JUDGMENT : Jaishree Thakur, J. By order dated 5.5.2015, this Court granted the application preferred by the State of Rajasthan to have leave to appeal the judgment dated 12.8.2014 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Merta. By the judgment aforesaid the trial court acquitted accused respondent Ali Sher from the charge relating to commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. 2. In brief, facts of the case are that on 12.3.2013 at 05:45 PM an oral statement made by Smt. Ramjana wife of Ali Sher, aged 23 years, was reduced in writing by Shri Bhanwarlal, Assistant Sub Inspector, Police Station Gotan in presence of treating doctor Shri Deepak Choudhary at Community Health Centre, Gotan. The statement made by Smt. Ramjana reads as under :- "My marriage was solemnized with Ali Sher son of Kalu Khan Saai, resident of Harsolav. After staying with in-laws for about 2-3 years I went to my maternal house. My husband Ali Sher used to beat me, therefore, I remained at my maternal house for five years. About one year earlier I was brought to my in-laws house and since then I was with my in-laws. Now from two days my husband is quarrelling with me and two days earlier I brought medicine from Jodhpur. Today too I brought medicines from Jodhpur and since then my husband was quarrelling with me. My husband told me to go and die, he then put me in fire by pouring kerosene on me. I received burns due to that. I am having no children. My husband use to harass and torture me everyday. This incident occurred at 05:00 PM." 3. On basis of the statement aforesaid a case was lodged against accused Ali Sher for an offence punishable under Section 307 Indian Penal Code. Smt. Ramjana during the course of treatment died on 13.3.2013 at 06:36 AM, thus, the investigation was initiated for an offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. During the course of investigation corpus of deceased Ramjana was subjected to an autopsy and the report of same is available on record as Ex.P/19. As per document Ex.P/19 cause of death was shock as a result of extensive dry flame burns, antemortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course. The autopsy was made by a board consisting of three doctors viz. Dr. H.L. Bairwa, Dr. As per document Ex.P/19 cause of death was shock as a result of extensive dry flame burns, antemortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course. The autopsy was made by a board consisting of three doctors viz. Dr. H.L. Bairwa, Dr. Rajani Lakhotiya and Dr. Ajay Purohit. The investigating officer after completing the investigation submitted a police report before the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Merta City on 13.4.2013. The case being sessions triable was committed to the court of Sessions. Learned Sessions court after providing an opportunity of hearing to the accused, framed a charge against him for commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. The accused denied the same and demanded trial. During the course of trial testimony of seven prosecution witnesses was examined and several documents were exhibited. An opportunity was also given to the accused to explain the adverse and incriminating circumstances existing against him in prosecution evidence. The accused while pleading his innocence did not choose to produce any evidence in defence. 4. Learned trial court by referring the evidence available on record arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution failed to produce any evidence that may be sufficient to held the accused guilty for the charge and acquitted him accordingly. 5. In appeal, learned Public Prosecutor while pressing this appeal urged that the entire trial in the instant matter has been conducted in most casual manner and the trial Judge failed to conduct the effective and fair trial to the extent that the most relevant and material evidence was not even called for. He asserted that a bare perusal of the judgment impugned discloses very negligent attitude of the trial court in dealing with the trial pertaining to a serious offence of murder. 6. Learned counsel for accused Ali Sher on the other hand submits that the trial court examined the entire evidence available on record and after adequate appreciation for the same arrived at a definite conclusion. 7. Heard learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused. We have also examined the entire record in lucid. 8. The trial court examined testimony of Pappusya (PW-1), Allanoor (PW-2), Shakursya (PW-3), Mehboob Khan (PW-4), Mohammad Ali (PW-5), Chhotusya (PW-6) and Jarina (PW-7). 9. Shri Pappusya (PW-1) is real brother of accused Ali Sher. He did not support the prosecution, hence was declared hostile. 10. We have also examined the entire record in lucid. 8. The trial court examined testimony of Pappusya (PW-1), Allanoor (PW-2), Shakursya (PW-3), Mehboob Khan (PW-4), Mohammad Ali (PW-5), Chhotusya (PW-6) and Jarina (PW-7). 9. Shri Pappusya (PW-1) is real brother of accused Ali Sher. He did not support the prosecution, hence was declared hostile. 10. Shri Allanoor (PW-2) is also real brother of accused Ali Sher and he too did not support the prosecution story, thus, was declared hostile. It is relevant to mention that this witness also happens to be husband of Smt. Jarina (PW-7), real sister of deceased Smt. Ramjana. 11. Shri Shakursya (PW-3) stated that about a year and half earlier a police team came to the house of Ali Sher and recovered a jerricane of five litres, certain clothes, match box and certain other articles. His thumb impression was also taken on the document Ex.P/1 and Ex.P/3. 12. Shri Mehboob Khan (PW-4) also made a statement to the effect that a jerricane of five litres, certain clothes, match sticks etc. were recovered by police from the house of Ali Sher and his thumb impression was obtained on few papers. 13. Shri Mohammad Ali (PW-5) is real brother of deceased Smt. Ramjana and Smt. Jarina (PW-7). He also happens to be the husband of Smt. Sofiya, real sister of accused Ali Sher. As per this witness Ramjana was suffering from some mental ailment. Ali Sher used to treat her peacefully. There was no dispute between Ali Sher and Ramjana. 14. Shri Chhotusya (PW-6) is father of deceased Ramjana and Jarina (PW-7). As per this witness, Ramjana and Ali Sher were living peacefully and there was no dispute between them. This witness was also declared hostile. 15. Smt. Jarina (PW-7), real sister of deceased Ramjana and wife of Allanoor (PW-2), was also declared hostile as she did not support the prosecution case. 16. The trial court by taking into consideration the evidence referred above acquitted the accused from a serious charge relating to commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. 17. In the instant matter Shri Bhanwarlal, Assistant Sub Inspector, Police Station Gotan, reduced the statement given by Smt. Ramjana in writing at Community Health Centre, Gotan. The statement aforesaid was reduced in writing in presence of treating doctor Shri Deepak Choudhary. On the document aforesaid thumb impression of deceased was also taken. 17. In the instant matter Shri Bhanwarlal, Assistant Sub Inspector, Police Station Gotan, reduced the statement given by Smt. Ramjana in writing at Community Health Centre, Gotan. The statement aforesaid was reduced in writing in presence of treating doctor Shri Deepak Choudhary. On the document aforesaid thumb impression of deceased was also taken. After making the statement aforesaid Smt. Ramjana died during the course of treatment. The prosecution did not choose to produce Dr. Deepak Choudhary, Shri Bhanwarlal, Assistant Sub Inspector and the investigating officer the most relevant witnesses in the case in hand in witness box. No care was taken even to bring on record the medical evidence by calling the members of the medical board that conducted autopsy on the corpus of Smt. Ramjana in witness box. The court below also completed the trial in extreme haste and casual manner. The court should have taken care to call the material and relevant witnesses before it to adduce evidence. It is strange that even the statement made by deceased Ramjana has not been exhibited. It could have been treated as a dying declaration and effect of that too have been considered by the trial court. The trial court has also not considered about application of provisions of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act in the case in hand. It is well known that in the cases of women burning normally the relatives do not support prosecution story and in such cases the court is required to be more vigilant in examining other relevant evidence. 18. Looking to the factual background noticed above we deem it appropriate to accept this appeal. Accordingly, the same is allowed. The judgment dated 12.8.2014 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Merta in Sessions Case No.28/2014 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial court to get the statements of Dr. Deepak Choudhary, Shri Bhanwarlal, Assistant Sub Inspector and the investigating officer of the case recorded and also to call members of the medical board that conducted autopsy on the corpus of deceased Ramjana to adduce medical evidence in the matter. The trial court after completing the evidence is also required to provide an opportunity of hearing to learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused person afresh. The trial court after completing the evidence is also required to provide an opportunity of hearing to learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused person afresh. The trial court shall also examine the issue as to whether the statement given by deceased Ramjana before Assistant Sub Inspector Shri Bhanwarlal and Dr. Deepak Choudhary can be treated as a dying declaration or not and also about application of provisions of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act in the instant matter. The record of the case be sent to the trial court forthwith. Appeal allowed.