Judgment K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. The appeal is admitted on 19.12.2011, and hearing was expedited. The appellants have assailed conviction recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge II, Ambejogai, in Sessions Case No. 74/2010, dated 15th Sept., 2011, convicting them for offense under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC, to suffer life imprisonment and, for offense punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. FACTS: a) Achyut was married to deceased Archana three and half years prior to the incident. She hailed from same village Mundewadi. The accused/appellants are sugarcane cutting labours. Accused no.2 Ashok is brother-in-law of Archana; accused No.3 Rahibai is mother and accused no.4 Nanabhai, father of Achut. The prosecution case is, these accused treated well to Smt. Archana after her marriage for two years. She delivered premature baby after eight months. The accused ill-treated Archana branding her to be infertile (Vanzoti). Five days prior to the incident, accused had thrashed her by handle of axe. Sahebrao, parental uncle of deceased Archana, wanted to lodge a report to the Police, however, accused nos. 2, 3 and 4 implored not to do so and assured to behave properly with Archana. The matter was resolved at the intervention of Anusaya Gholve, Bhimrao Munde, and Pralhad Munde. b) On 6.6.2010, at 7 to 8 a.m., accused were quarreling. Consequently, Kalpana, sister of Archana, informed Sahebrao. They rushed to the spot. Accused were beating Archana. At that time, Rahibai asked Sahebrao and others to go away. Said incident was narrated by Kalpana to cousin Bajirao. Sahebrao was sitting nearby a Neem tree infront of huts. He noticed fire at the house of the accused and accused nos. 1 to 4 running away from the hut. Huts of Achut, Ashok and Nanabhau were gutted in extensive fire, including cow sheds, the houses turned into ash and coal. Police was informed, their arrival followed with fire brigade. The fire was extinguished with relentless efforts. Dead body of Archana was found lying facing sky. She suffered 95 per cent bums with charred body, deep bums, penetrating to the extent of bone. c) Spot panchnama, inquest panchnama was drawn. Investigating Officer (PW 8), Inder Mohan Bahure, recorded statements of the witnesses. The fire was extinguished with relentless efforts. Dead body of Archana was found lying facing sky. She suffered 95 per cent bums with charred body, deep bums, penetrating to the extent of bone. c) Spot panchnama, inquest panchnama was drawn. Investigating Officer (PW 8), Inder Mohan Bahure, recorded statements of the witnesses. After inquest, dead body was referred for post mortem and on completion of investigation, final report under Section 173 of Cr. P.C. was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Kaij. d) Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kaij, committed the case by following procedure under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. e) Charge was explained to the accused and their plea was recorded below Exhs.13, 14, 15 and 16. The accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried. The defense of the accused is, Archana died accidentally owing to burns caused to the temporary huts on account of flare from earthen oven (hearth). The accused canvassed that there was no behavioural ill-treatment to annoy Archana. Archana had delivered a baby during first year of marriage; twice thereafter she had conceived but pregnancy was terminated. On the date of incident dt. 6.6.2010, she was not keeping well due to severe menstrual period pains. Her husband Achut served her milk. She was sleeping. The accused nos. 1, 2 and 4 had left home to the house of Sudam Gholve for procuring wages as they had dug his well. Rahibai had left for fetching water. Archana was alone and unfortunate fire accidentally took place. Accused attempted to extinguish the fire but due to water scarcity and drought, could not succeed. This has been witnessed by several villagers. Appellants have lost all their belongings. Achut and Archana were staying in a hut and other relations were separately residing in cluster of huts. 3. In order to establish guilt of accused, prosecution has examined following eight witnesses. PW No.1 Sahebrao Vishwaath Gholwe is informer and uncle of deceased Archana. PW No.2 Kalpana Bhimrao Gholve is sister of deceased Archana. PW No.3 Bajirao Bhanudas Gholve is nephew of Sahebrao. PW No.4 Rajkumar snapped photographs, PW No.5 Gyandeo was panch to the spot panchnama, PW No.6 Dr.Nandkumar Sadashiv Neharkar conducted post mortem on the dead body of Archana on 6.6.2010. PW No.7 Meghana Mukinda Gholve is Panch for inquest. 4. PW No.2 Kalpana Bhimrao Gholve is sister of deceased Archana. PW No.3 Bajirao Bhanudas Gholve is nephew of Sahebrao. PW No.4 Rajkumar snapped photographs, PW No.5 Gyandeo was panch to the spot panchnama, PW No.6 Dr.Nandkumar Sadashiv Neharkar conducted post mortem on the dead body of Archana on 6.6.2010. PW No.7 Meghana Mukinda Gholve is Panch for inquest. 4. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused /appellants for offense punishable under Sections 435, 436 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC. 5. The settled position is, infirmities in prosecution case may lead into acquittal, however, such infirmities should be vital. In the event of grave charge, inviting imprisonment for life, the standard of proof and care of its assessment is wide. Based on suspicion, there cannot be a conviction. 6. If the oral testimony of the witnesses is inconsistent, shrouded with improvements and in conflict with medical evidence, its benefit will shower to the accused. If prosecution keeps under wrappers independent witnesses, testimony of solitary and interested eye witness should be analyzed with caution. If direct evidence is in conflict with expert's evidence and if the evidence is wanting in most material part of the prosecution case, the conviction would be difficult. 