JUDGMENT & ORDER : HK Sarma, J. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred, against the judgment, dated 31.07.2015, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Darrang, Mangaldai, in Sessions Case No. 43(DM)/2014 convicting the appellants for offence under Sections 302/34 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with payment of fine of Rs 5,000/- each, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 6 (six) months. 2. The prosecution case is that, the deceased was married to the accused, Khasnur Ali (who has been acquitted vide the impugned judgment) about 2½ years prior to the date of the incident involved in this case. She was subjected to torture by the accused persons and they even opposed to the marriage of the deceased with the said Khasnur Ali for which even after their marriage, the deceased had to be in her parental house for about 6 (six) months. Thereafter, on being persuaded, she came to her matrimonial home and was there till the date of occurrence. On the date of occurrence, the deceased caught fire and sustained 60% burn injuries. She was laid on some banana leaves in the courtyard of the house of the accused persons. It is alleged that the accused persons had set her on fire, resulting in the burn injuries, causing her ultimate death. 3. On such facts, the father of the deceased, Md. Tahid Ali, examined as PW1, lodged the FIR on 30.10.2012, with the Mangaldoi Police Station, on receipt of which, a case, being Mangaldoi Police Station Case No. 67/2012 under Sections 302/34 of the IPC, was registered, investigated into, and finally, on completion of investigation, the police laid the Final Report, dated 27.06.2012 on the ground that the deceased caught fire by accident resulting in her ultimate death. 4. After receipt of notice of the Final Report, the informant/PW1 objected to the same, and on hearing the parties, the learned Magistrate decided to proceed with the case. Accordingly, a complaint case, being CR Case No. 2200/2012, was registered, and thereafter exhausting all the required formalities, committed the case to the court of learned Sessions Judge. 5. The learned Sessions Judge, framed a formal charge against the accused-appellants, under Sections 302/34 of the IPC. The accused-appellants pleaded innocence to the charges, and therefore, the trial commenced. 6. Accordingly, a complaint case, being CR Case No. 2200/2012, was registered, and thereafter exhausting all the required formalities, committed the case to the court of learned Sessions Judge. 5. The learned Sessions Judge, framed a formal charge against the accused-appellants, under Sections 302/34 of the IPC. The accused-appellants pleaded innocence to the charges, and therefore, the trial commenced. 6. In this case, the prosecution has examined as many as 7 (seven) witnesses and the defence examined 1 (one). 7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, statements of the accused-appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.PC and in their such statements, they are heard denying the allegations made against them. Their plea is of total denial and in respect of the accused-appellant No. 1, Md. Laiyakat Ali, plea of alibi has been taken in the statement under Section 313 of the Cr.PC. 8. We have heard Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the accused-appellants assisted by the learned counsel, Mr. A Ahmed as well as Mr. H Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State of Assam. 9. We have perused the record of the learned trial court, including the evidence and the impugned judgment. 10. The PW1, PW2 and PW3 are the father, the mother and the younger sister of the deceased, respectively. The PW5 and PW6 are the witness to the inquest of the dead body of the deceased, vide Ext-2. Their evidence is completely silent about the occurrence and the fact connected with the occurrence. They are the witnesses to the inquest, vide Ext-2(1) and 2(2), respectively. The defence has also not cross-examined these 2 (two) witnesses due to absence of implicating materials in their evidence. 11. The evidence of PW4 would be discussed slightly later along with the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW3. 12. The evidence of PW7, the Autopsy Doctor, is that he performed the post-mortem examination of the dead body of deceased on 27.01.2012 and found as follows:- “External appearance:- Female dead body, average built dark brown complexion, dressed with surgical bandage all over the body. Rigor mortis developed. Mouth and eyes closed. Anus and vagina healthy. Dermo-epidural burn injuries all over the body, except head, front part of chest and abdomen, back of chest both upper limbs covering 60% of total body surface area. Cranium and spinal canal:- Skull, spinal and vertebrae healthy. Rigor mortis developed. Mouth and eyes closed. Anus and vagina healthy. Dermo-epidural burn injuries all over the body, except head, front part of chest and abdomen, back of chest both upper limbs covering 60% of total body surface area. Cranium and spinal canal:- Skull, spinal and vertebrae healthy. Membrane congested, brain congested, spinal cord-not examined. Thorax- Walls as described, others healthy. Pleurae, laryax and trachere, both lungs, pericar dium all congested. Heart healthy, empty. Vessels all healthy. Abdomen- Walls of abdomen as described, peritoneum congested, stomach and its contents empty, healthy. Small intestine and its contents-contains digested food materials. Large intestine and its contents-contains gases and facial. Liver and spleen both healthy, both kidneys congested. Bladder empty. Organs of generation, external, and internal–All healthy. Uterus-Empty and healthy. He opined that the death was due to shock as a result of burn injuries during life covering 60% of total body surface area, and of derma epidermal in nature. Such evidence of the PW7 makes it appear that the deceased died due to shock as a result of burn injuries covering 60% of the surface area of her body. 13. Now, let us consider the evidence of the PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4 in the light of the findings recorded by the PW7. The PW1, PW2 and PW3 are heard saying that they appeared at the place of occurrence after hearing hue and cry and found that the deceased was laid on banana leaves. They also found the accused-appellant, Md. Liyakat Ali was running away from the place of occurrence although the other members of their family, including the co-accused were very much available there at the place of occurrence. There is absolutely no evidence, led by PW1, PW2 and PW3, to the effect that the victim or any other person told them that it was the accused-appellants, who had set the deceased on fire. There is also absolutely no evidence to suggest that the deceased was not in a position to speak at the relevant time when these witnesses appeared at the scene of occurrence. The evidence of PW7/Autopsy Doctor also does not reflect that the deceased, with 60% of burn injuries, was not able to speak due to the fact that the organs enabling her to speak were deactivated due to the burn injuries. 14. The PW4 is the common relation of the informant as well as the accused persons. The evidence of PW7/Autopsy Doctor also does not reflect that the deceased, with 60% of burn injuries, was not able to speak due to the fact that the organs enabling her to speak were deactivated due to the burn injuries. 14. The PW4 is the common relation of the informant as well as the accused persons. The informant/PW1 is the son of his sister and the deceased was his niece. His evidence does not throw light as to the cause of the death of the deceased. He appeared at the place of occurrence, after hearing hue and cry, and found the deceased kept laid on banana leaves with burn injuries on her body. He also deposed that an ambulance was called and, the deceased was shifted to the hospital in that ambulance. But, one fact has come out from his cross-examination that on his appearance in the place of occurrence, he did not notice any neighbours present there. In the instant case, the neighbours included the informant and PW2 and PW3 also, who were, admittedly, having their residences in the vicinity of the place of occurrence, intervening their house by two or three houses from that of the place of occurrence. So, it appears from the above evidence that there is no eye-witness and even none of these witnesses are saying that they have gathered from any specific source that it was the accused-appellants, who had set the deceased on fire. But, the evidence of the PW1 and PW2 makes it appear that the accused-appellants and the members of their family were opposed to their marriage between the accused, Khasnur Ali with the deceased and they subjected her to torture in her matrimonial house demanding dowry. But, such facts although alleged in their evidence yet receives no corroboration from any of the witnesses and this is for the first time, such allegation has been raised in the court. Not to speak of such improvement, the PW1 is also found to have added some new facts in his evidence while he made certain allegations against accused, Khasnur Ali, who was the husband of the deceased. In his FIR, he did not make any allegation against the said Khasnur Ali but in his evidence, he has made accusations against him also. In his FIR, he did not make any allegation against the said Khasnur Ali but in his evidence, he has made accusations against him also. His such action indicates amply that he has tried to develop a make belief story, with a view to rope in the accused, Khasnur Ali along with other appellants. Such fact also reveals that the informant/PW1 cannot be relied upon. 15. The Ext-2, Inquest Report shows that the deceased caught fire while preparing tea in fire wood in the kitchen of her matrimonial home, as per the statement of the witness, i.e., the brother of the deceased, made before the Executive Magistrate who did the inquest. This brother of the deceased is examined as PW5. This PW5 is also the witness to the inquest and his name appears in the column under the head “Name of the identifiers” in the Inquest Report. So such, being the evidence on record, in the considered view of this court, the prosecution has not been able to establish that it was the accused-appellants, who have set the deceased on fire, beyond all reasonable doubts. That apart, the circumstantial evidence, relied upon by the learned trial court, and, as indicated in paragraph 18 of the judgment, appears to this court to be not circumstantial evidence which can be acted upon as such for the reason that, the witnesses were not supporting the facts which the learned trial court referred to while enumerating the circumstantial evidence. 16. That being so, in the considered view of this court, this is a fit case where the accused-appellants deserve to the acquitted, on benefit of doubt. 17. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The bail bond of the accused-appellants stands discharged. 18. Send down the LCR with a copy of this judgment.