JUDGMENT : A.K. Shrivastava, J.: - Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.4.2002 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Sessions Trial No. 527/2001, con­victing appellant under Section 302, IPC and thereby sentencing him to suffer life imprison­ment and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, further RI of 3 months, this appeal has been preferred by appellant under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. In brief the case of prosecution is that the then Station Officer Incharge of Police Sta­tion, Madhoganj namely S.P. Singh received an information at near about 7 p.m. that in the house of appellant located at Apaganj fire flames are coming out. This information was received on telephone, as a result of which, Station Officer Incharge arrived at the spot and found that from one room of the ground floor of appellant's house smoke was coming out and several persons were assembled near the house. That room was caught by fire and it was found to be bolted from inside. A panchnama of breaking the door was prepared and thereafter investigating agency entered in­side the room and they found that the appel­lant was lying at the door and have sustained burn injuries, while his wife Smt. Radha (hererinafter referred to as the 'deceased') was lying dead in burnt condition. The appellant who was seriously injured and having bum in-juries was sent to the hospital immediately. Thereafter on the report of Mullo Bai (PW/6) who is mother-in-law of the deceased a Marg intimation was registered on the basis of which Dehati Nalishi was also registered. 3. After the investigation was over, a charge-sheet was submitted in the committal Court alleging that appellant has committed the of­fence under Sections 306/201 and 304-B, IPC. The learned committal Court committed the case to the Court of Session and from where it was received by the Trial Court for the trial. 4. The learned Trial Judge did not frame any charge under Section 304-B, IPC against the appellant. However, on the basis of the alle­gations made in the charge-sheet framed charge punishable under Section 302 and in the alternative 306, IPC against the appellant which he denied and requested for the trial. 5. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined its witnesses and also proved certain documents which are placed on record. However, on the basis of the alle­gations made in the charge-sheet framed charge punishable under Section 302 and in the alternative 306, IPC against the appellant which he denied and requested for the trial. 5. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined its witnesses and also proved certain documents which are placed on record. The defence of appellant is of false implication and the same defence he set forth in his statement recorded under Section 313, Cr. P.C. However, in support of his defence he did not choose to examine any witness. 6. Learned Trial Judge on the basis of evi­dence placed on record came to hold that charge under Section 306, IPC is not proved and eventually acquitted the appellant from that charge. However, on the basis of evidence placed on record, the learned Trial Court came to hold that the appellant has committed the offence under Section 302, IPC and, accordingly, convicted and passed the sentence against him which we have mentioned herein-above. 7. In this manner, this appeal has been filed by the appellant assailing his judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 8. It has been put forth by learned counsel for the appellant that in the present case appellant himself was found hi the room which was bolted from inside and if that would be the position, it can be inferred that he and the deceased tried to commit suicide because appellant himself was having burn injuries and he was unconscious. It has been further propounded by learned counsel that had there been any intention of appellant to kill his own wife like an uxoricide, he would not have re­main present in the room and would have bolted the room from inside, and immediately he would have ran away from the place of occurrence after killing the deceased. Since, the appellant himself received burn injuries and he was lying in unconscious condition inside the room, therefore, it can be inferred that both of them tried to commit suicide. 9. On the other hand, Shri Bhadoriya learned Public Prosecutor for respondent/State argued in support of the impugned judgment. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the par-ties, we are of the considered view that this appeal deserves to be allowed. 11. In the present case, dead body of the deceased was found inside the room and ap­pellant was also found in the same room. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the par-ties, we are of the considered view that this appeal deserves to be allowed. 11. In the present case, dead body of the deceased was found inside the room and ap­pellant was also found in the same room. He was unconscious and having burn injuries. Immediately from the spot he was sent to the hospital. But, for the reasons best known to the prosecution the MLC report of the appel­lant was not submitted along with charge-sheet and the doctor who medically examined him, was also not examined in the Trial Court. 12. On going through the testimony of the autopsy surgeon Dr. V. S. Tomar (P W/10), we find that the deceased was having first and second degree burns present over the ante­rior aspect of abdomen. Second degree burns were present over the face and anterior as­pect of chest-breast. First and second degree burns present over left shoulder joint. Blisters were present over these burn areas. The Au­topsy Surgeon further found ante-mortem liga­ture mark present over the neck above the thyroid cartilage anteriorly breadth was found to be 2 cm and on left side it goes obliquely upwards and backwards and meet in mark of knot which was situated on left mastoid re­gion 3 cm & 2.5 cm on right side it goes ob­liquely upward and backward posteriorly. The Autopsy Surgeon further found carbon soot in the trachea. According to Autopsy Surgeon the death has been caused due to asphysia as a result of constriction of neck. The Autopsy Surgeon further opined that chemical report of viscera and circumstantial evidences must be taken into consideration. On going through the testimony of the Autopsy Surgeon we find that the deceased had died on account of asphyxia and she also received burn injuries which were ante-mortem. 13. Admittedly, as per the case of prosecu­tion, the appellant was lying unconscious in­side the room where the incident took place and he too was having burn injuries. The Ap­pellant was immediately shifted to be hospital from the place of occurrence. It is a matter of common parlance, that if the appellant would have killed his own wife, certainly he would not have remain present inside the room, which was found to be bolted from inside. The Ap­pellant was immediately shifted to be hospital from the place of occurrence. It is a matter of common parlance, that if the appellant would have killed his own wife, certainly he would not have remain present inside the room, which was found to be bolted from inside. The Su­preme Court in the case of P. Mani vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2006 (3) 161 has held that if a bride is found burnt in a room which is bolted from inside, it is a case of suicide. In the present case, admittedly the door of the room where the incident took place was borken by the in­vestigating agency and Panchnama (Ex.P/10) was prepared in that regard. 14. There is no other evidence on record. The other material witnesses were declared hostile and have not supported the case of Prosecution. 15. Hence according to us, the appellant is entitled for the benefit of doubt. 16. Resultantly this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned Trial Court is hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted from the charge under Section 302, IPC. The Appellant is in Jail, he be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.