7. The evidence of PW No.1 Sahebrao, PW No.2 Kalpana and PW No.3 Bajirao taken together, explains that the accused / appellants belong to a weaker financial section of the society whereas financial strata of PW No.1 Sahebrao or parents of Archana was much higher. One of brother of Sahebrao has shifted from Mundewadi to Beed and his two sons are well placed; one of them is in legal profession. Thus, it emerges, Sahebrao and his family members were in a dominating position and Archana's marriage with Achyut was under compulsion by way of settlement as her parents, unfortunately, had expired of a communicable and deadly disease. Achut was already married his wife had deserted but, still, Sahebrao chose to get Archana married with him. This flashback of events has a pivotal role in appreciation. 8. The evidence eloquently failed to establish mischief by the appellants to ignite huts by fire, and to cause damage, resulting in acquittal under Section 435, 436 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC. This flashback of events has a pivotal role in appreciation. 8. The evidence eloquently failed to establish mischief by the appellants to ignite huts by fire, and to cause damage, resulting in acquittal under Section 435, 436 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC. Panchnama of spot Exh.34 drawn at 10.30 to 11.30 a.m. established by PW No.5 Gyandeo illustrate that Gyandeo resides at Mundewadi situate at northern side of the village. He had, indeed, noticed the houses in flames. His statement to this effect was not recorded. He did not inform in statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that he had seen dead body of Archana near a wooden pole. The spot panchnama at Exh.34 shows that hut of each of the accused was 10 x 10 feet with food-grain straw (KUDACHYA). Even in the fire house of Nanabhau Gambhire was also gutted apart from animal sheds. This particularly established that fire at particular moment was not a deliberate act; it was a natural phenomenon, rather outcome of an accident. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, while analyzing the evidence, has, indeed, tuned to bank upon, that the appellants were not author of the fire. 9. PW No.8 Bahure, on receiving message, had been to spot at Mundewadi at 9 a.m. from Kaij Police Station. He too noticed the burnt houses, cow shed and body of deceased Archana. He prepared spot panchnama (Exh.34) and inquest Panchnama (Exh.43) and FIR of Sahebrao (Exh.48) was recorded. It has been established in the evidence that owing to the fire, accused nos. 1, 2 and 4 have sustained loss of Rs.40,000/- each. The houses were burnt to ashes. It is, indeed, an admitted position, Achut was residing with Archana in different hut than other accused. There could not be a concert between the accused to eliminate Archana in the manner the prosecution propounded and the learned Judge accepted. 10. PW No.5 Gyandeo resides at northern side of village Mundewadi and on 6.6.2010 he was standing infront of his house. He saw the fire. He has also seen dead body of Archana lying in the house of the accused. The partitioned wall of the huts were of dry grass with a tin sheet roof. PW No.5 apparently was interested witness being son-in-law of Suryabhan, paternal uncle of Archana. He saw the fire. He has also seen dead body of Archana lying in the house of the accused. The partitioned wall of the huts were of dry grass with a tin sheet roof. PW No.5 apparently was interested witness being son-in-law of Suryabhan, paternal uncle of Archana. He could not be a nearby resident to the house of the accused as there is a road in front of his house leading to Kaij; while, Maruti temple is at a distance on Ambejogai Court hall and front road. It was, thus, clear that there was no occasion for PW No.5 to see the events in the house of the accused by remaining at his house, which is away. He was a witness to spot panchnama (Exh.34), remained at the spot till 2.30 p.m., and certainly travelled beyond his limits. He accepts in cross examination that he did not tell Police of seeing dead body of Archana near wooden pole. 11. PW No.1 Sahebrao, PW No.2 Kalpana, PW No.3 Bajirao though have recorded evidence of ill-treatment or taunting Archana on her status to be infertile, however, factually this is incorrect as Archana had conceived and, unfortunately, there was miscarriage on two/three occasions. The theory of extending cruelty by other accused again does not match to the situation as the couple was residing separately. The evidence in respect of cruelty and harassment was as vague as it could be which could not be relied upon for basing a conviction against the appellants. There was no evidence of alleged mental or physical cruelty to the deceased. The hearsay evidence, to which the learned Judge has discussed, could not be so done in legal frame. The evidence of PW Nos. 1 to 3 was associated with more improvements and omissions. These omissions in statements of witnesses were indeed proved from evidence of investigating officer Shri Bahure. 