JUDGMENT 1. By the present appeal, the correctness of the conviction and sentence imposed upon him is questioned by the appellant. The appellant is convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur on 25.04.2014 for an offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC and for that he was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 8 days. The appellant was further found to be guilty of committing the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC and on that count, he was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2. The facts, which are necessary for the decision of the appeal are incorporated hereinbelow. Wahida w/o Abraham Chaus (PW1) is the victim. She is wife of the appellant. Their marriage took place on 25.05.2000. At the relevant time, the couple was residing at Sonapur. The appellant was serving as a driver on stone quarry. The couple used to reside in a chawl meant for the workers and tenement of the couple was surrounded by the neighbours. According to the prosecution case, on the day of the incident, i.e. on 08.04.2003, when Wahida (PW1) was in her house that time, the appellant returned from his duty. That time he was under the influence of liquor and picked up the quarrel with her. The time was in between 11.00 to 11.30 a.m. A suspicion was raised against her that in the absence of the appellant, somebody has visited the house. Thereafter, diesel was poured on her person and she was set ablaze. She was taken to the hospital from firstly at Gadchandur and thereafter she was taken to the hospital of Dr. Paliwal at Chandrapur. The investigation was carried by Nasikrao Satpute (PW5) who at the relevant time was discharging his duties at PSI at P. S. Rajura. He registered crime vide C.R.No.51/03. He proved printed FIR Exh.65. The spot panchanama is at Exh.51. Certain articles were seized under the Seizure Memo Exh.50. He recorded statement of witnesses. Paliwal at Chandrapur. The investigation was carried by Nasikrao Satpute (PW5) who at the relevant time was discharging his duties at PSI at P. S. Rajura. He registered crime vide C.R.No.51/03. He proved printed FIR Exh.65. The spot panchanama is at Exh.51. Certain articles were seized under the Seizure Memo Exh.50. He recorded statement of witnesses. After completion of usual investigation, the Investigating Officer was of the view that sufficient material is collected against the appellant to stand for trial, he filed final report of his investigation in the Court of learned J.MF.C. Since the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, after committal order, the case was registered as Sessions Case No.95/2003. The learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur under Exh.10 framed charge against the appellant for an offence triable under section 498A and 307 of the IPC. The appellant abjured the guilt and claimed for his trial. 3. In order to bring home the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses. 1. Wahida Begum: Injured and wife of the appellant. 2. Mohd. Gani s/o Mohd. Usman: Cousin of victim Wahida 3. Sheikh Jalil Mohd. Sharim: Father of the victim. 4. Dr. Balmukund Paliwal. 5. Nasikrao Satpute: Investigating Officer. After a full dress trial, the learned Judge of the Court below was of the view that the prosecution was successful in bringing home the guilt of the appellant and consequently, he recorded a finding of guilt of and the sentence, as mentioned in the opening paragraph of the judgment, was imposed. 4. I have heard Ms. S. B. Saikhede, learned counsel appointed by the Legal Aid Committee and Mr. P.V. Bhoyar, learned A.P.P. for the State. At the time of admission of the present appeal on 08.12.2014, this Court (Coram: S. B. Shukre, J.) was pleased to dispense with the paper book. However, the record and proceedings were called. With the assistance of learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.P.P., I have gone through the record and proceedings as well as the notes of evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Both the learned counsel articulated their respective submissions for their respective prayers. 5. From the evidence of Nasikrao Satpute, the Investigating Officer, it is clear that the dying declaration of Wahida (PW1) and her statement was recorded at Chandrapur. That was recorded on 08.04.2003. Both the learned counsel articulated their respective submissions for their respective prayers. 5. From the evidence of Nasikrao Satpute, the Investigating Officer, it is clear that the dying declaration of Wahida (PW1) and her statement was recorded at Chandrapur. That was recorded on 08.04.2003. thus, the same was recorded immediately and on the date of the incident itself. From the evidence of the Investigating Officer, it is further clear that in the said statement, Wahida (PW1) has stated that she received burn injuries due to the accident. The Nasikrao Satpute (IO) admitted in his evidence that the said statement was not filed on record since it was favouring the appellant and against the prosecution. Such an approach on the part of the Investigating Officer, in my view, is not correct. It is expected from the Investigating officer to remain impartial. Whatever material is collected during the course of the investigation, is expected to be placed on record. It is the domain of the Court to appreciate the evidence and material brought on record during the course of the investigation. The accused is entitled for fair trial. However, the Investigating Officer cannot be choosy of filing only those documents or placing only that material which, according to him, is against the accused person. It is not expected from the Investigating Officer to keep back such material which ultimately may be observed by the Court that it helps the accused persons. 6. The Investigating Officer has further stated in the examination-in-chief itself that the parents of the victim complained that her first statement was under pressure and, therefore, he gave a letter to the Executive Magistrate again to record dying declaration of the victim. The said letter is at Exh.67. His evidence would further disclose that the Executive Magistrate had recorded the dying declaration of the victim. Surprisingly, the dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate is also not part and parcel of the prosecution case. The prosecution is not placing all the materials on record. The Investigating Officer, for the reasons best known to him, is withholding a statement of victim recorded by the Executive Magistrate. Therefore, I see this is a fit case where the adverse inference could be drawn against the prosecution. 