JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.N. SINHA) Instant appeal, by the sole appellant, husband of the deceased of Raxaul P.S. Case No. 77/11, is directed against the judgment/ order dated 22.09.2012/ 01.10.2012, passed by 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Motihari, East Champaran, in Sessions Trial No. 713/ 2011 whereunder the sole appellant has been convicted for the charge under Section 302 of the Penal Code and has been awarded sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with further direction to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-. 2. Prosecution case, as set out in the fardbeyan of the aforesaid case recorded by the deceased while she was under treatment at Bed No. 24C Dunkan Hospital, Raxaul by the Incharge, Haraiya O.P., Sub-Inspector Sheonandan Prasad Paswan on 22.04.2011 at 14.00 hours, is that she is resident of Village Pareua within Raxaul-Haraiya Police Station in the District of East Champaran and is recording her fardbeyan statement that on 21.04.2011 around 9.30 P.M. she was frying the left over rice of the morning, her husband Neyaz Ahmad came to the house in drunken condition, began to abuse her, on protest picked up kerosene cane, poured kerosene on her and threw lighted match stick setting her ablaze causing serious burn injuries above waist. On alarm being raised her father-in-law extinguished the flames and also suffered burn injury in his hand. Informant further claimed in the fardbeyan that she was lifted, brought to the hospital by her father, mother and elder brother-in-law, where she is being treated. Informant also claimed in the fardbeyan that her husband with intent to kill her sprinkled kerosene oil on her and set her ablaze. The fardbeyan statement was read over to the informant, who found the same correctly recorded put her thumb impression over the fardbeyan in presence of her brother Sabir Ali. Incharge of Haraiya O.P. Sheonandan Prasad Paswan having recorded the fardbeyan forwarded the same to the Officer-in-Charge, Raxaul Police Station on 24.04.2011 for appropriate action. 3. In the light of the fardbeyan statement Officer-in-Charge, Raxaul Police Station, Inspector Sanjay Kumar Singh registered Raxaul P.S. Case No. blank dated 22.04.2011 under Section 307 of the Penal Code and instructed Sub-Inspector Sheonandan Prasad Paswan to investigate the case. In Column No. 15 of the First Information Report date, time of its dispatch from police station to Court has not been indicated. In Column No. 15 of the First Information Report date, time of its dispatch from police station to Court has not been indicated. The First Information Report, however, has been received in Court on 25.04.2011, as would appear from the initials of S.D.J.M. on the 1st page of the First Information Report, fardbeyan. During investigation of the case informant left for her heavenly abode on 28.04.2011 whereafter request was made to S.D.J.M., Raxaul by Sheonandan Prasad Paswan, Investigating Officer of the case under his petition dated 20.05.2011 to add Section 302 of the Penal Code also in the First Information Report, which was allowed under order dated 23.05.2011. The husband of the informant surrendered in the Court of S.D.J.M. on 31.05.2011 and was remanded to jail custody with direction to produce him on 13.06.2011. After conclusion of the investigation and in the light of the inquest, post mortem report dated 28.04.2011 charge-sheet dated 25.08.2011 was submitted in the Court of S.D.J.M., Raxaul on 27.08.2011 finding the case true against the accused husband. In the light of the contents of the charge-sheet cognizance was taken under order dated 03.11.2011 and after supply of police papers case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The Sessions Court framed charges under order dated 02.02.2012 to which accused husband pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. In support of charges prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. P.W. 1 Neyazul Haque is the uncle of the deceased, P.W. 2 Sabir Ali is the brother of the deceased, also put his signature over the fardbeyan as attesting witness. P.W. 3 Tamanna Khatoon is the daughter of the deceased. P.W. 4 Akbar Ali is the father of the deceased. P.W. 5 Babiya Khatoon is the cousin/ daughter of aunt of the deceased as also sister-in-law of the deceased. P.W. 6 Bholi Mian is the father-in-law of the deceased. P.W. 7 Saira Khatoon is the mother-in-law of the deceased. P.W. 8 Nehal Mian is the elder brother-in-law of the deceased. P.W. 9 Chandramauli Kumar is an Advocate’s Clerk. He is a formal witness and has proved the formal First Information Report as Exhibit-2. P.W. 10 Sheonandan Prasad Paswan is the scribe of fardbeyan and Investigating Officer of the case. 5. P.W. 8 Nehal Mian is the elder brother-in-law of the deceased. P.W. 9 Chandramauli Kumar is an Advocate’s Clerk. He is a formal witness and has proved the formal First Information Report as Exhibit-2. P.W. 10 Sheonandan Prasad Paswan is the scribe of fardbeyan and Investigating Officer of the case. 5. Before proceeding to consider the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the fardbeyan of the deceased dated 22.04.2011 cannot be treated as a dying declaration, it is necessary to appraise the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. (i) P.W. 1 stated in his evidence that the occurrence took place 10 months earlier. He learnt about the occurrence at Birganj, where he does the job of tailoring, that his niece Rabiya Khatoon suffered burn injuries and is admitted in Dunkan Hospital for treatment. P.W. 1 also came to the hospital, found his niece unconscious as she suffered burn injuries above her waist. She was married to Neyaz Ahmad of Raxaul, 12-13 years after marriage she suffered burn injuries and died because of burn injuries. P.W. 1 further clarified in his evidence that he is not aware as to how did she suffer burn injury. P.W. 1 further stated that he is not aware that her husband tortured Rabiya and she was burnt to death by him. P.W. 1 denied the suggestion that she died within seven years of her marriage. In paragraph 2 of his evidence P.W. 1 stated that he was informed about the occurrence by the father-in-law of Rabiya in the same night in which she suffered burn injury and thereafter P.W. 1 and his nephew Sabir Ali came to the hospital in the same night. Having seen Rabiya P.W. 1 noticed that she suffered extensive burn injury above her waist, was unconscious and died in the state of unconsciousness 6-7 days after the occurrence. P.W. 1 also stated in the same paragraph that neither in his presence nor during 6-7 days when she remained alive she spoke about the occurrence to anyone. P.W. 1 also stated in the same paragraph that he learnt that Rabiya suffered injuries while cooking food. In paragraph 3 of his evidence P.W. 1 stated that her father-in-law also suffered burn injuries in his hand while attempting to save her from both sides. P.W. 1 also stated that eldest daughter of Rabiya is 13 years old. P.W. 1 also stated in the same paragraph that he learnt that Rabiya suffered injuries while cooking food. In paragraph 3 of his evidence P.W. 1 stated that her father-in-law also suffered burn injuries in his hand while attempting to save her from both sides. P.W. 1 also stated that eldest daughter of Rabiya is 13 years old. P.W. 1 also stated that he never heard any complaint from the inmates of her matrimonial home. (ii) P.W. 2 stated in his evidence that Rabiya was married to Neyaz Ahmad 17-18 years earlier and while in Birganj 10 months earlier he learnt that she suffered burn injuries, came to Dunkan Hospital, saw Rubiya with extensive burn injuries above her waist and unconscious. Police officer was also present at the hospital when P.W. 2 came there. P.W. 2 further stated that the police officer present in the hospital recorded her statement, over which he also put his signature and proved as Exhibit-1. P.W. 2 also stated that Rabiya died because of burn injuries and that he identified Neyaz Ahmad. In paragraph 2 of his evidence P.W. 2 stated that her sister remained unconscious right from the time he reached the hospital until her death and she could not speak to him or any member of his family. In the same paragraph P.W. 2 also stated that when he put his signature over the fardbeyan at that time also she was unconscious. In paragraph 3 of his evidence P.W. 2 stated that after he reached Raxaul from Birganj learnt that Rabiya suffered burn injuries while cooking food, her father-in-law also suffered burn injuries on his hand while dousing flame. P.W. 2 also stated in the same paragraph that the police officer only obtained his signature on the fardbeyan but did not record his statement. P.W. 2 further stated that his sister after marriage was living happily with her husband at her matrimonial home. P.W. 2 also stated that he has not seen the occurrence from his own eyes. (iii) P.W. 3 stated in her evidence that her mother Rabiya Khatoon died because of she suffered burn injuries in the night 10 months earlier while cooking food on gas-stove as her sari caught fire and she became unconscious. P.W. 3 further stated that her grand-father tried to save her. (iii) P.W. 3 stated in her evidence that her mother Rabiya Khatoon died because of she suffered burn injuries in the night 10 months earlier while cooking food on gas-stove as her sari caught fire and she became unconscious. P.W. 3 further stated that her grand-father tried to save her. P.W. 3 has been declared hostile and stated in paragraph 2 of her evidence that police never recorded her statement and denied the suggestion that she has stated before the police that her father Neyaz Ahmad abused her mother, sprinkled kerosene oil on her person and set her ablaze, leading to her death during treatment. P.W. 3 also stated in the same paragraph that she has not deposed in Court just to save her father. In paragraph 3 of her cross-examination P.W. 3 stated that when her mother suffered burn injuries while cooking food she was reading in the same room and her father was not there, as he had gone to attend his tailoring job. P.W. 3 further clarified in the same paragraph that there was no discord between her father and mother. (iv) P.W. 4 stated in his evidence that Rabiya Khatoon was married to Neyaz Ahmad of Raxaul and that he was informed about Rabiya having suffered burn injuries. He reached Dunkan Hospital, Raxaul on 28.04.2011 in the morning where police officers of Raxaul Police Station and Sub-Inspector, Haraiya O.P. Sheonandan Prasad Paswan was present, who conducted inquest proceedings of her daughter by carbon process in his presence. P.W. 4 also put his signature over inquest report and proved its carbon copy as Exhibit-2. P.W. 4 further stated in the same paragraph that his son-in-law Neyaz Ahmad is present in dock and that his daughter died on account of burn injuries. In paragraph 2 of his evidence P.W. 4 stated that when he put signature on the inquest report of his daughter he saw extensive burn injuries on her body. P.W. 4 also stated in the same paragraph that after he learnt about the occurrence, came to the hospital, saw his daughter unconscious, who never regained consciousness so long he remained present in the hospital. P.W. 3 also stated in his evidence that the fardbeyan of the occurrence was recorded by his son on the basis of the information derived from others. P.W. 3 also stated in his evidence that the fardbeyan of the occurrence was recorded by his son on the basis of the information derived from others. (v) P.W. 5 stated in her evidence that Rabiya Khatoon was married to Neyaz Mian, she suffered burn injuries ten months earlier around 9.30 P.M. while cooking food. Her daughter raised alarm, whereafter P.W. 5 and others extinguished the flames. P.W. 5 also stated that having several burn injuries victim became unconscious and died in the same condition after seven days. P.W. 5 has been declared hostile. In paragraph 2 of her evidence P.W. 5 denied the suggestion that she has not stated in her police statement that on the date, time of occurrence (9.30 P.M.), her brother-in-law Neyaz Ahmad came home in drunken condition, his wife protested, raised alarm after sometime, which prompted P.W. 5 to come running to her room where she saw her in flames tossing about in the room. In the meantime, her mother, father, elder brother-in-law came and saved her. In the same paragraph P.W. 5 also stated that she has not stated in her police statement that both husband and wife use to quarrel with each other always and have also quarrelled on the date of occurrence. In the same paragraph P.W. 5 also stated that Neyaz Ahmad is present in the dock and denied the suggestion that her version deposed in Court is other than the version given in her police statement. In paragraph 3 P.W. 5 admitted that accused is her own elder brother-in-law and that her sister was married to Neyaz 14-15 years earlier, four children were born out of the wedlock. In the last 15-16 years she had not seen her elder brother-in-law quarrelling with her sister. She further stated in the same paragraph that both her husband and the husband of the deceased served as tailor in the establishment of others and at times returned home between 10.00-11.00 P.M. (vi) P.W. 6 stated in his evidence that 10 months earlier around 10.30 P.M. while Rabiya was cooking food her clothes suddenly caught fire, alarm was raised, he rushed from his entrance, saw her in flames and tried to douse the fire, also suffered burn injury in his hand and carried her to the hospital. P.W. 6 also pointed to the Court burn mark on his right wrist and further deposed that he also suffered burn injuries while saving his daughter-in-law. P.W. 6 has been declared hostile and denied the suggestion in paragraph 2 of his evidence that he stated before the police that his son Neyaz Ahmad came to house in drunken condition, abused his daughter-in-law Rabiya Khatoon, both quarrelled with each other, after sometime his daughter-in-law raised alarm, P.W. 6 along with his wife Saira Khatoon and son Nehal Mian went inside her room and saw his daughter-in-law in flames tossing in the room. P.W. 6 further denied the suggestion in the same paragraph that to save his son he deposed contrary to his police statement. In paragraph 3 P.W. 6 categorically stated that when he took his daughter-in-law to the hospital she was unconscious and remained so until her death. P.W. 6 also stated in the same paragraph that after she suffered burn injuries she could not speak anything to anyone until her death. P.W. 6 also stated in the same paragraph that he and his other family members gave full attention and fully supported her treatment in the hospital. (vii) P.W. 7 also attended to the deceased in the same manner in which her husband P.W. 6 attended on her. She also deposed on the same lines as that of her husband P.W. 6, as such, details of her deposition is not being noticed in this judgment. (viii) P.W. 8 also attended to the deceased in the same manner in which his father, mother, P.Ws. 6, 7 attended on her. He also deposed on the same lines as that of his father and mother P.Ws. 6, 7, as such, details of his deposition is not being noticed in this judgment. (ix) P.W. 9 stated in his evidence that on 22.04.2011 Sanjay Kumar Singh was posted as Officer-in-Charge of Raxaul Police Station. The formal First Information Report of the case has been drawn by him under his own handwriting and signature, which the witness recognized, formal First Information Report was marked Exhibit-2. In paragraph 2 P.W. 9 stated that the endorsement on the fardbeyan is also under the writing, signature of Sanjay Kumar Singh, which the witness recognized. The endorsement over the fardbeyan is marked as Exhibit-3. In paragraph 2 P.W. 9 stated that the endorsement on the fardbeyan is also under the writing, signature of Sanjay Kumar Singh, which the witness recognized. The endorsement over the fardbeyan is marked as Exhibit-3. In paragraph 3 of his evidence P.W. 9 conceded that formal First Information Report and the endorsement over the fardbeyan was not drawn/ made in his presence. (x) P.W. 10 Sheonandan Prasad Paswan on 22.04.2011 served as Sub-Inspector, Haraiya O.P., after receiving information about the occurrence went to Bed No. 24C of Dunkan Hospital, saw Rabiya Khatoon injured with burn injuries and recorded her fardbeyan, which is under his handwriting and signature. He proved the fardbeyan as Exhibit-4. In paragraph 2 of his evidence P.W. 10 stated that on the basis of the fardbeyan Raxaul P.S. Case No. 77/11 for the offence under Section 307 of the Penal Code was registered, which was later converted into Section 302 of the Penal Code and he took up investigation of the case. In paragraph 3 of his evidence P.W. 10 stated that having taken up the investigation he recorded the police statement of the witnesses and inspected the place of occurrence, which is a brick-built house facing south 66 ft. north from Pareua Town Mosque. The outer verandah of the said house is 4-5 ft. in length. Inside the house there are four rooms, two each in the east, south. Rabaiya Khatoon resided in one of the two rooms facing east, which has no door. In the same house her husband Neyaz Ahmad set her ablaze. In the same paragraph P.W. 10 also furnished the boundary of the place of occurrence house. In paragraph 4 of his evidence P.W. 10 stated that he conducted inquest proceedings over the dead body of the deceased, prepared inquest report in his own handwriting and signature through carbon process and proved the carbon copy of the inquest report as Exhibit-5. In paragraph 6 of his evidence P.W. 10 asserted that distance between the place of occurrence and the police station is two kilometers south, there is also a side road connecting place of occurrence with police station. In paragraph 6 of his evidence P.W. 10 asserted that distance between the place of occurrence and the police station is two kilometers south, there is also a side road connecting place of occurrence with police station. Information about the occurrence was received at the police station on 22.04.2011 at 9.30 on the basis of which Station Diary Entry was recorded and to verify the information P.W. 10 came to Dunkan Hospital, found the deceased in injured condition to have suffered extensive burn injury above her waist until neck. The hospital authorities issued requisition slip as the victim suffered burn injuries to the extent of 80-85%. In paragraph 7 of his evidence P.W. 10 admitted that before recording the fardbeyan he did not take any steps to secure presence of any Magistrate including B.D.O. and C.O. P.W. 10 also stated in the same paragraph that he did not seek permission from the doctor who was treating the victim to record her statement. In the same paragraph P.W. 10 further stated that by the side of the victim in the hospital her mother, father, brother-in-laws were present attending to her treatment. In paragraph 8 of his evidence P.W. 10 stated that those present in the hospital were talking about the occurrence. In the right hand side of the fardbeyan Sabir Ali, brother of the victim also put his signature and stated that he learnt about the occurrence, which fact has not been stated in the case diary. In the same paragraph P.W. 10 further stated that he learnt at the hospital that occurrence took place two hours prior to the recording of the fardbeyan. In the same paragraph P.W. 10 denied the suggestion that he deposed incorrectly and that the occurrence took place on 21.04.2011 at 9.30 P.M. In paragraph 9 of his evidence P.W. 10 stated that the fardbeyan was recorded 15.00 hours after the occurrence as in the meantime none came to the police station to inform about the occurrence. In the same paragraph P.W. 10 also denied the suggestion that at the time of recording the fardbeyan deceased was unconscious and the investigation has not been correctly done. In the same paragraph P.W. 10 further denied the suggestion that he recorded the fardbeyan on the statement of a witness over which he obtained thumb impression of Rabiya Khatoon, who was unconscious. In the same paragraph P.W. 10 further denied the suggestion that he recorded the fardbeyan on the statement of a witness over which he obtained thumb impression of Rabiya Khatoon, who was unconscious. P.W. 10, however, admitted in the same paragraph that he did not obtain the signature of the doctor treating her on the fardbeyan. 