12. Sahebrao states that at around 7 to 8 a.m., he heard commotion or, rather quarrel at the huts of the accused which is practicably inconceivable as his house and that of the accused are at far off. He is claiming to have witnessed the quarrel or appellant beating Archana is again thrashed as he asserted that he was sitting near a Neem tree, near a temple, infront of the house of the accused. He is claiming to have witnessed the quarrel or appellant beating Archana is again thrashed as he asserted that he was sitting near a Neem tree, near a temple, infront of the house of the accused. Any prudent person like Sahebrao will not allow his niece to be thrashed and, remaining seated with folded hands across the road near a tree. Spot panchnama belies theory of Sahebrao standing near the tree as witnesses have accepted; there is no Neem tree in the vicinity of the houses or the huts of the accused / appellants. The theory of witnessing the appellants running away from their houses is again an improvement, not to be seen in statement under Section 161 Cr.P.c. Such omission was brought on record. PW No.2 also improved her version than what she stated in statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. If she could see Achut, mother-in-law Rahibai, Archana, she could have intervened, however, she did not. These events are wanting in statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. None of the witness states Archana was first killed and then huts were later set at fire. 13. PW No.6 Dr. Nandkumar Neharkar carried post mortem on dead body of Archana who was burnt 95 per cent. According to him, the cause of death of Archana was shock due to 95 per cent burns. In post mortem notes (Exh.37), he has stated that burn injury on the body could be accidental as it depends on circumstances. He accepted, in Column No.21, at Exh.37, the whitiest fluid noticed could be milk. This endorses the theory of Achut that since his wife was not keeping well, he had served her milk and she was sleeping. In post mortem notes, it is stated that the injuries were ante mortem. In column No.20, it is indicated that larynx, trachea and bronchi were noticed to be intact. Soot particles mixed with mucosa present. Mucosa congested. Her heart was congested, contained fluid, blood and blood clots. This indicates that, at the time of fire to the hut, Archana was alive; otherwise, there could not be presence of soot particles in her larynx / bronchi. Evidence of PW No.6 and post mortem notes, referred to above, illustrate that there could not be a killing of Archana by setting the huts ablaze. 14. PW No.5 Dnyandeo even saw people extinguishing fire but no independent person has come forward. Evidence of PW No.6 and post mortem notes, referred to above, illustrate that there could not be a killing of Archana by setting the huts ablaze. 14. PW No.5 Dnyandeo even saw people extinguishing fire but no independent person has come forward. Conduct of Sahebrao, PW No.1, remaining at Neem tree which, indeed, did not exist, and allowing thrashing Archana, defies logic. PW No.2 Kalpana did not witness any previous incident. She could not address about five days prior events. If theory of any event occurred five days prior, as PW No.1 suggests is to be accepted, Anusayabai or Pralhad Munde, who had intervened, and pacified, are not examined. It is brought on record, at the time of fire, wind blew fast, and so, the fire could not be controlled with the help of fire extinguisher or by water. There is no evidence from PW Nos.1 and 2 of witnessing Archana to be assaulted by any of the accused. None of the witness disclosed that it was the accused who set the huts on fire. Indeed, charge under Section 436 of IPC is not proved for which appellants are acquitted. 15. The infirmities and deformities in the evidence where sentence is life, if convicted, calls for close scrutiny and should not be acted upon as minor omissions. These are not minor discrepancies with insignificant consequences. It is well established, graver the charge, standard of proof should be greater. Mere suspicion will not lead to conviction of an accused. The acquittal for offense under Sections 435, 436 or for offense under Section 201 of IPC, for causing disappearance of evidence, would certainly indicate that Archana's death was by accident and could not be by a mischief encouraged and activated by the appellants to eliminate her to cause homicidal death amounting to murder. 16. The witnesses have gone to the extent of embroidering a story of existence of a wooden pole in the hut and Archana having seen tied to it but in the spot panchnama there were no traces of wooden pole or any rope nor such pole was at all seen; least trace of any rope, either burnt or its ashes or its impact on the dead body of deceased Archana. PW 5 had to accept, he did not notice wooden pole nor Archana lying nearby. PW 5 had to accept, he did not notice wooden pole nor Archana lying nearby. These theories were developed with a fertile mind to ensure conviction of appellants for untimely death of Archana. Indeed, death of Archana was sad; but, it was an accident, and could not be a volitional act of the appellants. No sane person will burn adjoining huts to eliminate Archana, when she resided with Achut. The observations of the learned Judge, "The deterrent effect should pass message in the society for future life of the women and womenhood in this nation" and "In order to consider public interest about faith of justice in atrocities against women, greater punishment need to be awarded to accused nos.1 to 4. Considering the proposition and magnitude and gravity of the offense life sentence to accused nos. 1 to 4 will mitigate the hardship" (paras 67 and 64 of the judgment) demonstrates that the learned Judge was more convinced on moral grounds than the evidence and circumstances. The witnesses have developed theory of burning Archana, betraying actual situation. It was drought, scarcity of water and neither villagers nor accused could do anything except look on with hapless mired eyes. 17. Appeal succeeds. Criminal Appeal (No. 565/2011) is allowed. Conviction and sentence recorded in Sessions Case No.74/2010, dated 15.9.2011 by learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Ambejogai, against the appellants is set aside. The appellants/accused are acquitted of the charge. Fine amount, if deposited, be refunded. Appellant/accused No.1 Achut Nanabhau Gambhire be released, if not required in any other case. Bail bonds of appellants/accused nos. 2 Ashok Nanabhau Gambhire, No 3 Rahibai w/o Nanabhau Gambhire and No.4 Nanabhau Madhav Gambhire stand cancelled. Appeal allowed.