family members were fast asleep and he took her from the bedroom to kitchen, poured kerosene on her clothes and set her ablaze. P.W. 4 Dilubhai Valerabhai has been examined vide Exh.18, but he does not indicate involvement of the appellant in commission of the offence. P.W. 5 Parsottam Daya is examined vide Exh.20. He is one of the panch witnesses who has turned hospital and not supported the prosecution case. P.W. 6 Bhikhubhai Karsanbhai has been examined vide Exh.22. He has deposed in his testimony that he was on duty in Civil Hospital Police Chocky from 20.00 hrs on 9.3.03 to 8.00 O’clock in the morning of 10.3.03. On 10.3.03, at about 7.30 a.m. in the morning, he had received Yadi from the Medical Officer and when the statement of deceased Rekha was taken, she had narrated in her statement that some unknown person had visited her house and after taking her to the kitchen, poured kerosene on her clothes and set her ablaze. On 10.3.03, at about 7.30 a.m. in the morning, he had received Yadi from the Medical Officer and when the statement of deceased Rekha was taken, she had narrated in her statement that some unknown person had visited her house and after taking her to the kitchen, poured kerosene on her clothes and set her ablaze. The complaint given by deceased Rekha was taken down as per her say and thereafter, thumb impression of Rekha was taken below the same. P.W. 8 Makhubha Ranubha is examined vide Exh.34. He had registered the offence against the appellant and other accused persons and arrested them in connection with the offence. He also recorded the statement of the witnesses and at the conclusion of the trial, chargesheet was filed against the appellant. 12. We have perused inquest panchnama, panchnama of place of incident and other documentary evidence etc. Considering the entire gamut of the oral deposition and the documentary evidence, it becomes clear that the appellant came to be convicted solely on the basis of the deposition of P.W. 1 Jaskubhai Suragbhai vide Exh.10. Even on perusal of deposition of Jaskubhai Suragbhai, it becomes clear that there was no direct involvement of the appellant in the commission of offence. Complaint given by deceased Rekha vide Exh.23 does not indicate involvement of the appellant in commission of the offence. We have perused the deposition given by P.W. 3 Rajnikant Vrajlal Exh.16 and the dying declaration Exh.17, wherein, deceased Rekha does not indicate the involvement of the appellant in the commission of offence. However, learned Judge, in our considered view committed an error in convicting the appellant solely on the basis of the deposition adduced by P.W. 1 Jaskubhai Suragbhai vide Exh.10. The evidence adduced by the prosecution bristles with contradictions and when there are two sets of evidence before the Court, it becomes the duty of the Court to weigh that evidence with extra care and caution. If the depositions adduced by the prosecution are perused in their true perspective, then, the prosecution, in our view, has not established the entire link connecting the appellant with the commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and therefore, it would be hazardous to convict the appellant only on the basis of the deposition adduced by P.W. 1 Jaskubhai Suragbhai vide Exh.10. It is pertinent to note that even though there is ample evidence with regard to mental and physical cruelty inflicted on the deceased, yet no charge is framed under Section 498-A of IPC against the appellant and other accused persons. Be that as it may. However, considering the overall evidence on the record of the case, the prosecution, has miserably failed to establish the involvement of the appellant in commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC by adducing cogent and conclusive evidence and as there are many chinks in the armour of the prosecution case, benefit of the same is required to be given to the appellant. 13. For the foregoing reasons, appeal is allowed and the judgment and order dated 30th June, 2003 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Amreli in Sessions Case No. 20 of 2003 convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and imposing rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for 2 years, is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if he is not required in any other case. Muddamal articles shall be disposed of in terms of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge.