JUDGMENT : P.K. Saikia, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25.03.2014, rendered by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Guwahati, Kamrup (M) in Session Case No. 178K/2012 convicting appellant herein of offence U/s 302 IPC and sentencing him to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default, SI for another 1 (one) month for the offence aforesaid. 2. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment, the appellant has preferred this appeal citing several infirmities in the judgment under challenge. 3. We have heard Mr. D.Das, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. D.Talukdar, Advocate. Also heard Ms. S. Jahan, learned Addl. P.P.Assam. 4. The case, projected by the prosecution during investigation and trial, in short, is that on 01.07.2013, the appellant herein married one Tulsi Devi, sister of informant Sri Raju Sarma as per Muslim rites. After her marriage, Tulsi Devi was renamed as Jasmine Sultana and started residing with her in a rented house at Dekapara under Azara police station. 5. On 20.12.13 at about 5:30 am, while the accused and Tulsi Devi were alone in their house, the later caught fire and got burnt seriously. The accused then took her to Gauhati Medical College & Hospital (in short GMCH) for treatment. However, while undergoing treatment in GMCH, she succumbed to the burn injuries on 26.12.2013. 6. Suspecting that the accused might have set the sister of informant on fire, informant lodged the instant FIR with IC, Borjhar outpost on 31.12.2003. On receipt of the FIR, I/C, Borjhar outpost made G.D. Entry on such FIR and forwarded the same to OC, Azara police station for registering a case and for doing needful. On receipt of the FIR, OC, Azara police station registered a case and ordered the investigation into the incident. 7. One Bhupen Bora, SI of police, was entrusted to investigate the case. During the course of investigation, the IO visited the place of occurrence, examined the witnesses, arrested the accused person, did other things needful and on the conclusion of the investigation submitted a charge sheet u/s 304 B IPC and forwarded the accused to the court to stand his trial. It may be stated that PW 7, Mrs K. Saikia Karan, Executive Magistrate conducted inquest on the dead body on 26.12.2003. 8. It may be stated that PW 7, Mrs K. Saikia Karan, Executive Magistrate conducted inquest on the dead body on 26.12.2003. 8. The Magistrate before whom charge sheet was so laid committed the case to the Court of Session since the offence u/s 304 B IPC is exclusively triable by Court of Session. Learned Sessions Judge (Kamrup), Guwahati on receipt of the case on commitment transferred the case file to the Addl. Session Judge No. 1 for disposal in accordance with law. 9. The learned Addl. Session Judge on receipt of the case on transfer was pleased to frame charge u/s 304 B/ 302 IPC and charges, so framed, on being read over explained to the accused, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During trial, the prosecution has examined as many as 8 (eight) witnesses including the informant, Medical Officer who conducted autopsy on the dead body and IO of the case. 10. The statement of the accused person was recorded u/s 313 CrPC. The accused had denied having committing the crime but on being required, he declined to adduce any evidence in his defence. 11. On conclusion of trial, and on hearing the arguments, advanced by the counsel for the parties, the learned Trial Court while acquitting the accused of offence 304 B IPC was pleased to convict him of offence u/s 302 IPC and sentenced him to punishment as aforesaid. It is that judgment whish has been challenged in the present appeal. 12. Opening up the argument on behalf of the appellant Sri B.Das, learned Senior counsel submits that the judgment under challenge cannot be sustained for the reasons more than one. In that connection, it has been contended that there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that on the fateful day, the accused set the victim on fire which caused her death on 26.12.2003. 13. Rather, there is indisputable evidence on record to show that the victim and accused maintained very cordial relation at all the times relevant when they were in relationship as husband and wife. In support of such contention, the testimonies of PW 5, Smti Lakhi Das and PW 6 Smti. Bhanu Das who are neighbours of the accused person have been pressed into service. 14. In support of such contention, the testimonies of PW 5, Smti Lakhi Das and PW 6 Smti. Bhanu Das who are neighbours of the accused person have been pressed into service. 14. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, some of the PWs are found saying that the accused had done everything to save the victim from death since he arranged shifting of the victim to the hospital immediately and in fact, he took his wife to the best hospitals in the State, same being GMCH, Gauhati. 15. It has further been contended that though the incident in question occurred on 20.12.2003, the FIR was lodged only on 31.12.2003. Thus, there was a delay of about 10 days in lodging the FIR. However, no reason was offered as to why such delay occurred in lodging the FIR which, in turn, casts a serious doubt about the authenticity of the prosecution case. 16. It is also the case of the appellant that the post mortem examination on the dead body was conducted on 26.12.2003 on the basis of GD Entry dated 26.12.2003. This also shows that investigation in to the incident in question commenced as back as 26.12.2003. However, Exbt. 9, FIR shows that police was formally reported about the incident in question only on 31.12.2003, long after police had started investigating the incident in question on 26.12.2003. 17. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, there is ground to hold that FIR which was lodged on 31.12.2003 is hit by prohibition in Section 162 Cr.PC which renders the FIR (Exbt.9) inadmissible in law. Once it is held that FIR is inadmissible in law, the very substratum of the prosecution case gets disappeared in no time. 18. The learned counsel for appellant further submits that PWs, particularly, PW 1, gave different stories at different stages of the case under consideration. In that connection, our attention has been drawn to the story, narrated in the FIR Ext.9 as well as the story which the informant rendered before the Court during trial. 19. Such varied versions by a person, none other than the informant of the case, demolish completely the very basis of the prosecution case. On all those counts, Mr. D. Das, the learned Senior counsel, urges this Court to acquit the accused person on setting aside the judgment under challenge. 20. On the other hand, Ms. 19. Such varied versions by a person, none other than the informant of the case, demolish completely the very basis of the prosecution case. On all those counts, Mr. D. Das, the learned Senior counsel, urges this Court to acquit the accused person on setting aside the judgment under challenge. 20. On the other hand, Ms. S.Jahan, learned Addl. P.P.Assam submits that on the date of incident, the ill-fated house was under the occupation of the accused as well as his wife only. There is no dispute that on that day, the victim sustained burn injuries which caused her death on 26.12.03. Therefore, it is the accused who knew how and under what circumstances his wife caught fire for which she died on 26.12.2003. 21. However, while being examined U/s. 313 CrPC, the accused made no effort to explain as to how his wife caught fire. According to the learned Addl. P.P.Assam, such failure on the part of the appellant to explain such incriminating circumstances comes down heavily upon the appellant and such failure, coupled with unnatural death of the victim, have conclusively established that the accused was the author of the crime in question. 22. She, therefore, urges this court to dismiss the appeal on affirming the judgment under challenge. 23. We have heard the rival submissions having regard to the evidence on record. Before we proceed further, we find it necessary to have a look at the evidence of Doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the victim. He is PW 3, Dr. Putul Mahanta. 24. According to him, on 26.12.03, he was working as Asstt. Professor, Forensic Gauhati Medical College and hospital. On that day on the basis of GD Entry No. 389 dated 26.12.03, he conducted post mortem examination on the body of the victim and found the following:- "External Appearance: Female dead body of average built of dark brawn complexion dress with one striped combal and white markin cloth. Surgical bandage found all over the body at places. Rigor mortis is developed. Mouth and eyes closed. Anus and vagina healthy. Injuries Dermo epidermal burn injuries found all over the body except head including face, pelvis, front of the both hand. The burn areas were covered by while slough with pus at places. Looks black and brownish at places. The areas were strinkged, depressed surrounded by an zone of hyaewic areas. Mouth and eyes closed. Anus and vagina healthy. Injuries Dermo epidermal burn injuries found all over the body except head including face, pelvis, front of the both hand. The burn areas were covered by while slough with pus at places. Looks black and brownish at places. The areas were strinkged, depressed surrounded by an zone of hyaewic areas. Few blister were seen at places. The burns were of third. Cranium and Spinal Canal Scalp, skull and vertebrae are healthy. Mambrane is congested. Brain congested and Spinal Cord is not examined. Thorax Wallis as described, other healthy.Pleurae is congested. Laryax and trachere sooth particles tousd adheret to the mucosa. Both lungs were congested and oedewatous. Peicardium is healthy. Heart full and healthy Vessels all healthy. Abdomen Walls as described. Peritonoum is congested. Mouth, pharynx and oesophagus all healthy. Stomach and contains 150 gms of partly digested food materials healthy. Small intestine and contains digested food material, others healthy. Large intestine and contains faces and gases. Others healthy. Liver and Spleen are healthy. Both kidneys are congested. Bladder is empty and healthy. Opinion Death was due to septicemia resulting from burn injuries as described during life, covering and areas of 70% of total body surface areas and of 3" to fourth decrees burn. Approximate time since death was 12 to 24 hours. Ext. 2 is the Postmortem report Ext 2(1) is my signature. I received the inquest report vide Ext3, dead body challan vide Ext.4, Forwarding letter vide Ext.5 and Command Certificate vide Ext 6 wherein Ext 3(1), Ext. 4(1), Ext5(1) and Ext. 6(1) are my signature respectively". 