7. If the evidence of Wahida (PW1) is scanned minutely then she is very specific in her evidence that the appellant has powered diesel on her. Therefore, I see this is a fit case where the adverse inference could be drawn against the prosecution. 7. If the evidence of Wahida (PW1) is scanned minutely then she is very specific in her evidence that the appellant has powered diesel on her. The Chemical Analyzer's report is placed on record. It is at Exh.76. Apparently, burnt clothes of the victim were sent to the forensic lab under requisition Exh.68. According to the CA report, the burnt clothes of the victim shows that no residues of diesel were detected. If the evidence of Wahida is to be believed, after getting burn injuries, she raised shouts. Shouting by the injured is the most natural. What is important to note from her evidence is that due to her shouting, her neighbours gathered and they extinguished the fire. They took her to the hospital at Gadchandur. The following portion from the evidence of the victim shows that the neighbours were gathered on the spot: “It is true that the persons who had gathered there had asked me as to how the incident had occurred.” 8. Undisputedly, Wahida (PW1) was residing with the appellant in a chawl meant for the workers. It is also not in dispute that her tenement was surrounded by the neighours. As observed, after getting burn injuries, Wahida (PW1) started shouting, naturally due to the same, the attention of the labours must have drawn towards her and they must have gathered there. She has further stated that fire was extinguished by the neighbours. Naturally, the neighbours who gathered there and who extended help to the victim must have asked the victim about the happening to her and from the aforesaid extracted portion from her evidence, it is crystal clear that the victim has narrated the incident to the neighbours. Thus, these neighbours who are the independent persons, in my view, were the material witnesses in the prosecution case. However, none of the neighbours is examined by the prosecution. That also requires me to draw adverse inference against the prosecution. 9. Mohd. Gani Moh Sharif (PW2) and Sheikh Jalil Mohd. Usman (PW3) are cousin and father of the victim. Thus, they are closely related witnesses of the victim. Merely because the witnesses are closely related to the victim, that by itself is not sufficient to render it ineffective or their evidence should not be viewed from the tainted eyes. 9. Mohd. Gani Moh Sharif (PW2) and Sheikh Jalil Mohd. Usman (PW3) are cousin and father of the victim. Thus, they are closely related witnesses of the victim. Merely because the witnesses are closely related to the victim, that by itself is not sufficient to render it ineffective or their evidence should not be viewed from the tainted eyes. However, while appreciating their evidence, the Court must be at guard and should seek corroboration from the attending circumstances. 10. The evidence of Sheikh Jalil (PW3) shows that after getting information, he visited Dr. Paliwal's hospital. As per Investigating Officer, another statement of victim was recorded because of the request of her parents since according to them, her first statement was recorded under pressure. If the entire evidence of the father of the victim is read in its correct perspective, then it is clear that when he visited Dr. Paliwal's hospital, he was not knowing about the recording of the statement of Wahida (PW1) by police. It is only at the time when Wahida regained consciousness, she informed him that the police had recorded statements. However, his evidence is completely silent that Wahida has informed him that her first statement was recorded by police when she was under pressure from her mother in law. If that be so, there was no occasion for PW3 Sheikh Jalil to imagine that Wahida's first statement was recorded under pressure as claimed by him before the Investigating Officer. The victim is very specific in her evidence that diesel was powered on her. However, no diesel residues were noticed on her clothes. She has not stated that Kerosene was powered on her. The evidence of the victim shows that Kerosene was not available in Sonapur. The CA report shows residues of Kerosene on the clothes of the victim. Merely because the Kerosene residues were found on the clothes of the victim, that by itself is not sufficient to record finding of the guilt. The scientific evidence is always in the nature of corroborative piece of evidence and it is for the prosecution to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 11. Merely because the Kerosene residues were found on the clothes of the victim, that by itself is not sufficient to record finding of the guilt. The scientific evidence is always in the nature of corroborative piece of evidence and it is for the prosecution to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 11. In the present case, in view of suppression of the previous statement of the victim which even according to the prosecution, was recorded brings the entire case of the prosecution under the dark clouds of doubt, therefore, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Further, there is no other cogent evidence to reach to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty of ill treating the victim. 12. Evaluation of the aforesaid evidence and its reappreciation, in my view, the appellant is entitled to his acquittal by extending the benefit of doubt. That leads me to pass the following order. ORDER (i) Criminal Appeal No.583/2014 is allowed. (ii) Judgment and order of conviction dated 25.04.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Sessions Case No.95/2003 thereby convicting the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 498A and 307 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside. (iii) The appellant be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. (iv) Fine amount, if any paid by the appellant, be refunded to him. (v) Professional charges of Ms. Saikhede, learned counsel appointed by the Legal Aid Committee are quantified at Rs.5,000/.