JUDGMENT : Rumi Kumari Phukan, J. We have heard Mr. I.H. Saikia, learned Counsel as Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mr. K.A. Mazumdar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, for the respondent State of Assam. 2. The present appeal is preferred by the accused appellant (who is in jail) against the judgment and order dated 24.02.2015 passed in Sessions Case No.154(T)/2013 under Section 302 IPC passed by learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia whereby the accused appellant had been sentenced for R.I. for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment fine, R.I. for another one month. 3. Sister of Informant Smti Arati Patnayak, namely, Dineswari had eloped with the accused person about ten years prior to filing of the FIR and thereafter, their marriage was solemnized. On 14.10.2012, Dineswari was admitted in Dibrugarh Medical College in severe burnt condition and on being informed, when the informant went to visit her sister Dineswari, the injured disclosed to her that it was the accused appellant/her husband, who had set fire to her. After few days, while in the hospital, the said Dineswari succumbed to her injuries. Smti Arati Patnayak lodged an FIR before the Talap Outpost and accordingly, a case was registered at Doomdoma Police Station under Section 302 I.P.C being Doomdooma P.S. No.296/12. 4. In course of investigation, dying declaration of the deceased Dineswari was recorded. Inquest report was prepared after her death and postmortem examination was also done. Finally, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused appellant under section 302 I.P.C. The offence being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed accordingly to the Sessions Court. The learned Trial Court after hearing both the parties, framed charge under Section 302 I.P.C. and the same being read over and explained to the accused, he pleaded not guilty. 5. During the course of the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 10(ten) witnesses including three medical officers and the investigating officer. Defence adduced no evidence and the plea of defence is of total denial. On the basis of the evidence so adduced by the prosecution, the trial Court held the accused guilty under Section 302 I.P.C. and convicted him as aforesaid. Hence, the appeal. 6. Defence adduced no evidence and the plea of defence is of total denial. On the basis of the evidence so adduced by the prosecution, the trial Court held the accused guilty under Section 302 I.P.C. and convicted him as aforesaid. Hence, the appeal. 6. Initiating the argument, the learned Amicus Curiae on behalf of the appellant urged before this Court that the conviction of the accused appellant is bad in law inasmuch as there being no eye witness to the occurrence, the whole case rested upon circumstantial evidence and the evidence on record did not establish the guilt of the accused. That apart, the Trial Court had held the accused appellant guilty on the basis of testimony of such witnesses as well as the dying declaration but the learned Court had not put forward all the incriminating evidence so relied upon to the accused so as to enable him to give his explanation. Due to such reasons and infirmities, the judgment and order of the Court below is liable to be set aside, he submits. 7. Per contra, the submission of Mr. K.A. Mazumdar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is that in view of the circumstantial evidence appearing in the case coupled with the dying declaration so made by the deceased implicating the accused appellant, there appears to be no ground to discard the prosecution case. The dying declaration so made by the deceased prior to her death, which was recorded in presence of attending doctors, can be relied on as the sole basis for conviction, leaving apart other evidence on record. It has also been submitted that there cannot be any ground for false implication of the accused appellant by his deceased wife or by other family members of the deceased, there being no animosity among them. 8. Having regard to the rival submissions, let us turn to the evidence on record. It is found that there is no eye witness to the occurrence. The informant Smti Arati Patnayak (PW.2) lodged the FIR on being informed about the incident that her sister had been set ablaze by her husband. After receiving the information, she went to visit her sister at AMCH Dibrugarh, and found that her sister’s whole body was burnt by fire. On being asked, she narrated that while she was sleeping, her husband poured kerosene oil on her body and set her ablaze. After receiving the information, she went to visit her sister at AMCH Dibrugarh, and found that her sister’s whole body was burnt by fire. On being asked, she narrated that while she was sleeping, her husband poured kerosene oil on her body and set her ablaze. Thereafter, the accused appellant fled away by closing the door from outside and her mother in law took her to the hospital. Victim woman remained in hospital for three days and she succumbed to her injuries. She however denied that it was a case of suicide and stated that the deceased never made such statement to her. 9. The other witnesses, namely P.W. 1, namely, Shri Ranjit Kalandi, the brother of the accused and P.W. 9 Smti Nirasi Kalandi, mother of the accused, simply stated that they did not know as to how the occurrence had taken place. P.W. 1 stated that he arrived after the incident while the deceased was being taken to the hospital. P.W. 9 had stated that on the day of occurrence, she went to her neighbour’s house and hearing hue and cry, she returned back and saw that her son/accused appellant was trying to douse the fire which his wife had caught. Though she was declared hostile by the prosecution, she denied to have given any statement before I.O. that she heard about the quarrel between the accused and his wife. Apparently, P.W. 1 and 9 being relatives of the accused, they are not supporting the prosecution case, which is a common feature in such cases. 