B.D. Agarwal, J.- The appellant, herein, is the husband of the deceased. She had married the deceased only about % months prior to the incident. At the relevant time, the couple was staying in a rented house owned by PW-5. They had entered in the rented house just one day prior to the date of the incident. On 16.06.2001 at about 09:30 pm both the appellant and his wife were in the rented house and suddenly the deceased caught fire. She was taken to different hospitals but she did not survive. 2. The FIR was lodged on the next day by the brother of the deceased stating about the death of his sister due to burn injuries. At the same time, it was mentioned in the FIR that the accused was maintaining illicit relationship with another girl. This FIR was registered as Jorhat PS Case No. 234 of 2001, under Section 306 of the India Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, in short, 'IPQ. After the chargesheet and trial the appellant was once convicted under Section 306IPC vide judgment passed in this case by the same Court. The judgment of conviction was challenged by way of filing Criminal Appeal (J) No. 100 of 2006. The said appeal was decided on 28.02.2008 and the case was remanded back to the trial Court after denovo trial. On the basis of the earlier order, the witnesses were examined afresh and the impugned judgment has been passed convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC. 3. The accused has been convicted under Section 302 IPC on various incriminating circumstances. According to the learned Sessions Judge, at the relevant time the appellant was the only companion with his wife in the house and he did not make any serious effort to douse the fire. The learned Sessions Judge has also taken note of the fact that one empty jarican of kerosene oil and match box were also found in the room of the deceased. Besides this, the accused was also maintaining extra-marital relationship with another woman. On the basis of these circumstances, the judgment of conviction has been recorded. Being aggrieved with the conviction, the accused has preferred this appeal. 4. We have heard Sri. N.N.B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant. Since the appellant has engaged his own counsel we dispense with the services of the learned Amicus Curiae. On the basis of these circumstances, the judgment of conviction has been recorded. Being aggrieved with the conviction, the accused has preferred this appeal. 4. We have heard Sri. N.N.B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant. Since the appellant has engaged his own counsel we dispense with the services of the learned Amicus Curiae. Also heard Smt. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. We have also gone through the impugned judgment and the evidence on record. 5. The defence case was that the incident took place while the deceased was pouring kerosene oil in the stove from the gallon. However, no evidence in defence was tendered. 6. To establish the offence of murder the prosecution examined altogether 12 (twelve) witnesses. PWs-1 and 4 are the brothers of the deceased; PW-2 was the immediate neighbour of the accused as he is living in the same compound; PW-3 is the sister-in-law of the deceased being the wife of PW-4; PW-5 was also living in the same compound; PW-6 is the owner of the rented house. PW-7 is another independent witness; PW-8 is the person in whose house the accused was staying initially as a tenant; PW-9 is a witness of seizure of a stove, an empty jarican, kerosene lamp and match box vide Exhibit-2; PW-10 is an witness of inquest on the dead body; PW-11 is the Investigating Officer and PW-12 is the doctor who had conducted the autopsy. 7. The admitted fact is that the deceased died due to burn injuries. This fact has been confirmed by the doctor vide Exhibit-5. Durujig Post Mortem examination, he found dermo-epidermal burn injuries on the whole body, except on the scalp, soles of feet and vulva. Except giving his opinion that the woman died of ante-mortem flame burn injuries, the doctor did not give any opinion whether the death was homicidal or accidental and this aspect is to be examined from the oral testimony of the witnesses. 8. PW-1 got the news about the incident from his brother on the next morning. Then, he visited the house of his sister and met the owner of the house who reported to this witness that the fire had broken out from a stove. However, PW-1 has further deposed that a new stove was still found unused and it was kept in a carton. Then, he visited the house of his sister and met the owner of the house who reported to this witness that the fire had broken out from a stove. However, PW-1 has further deposed that a new stove was still found unused and it was kept in a carton. In the cross-examination, PW-1 has admitted that the accused had married his sister after dating with her for two years. At the same time, PW-1 has further deposed that once his sister had also complained that the accused was maintaining illicit relationship with one Kalpana. However, this woman was not examined by the prosecution to establish the fact of illicit relationship. 9. PW-2 has deposed that while he was watching television in the house of PW-5 he heard a scream and then he came out along with PW-5 and saw a fire ball in front of the room of the appellant. They were told by the accused that his wife has caught fire while lighting a stove. PW-2 has further deposed that she was set to fire and this incriminating statement was given while answering a query by the Court. However, in the earlier round of trial, PW-2 was totally silent about any such incriminating evidence against the accused. Contrary to that, PW-2 had deposed that the accused was shouting-”Burning! Burning!”- indicating that the accused himself got frightened because of the incident. PW-2 has also deposed that the accused had also accompanied the deceased wife to the hospital and reported about the incident to their family members on the very same night. 10. PW-4 is another brother of the deceased and PW-3 is the wife of PWT-4. Though they got the information on the same night but they could visit the place of occurrence only on the next morning due to inadequate transport facility. PWs-3 and 4 are basically witnesses to the seizure of some articles from the house of the accused. These two witnesses have not spoken anything about extra-marital relationship with any other woman or about any quarrel or difference in between the accused and his wife. 11. PW-5 was another neighbour of the accused and living in the same compound. This witness has deposed that suddenly he heard the outcries of the appellant shouting as “ Oh mother! Fire!” his testimony rules out the suspicion of killing the deceased. 11. PW-5 was another neighbour of the accused and living in the same compound. This witness has deposed that suddenly he heard the outcries of the appellant shouting as “ Oh mother! Fire!” his testimony rules out the suspicion of killing the deceased. Had it been so, the accused would not have shouted for help, rather he would have waited to see that the fire spreads the whole body. Hearing the screams of the appellant, PW-5 went out and found that the deceased had come out with fire on her body and she fell down in the verandah. Thereafter, PW-5 and other witnesses extinguished the fire and accused also brought one mattress and other clothes and covered the body of his wife to extinguish the fire. To this witness also, the accused told that the incident took place while the deceased was pouring oil in the stove. PW-5 has further deposed that though the deceased was not in a position to speak but somehow she enquired about her gold ornament, instead of charging her husband for the incident. 12. PW-6 is the owner of the house. He took initiatives to shift the victim in the hospital. At the same time, PW-7 has also corroborated PW-1 by deposing that only a new stove was lying inside a carton and no used stove was found in the room. The Investigating Officer had also seized one unused stove packed in a garden. Hence, the version of the accused that the deceased had caught fire while pouring kerosene oil in the stove is difficult to be believed. At the same time, the seizure list (Exhibit-2) also shows that the jarican was empty. In our opinion, if the version of the accused is believed then the Police Officer and other witnesses must have found some quantity of kerosene oil either in the jarican or in the stove. Since no quantity of kerosene oil was found in the room and since the autopsy doctor also found smell of kerosene on the dead body it is to be presumed that the kerosene oil was poured on the body of the deceased, may be, by the accused or by the deceased herself. In the cross-examination, PW-6 has admitted that the victim was capable to talk and despite that she did not cast any blame upon her husband. In the cross-examination, PW-6 has admitted that the victim was capable to talk and despite that she did not cast any blame upon her husband. In our considered opinion, in a case of homicidal burning the victim is expected to speak something against the offender in the form of dying declaration. However, in the instant case, there is no evidence of any oral or written dying declaration. This deficiency in the prosecution case goes in favour of the accused to hold that the deceased had committed suicide. 13. PWs-7 and 8 have spoken about the affair between the accused and the two girls. Other than the deceased Dipa the accused also had an affair with one Kalpana. It is true that PW-1 has spoken about illicit relationship with one Kalpana, but the prosecution did not examine the said woman. Contrary to that, the prosecution evidence is that the accused/appellant had married the deceased after having an affair for about two years. This fact also does not support the theory of committing murder of a newly-wed wife without any allegation of demand of dowry or any serious differences. If the deceased was at all disturbed due to extra-marital relationship of her husband with another lady she must have committed suicide but there is no evidence for any abetment to the suicide. 14. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that it is a fit case, wherein, benefit of doubt can be given to the appellant. 15. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed. The impugned judgment is hereby set aside. The appellant is hereby acquitted. The appellant is directed to be released from prison forthwith. 16. The Registry shall issue release order(s). Return the LCRs, along with a copy of this judgment.