6. The accused in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. refuted the query made by the Court on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution that it was he who poured kerosene oil on the person of his wife on 21.04.2011 in his house in village Pareua, set her ablaze causing her death and further stated that he has not to say anything in his defence. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the fardbeyan of the deceased in the instant case has not been recorded on 22.04.2011 at 2.00 P.M., as has been stated by the scribe of the fardbeyan over the same. In this connection, he referred to the interpolation made over the date, time of recording the fardbeyan mentioned at the top of the document and submitted that the fardbeyan was recorded on 23.04.2011 at 9.00 A.M. and not on 22.04.2011 at 2.00 P.M. In this connection, learned counsel referred to the evidence of the Investigating Officer (P.W. 10) in paragraph 8 where he stated that he learnt at the hospital that the occurrence took place two hours prior to recording of the fardbeyan and denied the suggestion that the occurrence took place on 21.04.2011 at 9.30 P.M. In this connection, he also referred to the evidence of Investigating Officer (P.W. 10) in paragraph 9 where he stated that the fardbeyan was recorded 15 hours after the victim suffered burn injuries as, in the meantime, none informed the police station about the occurrence. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant next submitted that First Information Report of the instant case was not registered by Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, Officer-in-Charge, Raxaul Police Station on 22.04.2011 at 9.00 P.M., as has been endorsed over the fardbeyan by Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh in Column 3(ga) of the First Information Report. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant next submitted that First Information Report of the instant case was not registered by Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, Officer-in-Charge, Raxaul Police Station on 22.04.2011 at 9.00 P.M., as has been endorsed over the fardbeyan by Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh in Column 3(ga) of the First Information Report. Perusal of the endorsement registering the case made by Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh over the fardbeyan (Exhibit-3) indicates that he registered Raxaul P.S. Case No. ‘blank’ dated 22.04.2011 under Section 307 of the Penal Code on 22.04.2011 and instructed Sub-Inspector Sheonandan Prasad Paswan, Incharge Haraiya O.P. to investigate the case. Had Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh registered First Information Report of the instant case on 22.04.2011 at 9.00 P.M. nothing prevented him from mentioning the case number together with his endorsement registering the case made on the fardbeyan. Had the case number been mentioned with the endorsement same should also have been proved by the witness, who proved the endorsement but from perusal of the endorsement made over the fardbeyan registering the case (Exhibit-3), it is quite evident that the endorsement registering the case made over the fardbeyan by Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh (Exhibit-3) does not contain the case number. In this connection, it is also relevant to notice the endorsement made by the scribe of the fardbeyan Sri Sheonandan Prasad Paswan, Incharge Haraiya O.P. dated 24.04.2011 over the fardbeyan whereunder he forwarded the fardbeyan to the Police Inspector-cum-Officer-in-Charge, Raxaul Police Station for necessary action. Fardbeyan of the deceased in the instant case was forwarded by the scribe of the fardbeyan to the Officer-in-Charge, Raxaul Police Station for necessary action on 24.04.2011, the First Information Report on the basis of the said fardbeyan could not have been registered on 22.04.2011 at 9.00 P.M. and that is why the case number is not mentioned in the endorsement registering the case (Exhibit-3) made by the Officer-in-Charge, Raxaul Police Station over the fardbeyan and is blank. There does not appear any ostensible reason for the scribe of the fardbeyan Sri Sheonandan Prasad Paswan not to forward the same for registration of the case to the Officer-in-Charge, Raxaul Police Station for two days, except the fact that he has not recorded the fardbeyan on the statement of the victim and interpolated the date, time of recording the fardbeyan from 23.04.2011 9.00 P.M. to 22.04.2011 2.00 P.M. 9. From the evidence of the Investigating Officer (P.W. 10) in paragraph 6, it appears that the distance between the place of occurrence and Haraiya O.P. is two kilometers. Information about the occurrence was received in Haraiya O.P. on 22.04.2011 at 9.30 A.M., on the basis of which Station Diary Entry was made and to verify the information received in Haraiya O.P. Investigating Officer (P.W. 10) visited Dunkan Hospital on 22.04.2011 but ostensibly recorded the fardbeyan on the same day at 2.00 P.M. In this connection, further evidence of Investigating Officer (P.W. 10) in the same paragraph is relevant where he admitted that the victim suffered extensive burn above waist and requisition informing the police about her burn injuries was issued by the hospital indicating that she suffered 80-85 % burn. As per fardbeyan, occurrence took place on 21.04.2011 at 9.30 P.M., soon thereafter victim was brought to Dunkan Hospital. Had the requisition issued by the hospital informing the police about the occurrence been produced in the court there would not have been any difficulty in ascertaining the definite time on which the same was issued by the hospital, received in the police station asking the police to visit the hospital, examine the victim and on that basis the actual time of recording the fardbeyan could have been ascertained providing authenticity to the genuineness of the fardbeyan, which is the sheet anchor of the prosecution case. 10. The Station Diary Entry, which was made on 22.04.2011 at 9.30 A.M., also having not been produced by the prosecution, it is not known on what basis Investigating Officer came to learn about the occurrence and visited Dunkan hospital to record the fardbeyan of the victim. The fardbeyan further lacks authenticity as the same has not even been attested by the doctor of Dunkan Hospital who treated the victim after she was admitted as indoor patient in the said hospital on Bed No. 24C. In this connection, we may refer to the evidence of Investigating Officer (P.W. 10) in paragraph 7 where he stated that he did not even make attempt to secure presence of the Magistrate, Block Development Officer, Circle Officer or the doctor attending on the victim before proceeding to record her fardbeyan. 11. In this connection, we may refer to the evidence of Investigating Officer (P.W. 10) in paragraph 7 where he stated that he did not even make attempt to secure presence of the Magistrate, Block Development Officer, Circle Officer or the doctor attending on the victim before proceeding to record her fardbeyan. 11. The evidence of P.W. 2 that he received information about the occurrence 10 months earlier at Birganj, came to Dunkan Hospital, saw his sister Rabiya Khatoon having suffered burn injuries above waist and unconscious, police officer present at the hospital recorded her statement over which he also put his signature, is required to be considered in the light of the further statement made by P.W. 2 in paragraph 2 of his evidence that when he came to the hospital the victim was unconscious and remained so until her death, makes it quite obvious that P.W. 2 put signature over the fardbeyan as was shown to him by Investigating Officer (P.W. 10), while putting signature P.W. 2 has not certified over the fardbeyan that the same was recorded by her sister in his presence, rather he clarified in the same paragraph that when he came to the hospital his sister was unconscious and remained so until her death and was also unconscious when he put signature over the fardbeyan. In this connection, P.W. 2 further stated that thumb impression of her sister was obtained by the Officer-in-Charge over the fardbeyan while she was unconscious and the Officer-in-Charge never recorded his police statement. 12. The manner in which requisition received from Dunkan Hospital and the Station Diary Entry made in connection with the occurrence on 22.04.2011 at 9.30 A.M. has been concealed together with the fact that there is interpolation in the date, time of recording the fardbeyan, the endorsement dated 22.04.2011 (Exhibit-3) made on the fardbeyan by the Officer-in-Charge, Raxaul Police Station registering the case without indicating the number read with endorsement dated 24.04.2011 made by the scribe of the fardbeyan forwarding the fardbeyan to Officer-in-Charge, Raxaul Police Station for its registration, creates serious doubt about the date, time of recoding the fardbeyan, registration of First Information Report as prosecution has not chosen to examine Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, Inspector-cum-Officer-in-Charge, Raxaul Police Station to explain the aforesaid endorsement (Exhibit-3). In view of the evidence of P.W. 2 it becomes further doubtful whether at the time of recording the fardbeyan victim deceased was capable of making the statement, which she is said to have made. 13. For the reasons aforesaid, we have no option but to grant benefit of doubt to the accused appellant. Appeal is allowed. Judgment/ order dated 22.09.2012/ 01.10.2012 is set aside. Appellant is in jail custody, is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.