10. P.W.3 Sudama Patnayak, P.W. 4 Jagat Kalandi, P.W. 5 Gopal Sharma had no knowledge as to how the occurrence had taken place and as to how Dineswari died. P.W. 5 is a signatory to the seizure list Ext.2 by which the police seized one empty gallon with smell of kerosene from the house of accused. Their evidence is also of no help to the prosecution. 11. However, we are left with evidence of two crucial witnesses, viz. P.W. 6 Dr. Mayanak Sekhar Sharma and P.W. 7 Dr. Arthelin R. Sangma. Their evidence is also of no help to the prosecution. 11. However, we are left with evidence of two crucial witnesses, viz. P.W. 6 Dr. Mayanak Sekhar Sharma and P.W. 7 Dr. Arthelin R. Sangma. According to their evidence, while they were doing duty at Assam Medical College and Hospital, one police officer from Borbari outpost came and requested them to record the dying declaration of a patient and accordingly, both of them went to the female causality unit and found a patient with severe burn injuries, but in a position to speak. P.W. 6 and 7 stated that though they understand Assamese, they could not write Assamese, and, therefore, they asked the police personnel to record the statement in their presence. Accordingly, dying declaration vide Ext. 3 was recorded in their presence. It was read over to them and then understanding the same, they signed the dying declaration vide Ext.3(1) and 3(2), being the signatures of P.W.6 and P.W.7, respectively. Ext.3 is reproduced below:- “ My name is Smti. Dineswari Kalindi, aged about 25 years, wife of Sri Sukander Kalandi, resident of Sentalia, Talap, District Tinsukia. At 9 p.m. last night i.e. on 14.10.2012 my husband Sri Sukander Kalandi by pouring kerosene on me set me ablaze. The local people brought me to AMCH, Dibrugarh, get me admitted here whereupon treatment was provided to me. He set fire to my face, both my hands as well as my entire body. My husband was under heavy intoxication. At present my husband, by leaving me at AMCH, Dibrugarh has gone to bring money but has not returned yet. That’s all I have to say.” 12. These witnesses were asked by the defence as to the extent of burn injuries and they replied that it was about 90 per cent. But, still the deceased was in a position to speak. They have also stated that Ext.3 was prepared as per version of the deceased and thumb impression of the deceased was taken in their presence. 13. The medical officer Dr. Subrajyoti Deka (P.W.10) who conducted the postmortem examination upon the dead body of deceased Dineswari deposed about the injuries sustained by the deceased. He had opined that he could not say if the injured could be in a position to speak due to her burn injuries. 14. 13. The medical officer Dr. Subrajyoti Deka (P.W.10) who conducted the postmortem examination upon the dead body of deceased Dineswari deposed about the injuries sustained by the deceased. He had opined that he could not say if the injured could be in a position to speak due to her burn injuries. 14. As usual, the I.O. has narrated about the course of investigation, about seizure of one gallon with smell of kerosene vide Ext. 2 seizure list, about sketch map Ext.6 and about collection of SCD (Supplementary Case Diary) with inquest report, post-mortem examination and also one dying declaration Ext.3. He had submitted the charge sheet against the accused person. It has, however, been stated by him in his cross-examination that he himself had not recorded the statement of the medical officers who recorded the dying declaration. 15. From what has been discussed above, it is found that prosecution relied upon the circumstantial evidence as well as dying declaration made by the deceased. The learned Court below had held the accused guilty on the basis of dying declaration as well as the testimony of the informant. But, the most disturbing factor in this case is that the learned Court below had put only one relevant question to the accused appellant while examining him under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and had not put forward any questions, as regard other aspects as emerged from evidence as well as vital document i.e. the dying declaration, whereas as per provisions of Section 313 Cr.P.C., it is mandatory on the part of the Court to put each and every circumstances/evidence so appeared in evidence against the accused to the accused and the accused is also under an obligation to give a plausible explanation to such circumstances/ questions. Time and again, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the manner of recording the statement of an accused after closure of evidence of prosecution highlighting that it is not a mere formality. 