25. So situated, let us consider the evidence of other witnesses. PW 1, Raju Sarma, in his evidence deposes that his sister(deceased) had gone missing from the date on which result of the Higher Secondary Examination was declared. After about 7 months, they came to know that his sister had eloped with the accused person and lived with him as husband and wife. 26. After 11 months of her leaving the house of PW 1, police came from Azara Police Station came to their house and told them that his sister was no more and told him to visit the Police Station. Being so informed, he went to the Police Station and found the accused Sirajul Hoque was in the lock up. 26. After 11 months of her leaving the house of PW 1, police came from Azara Police Station came to their house and told them that his sister was no more and told him to visit the Police Station. Being so informed, he went to the Police Station and found the accused Sirajul Hoque was in the lock up. He was told by Police Officer that his sister was killed by the accused person. In the mean time, police had also arrested him. Being so informed, he lodged the FIR which he proved as Ext.1. 27. Khagen Ch Das (PW 2), Sri Lakhi Das (PW 5), Smti Bhanu Das (PW 6) are the neighbours of the accused person. According to them, one day, in the morning, they heard hue and cry coming from the tented house of the accused person. On hearing hue and cry, they rushed to the PO and found the victim being burnt by fire. 28. PW 5 stated that the victim was not in a position to talk with anyone. In their cross examinations, PW 5 and PW 6 specifically state that the accused and the victim had maintained a good relationship till the time of incident in question since they did not notice any quarrel between them despite they being the neighbours of the accused person. 29. The Evidence of PWs, particularly, PW 4 and PW 5 further reveals that it is the accused who has taken the victim to hospital soon after she sustained burn injuries. Their evidence also reveals that the victim sustained burn injuries accidently and not for any mischief done by the accused person. 30. A careful perusal of the evidence of PWs reveals that there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that it was the accused which sets his wife on fire.Rather all materials available on record show that the accused had done everything possible to save his wife from the injuries which she sustained in her house on the morning of 20.12.2003. 31. The fact that he took his wife to the best of hospital soon after the incident in question coupled with the fact that the victim and the accused maintained very cordial relationship till she breathed her last makes such a conclusion in evitable. Being so, we have found reason to hold that judgment under challenge is unsustainable in the face of above revelation. 32. Being so, we have found reason to hold that judgment under challenge is unsustainable in the face of above revelation. 32. It may be noticed here that PW 5 and PW 6 has stated before the court during trial that they believed that the victim caught fire on the morning in question accidently. In our opinion, such opinion entertained by the PW 5 and PW 6 cannot easily be brushed aside in view of materials on record. Such revelation further fortifies the innocence of the accused person. 33. We have also considered the allegation that the prime prosecution witness, he being PW 1, projected different stories at the different stages of case under consideration. In that connection, we have perused the FIR (Exbt. 9) as well as the evidence rendered by PW 1 who happens to be the informant of the case. 34. On making such an exercise, we have found that the story narrated in the FIR and the story narrated before the court during trial by the PW 1 are found to be drastically different since some of the important features of the prosecution case, as stated in the FIR, are found conspicuously absent in the story, narrated before the court during trial and vice-versa. Such a state of affairs does not auger well to advance the cause of prosecution case. 35. We have found that the PW 3 conducted post-mortem examination on the body of the deceased on 26.12.2003 on the basis of GD Entry dated 26.12.2003. No explanation was made as to the person who reported the police about such incident or under what circumstances, the police had to order the authority concerned to conduct post-mortem examination on the body of the deceased. 36. In absence of any explanation in that regard, it needs to be concluded that police swung into action as early as 26.12.2003, long before PW 1 formally lodged FIR on 31.12.2003. Such revelations again comes down heavily upon the prosecution side inasmuch as the prosecution is found to have withheld some very vital information which has serious bearing on the outcome of the case under consideration. 37. Such revelations again comes down heavily upon the prosecution side inasmuch as the prosecution is found to have withheld some very vital information which has serious bearing on the outcome of the case under consideration. 37. Situation being such, in our opinion, on the materials on record, the learned Trial Court could not have been convicted the accused of offence U/s 302 IPC, Rather the learned Trial Court ought to have acquitted the accused person of such a charge giving him benefit of doubt. 38. Resultantly, the judgment under challenge is unsustainable in law and same is accordingly quashed and set aside allowing the appeal. 39. The accused/appellant is ordered to be released forthwith, if he is not required in connection with any other case. 40. Return the LCR forthwith.