16. In (2011) 6 SCC 1 (Satyavir Singh Rathi, Assistant Commissioner of Police and others Vs. State through CBI) and also in (2012) 2 SCC 648 (Alister Anthony Pareire Vs. State of Maharashtra) and in a recent case reported in (2015) 1 SCC 496 (Nar Singh Vs. 16. In (2011) 6 SCC 1 (Satyavir Singh Rathi, Assistant Commissioner of Police and others Vs. State through CBI) and also in (2012) 2 SCC 648 (Alister Anthony Pareire Vs. State of Maharashtra) and in a recent case reported in (2015) 1 SCC 496 (Nar Singh Vs. State of Haryana), the Apex Court has dealt with the scope, object and importance of Section 313 Cr.P.C. and it has been categorically held that Section 313 Cr.P.C. prescribes a procedural safeguard for an accused giving him an opportunity to explain facts and circumstances appearing against him in the evidence and this opportunity is valuable from the standpoint of the accused. The real importance of Section 313 Cr.P.C. lies in that it imposes a duty on the Court to question the accused properly and fairly so as to bring to him the exact case that he would have to meet and thereby giving an opportunity to him to explain any such point. Undoubtedly the importance of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in so far as the accused is concerned, can hardly be minimized. The statutory provision is based on rules of natural justice and non-compliance of mandatory provision is fatal. 17. In the instant case, as we found, the Trial Court had put only one relevant question and other two general questions to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The statement is reproduced below:- Q. “On 27.03.2014, P.W. 2 Smti Arati Patnaik has adduce in evidence that when she went to hospital to see her sister Dineswari Kalindi, who was undergoing treatment there for her burn injuries, her (this P.W.’s) sister Dineswari told her that when she had been sleeping, you poured kerosene on her, set her ablaze; that then you took her (Dineswari) near the kitchen and locked the door from outside. What do you have to say in this connection ? Ans. All the statement made above are false. Q. Will you adduce defense witness in this case ? Ans. No. I won’t. Q. Do you have anything to say ? Ans. I am innocent.” 18. What do you have to say in this connection ? Ans. All the statement made above are false. Q. Will you adduce defense witness in this case ? Ans. No. I won’t. Q. Do you have anything to say ? Ans. I am innocent.” 18. In view of the manner of recording statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as indicated above, there can be no other conclusion that the purpose of examining the accused has been frustrated by the learned Sessions Judge and has failed to discharge the duty cast upon it to record proper statement as has been mandated by the Apex Court. The Trial Court did not put any question on the basis of testimony of P.W. 6 and P.W. 7 or the dying declaration. The cursory nature of examination of accused has deprived the appellant of opportunity of explaining the facts and circumstances so appeared and used against him. 19. The learned Amicus Curiae, also stressing upon the point, has urged this court to remand the case to the learned Trial Court for fresh decision. In a situation like the one at hand, whether such prayer can be allowed has been discussed in the Narsing Vs. State of Haryana (supra) as follows : “ When such objection as to omission to put the question under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is raised by the accused before the appellate Court and if the appellate court is of the opinion that non-compliance with the provisions of Section 313 Cr.P.C. has occasioned or is likely to have occasioned prejudice to the accused, the appellate court may direct retrial from the stage of recording the statement of the accused on the point where the irregularity occurred, i.e. from the stage of questioning the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the Trial Judge may be directed to examine the accused afresh and defence, if any, and dispose of the matter afresh. 20. If we examine the matter in hand, it can be found that for non-examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. properly, a serious prejudice has been caused to the accused appellant as he had been deprived of explaining the incriminating circumstances against him. 21. 20. If we examine the matter in hand, it can be found that for non-examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. properly, a serious prejudice has been caused to the accused appellant as he had been deprived of explaining the incriminating circumstances against him. 21. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order of conviction is set aside with a direction to the Trial Court to start the case from the stage of recording of statement of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C afresh and to deliver the judgment within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the record. The accused, however, be kept in detention during such further trial. We make it clear that we have not expressed any final opinion on the merits of the case. 22. The appeal is disposed of as indicated above. 23. Return the LCR forthwith with a copy of the judgment.