ORDER : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. In Sessions Trial No.258 of 2007 Rajiv Ranjan Kumar and Basudeo Prasad have faced the trial on the charge under section 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for causing dowry death of Asha Devi. An alternative charge under section 302/34 IPC for committing murder of Asha Devi in furtherance of common intention was also framed against them. Basudeo Prasad has been acquitted on the ground that his presence at the time of occurrence has not been established during the trial. 2. The learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad has held as under: "From the scrutiny of the evidence on record I find that none of the witnesses have slated that accused Basudeo Prasad was present at the time of occurrence. On the other hand the defence has proved that the said Basudeo Prasad was not present at the time of occurrence. PW-4 who was present when accused Rajiv Ranjan was fleeing away with Tempo speedily but he has not stated that his father Basudeo Prasad was present at his house. All the witnesses have stated that accused Basudeo Prasad, Rajiv Ranjan and deceased used to reside in the house. There is no evidence that accused Basudeo Prasad was anyhow involved in the, atrocious murder of Asha Devi. There is no tinge of evidence to Show that accused Basudeo Prasad was present and he has committed, the murder of the, deceased. Therefore in absence of any evidence I am of the view that the said Basudeo Prasad is entitled for benefit of doubt. Therefore accused Basudeo Prasad is entitled for acquittal for the charge U/s.302/34 I.PC, and accordingly he is acquitted for the charge U/s.302/34 IPC". 3. The charge under section 304-B/34 IPC has failed. The learned trial Judge has found that no evidence on harassment and torture of Asha Devi in connection to demand of dowry was laid during trial and, in fact, none of the witnesses has supported the charge of dowry death, against the accused persons. 4. Rajiv Ranjan Kumar, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to R.I for life under section 302 IPC. 5. 4. Rajiv Ranjan Kumar, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to R.I for life under section 302 IPC. 5. Chirkunda (Kumardhubi) P.S Case No.68 of 2007 was lodged on the basis of a written report given by Ram Singhsan Ram, ASI of Kumardhubi O.P who on an information has gone to village-Munda Dhowara and visited the place of occurrence which is the house of the appellant. In the house three water filled utensils and one bowl (tasla) were found in the kitchen and some edibles, spices, salt, match-box etc. were kept in arranged manner. In the connecting room dead body of one young lady with burnt clothes was lying on the ground. According to the informant Asha Devi, the deceased lady, was beaten by her husband, who was plying a tempo. About four years ago she was married to Rajiv Ranjan Kumar and were residing, in a rented house at village-Munda Dhowara. He has expressed a doubt on the basis of information gathered by him that her husband poured kerosene oil on Asha Oevi and set her on fire. After investigation a charge sheet was filed against Rajiv Rajan Kumar and Basudeo Prasad and, as noticed above, they have faced the trial on the charge under section 304-8/34 IPC and alternatively' under section 302/34 IPC. In the trial the prosecution has examined 14 witnesses, all of whom except the informant, the doctor and the investigating officer, are co-villagers of the accused persons. The majority of the co-villagers viz. PW-1, PW-5, PW-6, PW-8 land PW-13 have turned hostile. PW-2, Raja Ram Sao who is the father of Asha Devi has not supported the prosecution case and was declared hostile. 6. PW-12, Dr. Shailendra Kumar who has conducted the post-mortem examination at 03:00 PM on 07.03.2007 has found dermo-epidermal burn injury to the extent of hundred per cent on the dead body of Asha Devi, except her soles. On her right thigh the burn injury was muscle deep, the scalp hairs were partially burnt and soot particles were found all over the dead body. 7. In paragraph no.30 of the judgment, the learned trial Judge has observed that the following circumstances would go against innocence of the appellant: (i) The marriage in between Rajiv Ranjan Kumar and Asha Devi is admitted. (ii) Asha Devi was residing at Munda Dhowra before two months the alleged Occurrence. 7. In paragraph no.30 of the judgment, the learned trial Judge has observed that the following circumstances would go against innocence of the appellant: (i) The marriage in between Rajiv Ranjan Kumar and Asha Devi is admitted. (ii) Asha Devi was residing at Munda Dhowra before two months the alleged Occurrence. (iii) The witnesses have stated that on the alleged date of occurrence accused Rajiv Ranjan Kumar assaulted his wife. This fact has been supported by PW-9. (iv) On the alleged date of Occurrence accused Raji Ranjan was fleeing away by his Tempo with high speed. This fact has also been supported by PW-4 and other witnesses (v) Asha Devi died by burn injuries and her hands and feet were tied with rope. This fact has been proved hr PW-4 . (vi) The doctor (PW-12) has also supported that the death was due to shock as a result of cent percent kerosene oil burn injuries. (vii) The door was bolted from the outside and the rings of the door was tied with rope. This fact has also been supported by PW-4 and I.O. (PW-14). The door was not bolted from inside, hence it cannot be said that said Asha Devi had committed suicide. (viii) No information was given by the accused Rajiv Ranjan Kumar regarding the death of his wife to the police. (ix) Post-mortem Report (Ext.5) and Inquest Report (Ext.-4) proved that the death was homicidal. (x) Police after getting information reached at the spot and lodged the FIR on the basis of the written report of Ram Singhasan Ram-A.S.I, Kumardhubi O.P 8. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant set Asha Devi on fire in the early morning on 07.03.2007, closed the doors of the house and ran away. The neighbors who detected smoke from the window of his house rushed to rescue and tried to put off the fire, but Asha Devi succumbed to the burn injuries. PW-1, PW-2, PW-5, PW-6, PW-8 and PW-13 have resiled from their earlier statements made before the police. PW-1 has stated that his statement was not recorded by the police; PW-2 has deposed in the Court that he has no knowledge whether his son-in-law was inflicting torture upon his daughter and has killed her and; PW-5 PW-6 PW-8 and PW-13 have also denied that their statement was recorded by the police. PW-1 has stated that his statement was not recorded by the police; PW-2 has deposed in the Court that he has no knowledge whether his son-in-law was inflicting torture upon his daughter and has killed her and; PW-5 PW-6 PW-8 and PW-13 have also denied that their statement was recorded by the police. It is true that merely because a witness is declared hostile at the request of the prosecution and with the permission of the Court the prosecution has cross-examined him, his evidence is not effaced from the record and cannot be rejected wholesale and the prosecution can rely on a portion of the examination-in-chief; and cross-examination of a hostile witness which supports its case. 9. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 have seen the burnt dead body of Asha Devi in her matrimonial home. They have stated that the appellant was plying tempo and he had recently come to the village and residing with his wife and father. PW-3 is the inquest witness who has deposed in the Court that the appellant has also signed the inquest report. PW-4 is a co-villager who has stated in the Court that on hearing hullah he has rushed to the house of the appellant. He has found the doors of the house tied with a small thin rope (sutli), which was broken open by the villagers. He has gone inside the house and found Asha Devi whose hands were tied set ablaze. The villagers tried to extinguish the fire but could not save her. He has stated that in the morning he has seen the appellant driving tempo in speed. He has further stated that the appellant would frequently commit maarpit with his wife. However, in his cross-examination he has stated that he cannot say how the wife of the appellant was caught fire. His evidence in the examination-in-chief that he had rushed to the house of the appellant and in his presence the doors of the house were broken open and the villagers had tried to put off the fire arc contradicted by his statement in the cross-examination wherein he has stated that after the police came and entered the house he has gone there; the police has arrived in the village on information and when everything was over. He has reiterated in his cross-examination that the hands of Asha Devi were tied, but then, in his cross-examination the investigating officer has stated that Ganesh Tanti did not tell him that hands of Asha Devi were tied. PW-7 is a neighbour of the appellant who has stated in his cross-examination that he has not seen any quarrel between the appellant and his wife. He was not declared hostile by the prosecution. 10. PW-9 is an important witness for the prosecution. She has stated that the appellant slapped his wife in the morning because she did not prepare his breakfast. According to her it was about 08:00-09:00 AM and when she registered her objection the appellant threatened to kill her. In the cross-examination she was confronted with her previous statement under section 161 Cr.P.C wherein she has not spoken about these facts. She has, however, reiterated that she has made such statements before the police. Her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C was proved through the investigating officer who has deposed in the Court that PW-9 did not state before him that the appellant slapped his wife and when she objected to beating of his wife he threatened her and closed the windows. The improvements in her statement in the Court is a relevant factor to examine her credibility. PW-10 is another neighbor who has stated that she has seen villagers rushing to the house of the appellant which had caught fire. She has however not entered the house of the appellant. PW-11 is the informant who has reproduced his written report dated 07.03.2007 on the basis of which the First Information Report was lodged. He has admitted in his cross-examination that the appellant was present at the time of the inquest and he has signed the inquest report. PW-14 is the investigating officer through whom statements of PW-1, PW-4, PW-5, PW-8 and PW-13 were proved. 11. It is well-settled in law that the minor discrepancies in the evidence of a prosecution witness are not given undue emphasize and what is important to examine is whether the testimony or a witness inspires confidence and is credible. Every omission in the evidence of a witness is not material omission and minor contradictions, inconsistencies or improvements do not affect the core of the prosecution case. Every omission in the evidence of a witness is not material omission and minor contradictions, inconsistencies or improvements do not affect the core of the prosecution case. However, the omissions, inconsistencies and exaggerations by a witness in the Court which are intended to meet the prosecution case would affect the truthfulness and credibility of the witness. In "State of H.P v. Lekh Raj" (2000) 1 SCC 247 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: 7." ..... Discrepancy has to be distinguished from contradiction. Whereas contradiction in the statement of the witness is fatal for the case, minor discrepancy or variance in evidence will not make the prosecution’s case doubtful. The normal course of the human conduct would be that while narrating a particular incident there may occur minor discrepancies. such discrepancies in law may render credential to the depositions. Parrot-like statements are disfavored by the courts. In order to ascertain as to whether the discrepancy pointed out was minor or not or the same amounted to contradiction, regard is required to be had to the circumstances of the case by keeping in view the social status of the witnesses and environment in which such witness was making the statement. This Court in Ousu Varghese v. State of Kerala held that minor variations in the accounts of the witnesses are often the hallmark of the truth of their testimony. In Jagdish v. State of M.P this Court held that when the discrepancies were comparatively of a minor character and did not go to the root of the prosecution story, they need not be given undue importance. Mere congruity or consistency is not the sole test of truth in the depositions. This Court again in State of Rajasthan v. Kalki held that in the depositions of witnesses there are always normal discrepancies, however, honest and truthful they may be. Such discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation. Normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence, and the like. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal and not expected of a normal person." 12. Such discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation. Normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence, and the like. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal and not expected of a normal person." 12. The improvements made by PW-4 and PW-9 in the Court are material contradictions in their testimony and therefore their statements made for the first time in the Court must be excluded from consideration and it has to be taken that the prosecution witnesses did not inform the investigating officer that they have found the doors of the appellant's house closed with a thin rope. PW-4 has stated that the villagers tried to save Asha Devi by covering her body with a blanket and the investigating officer has found a burnt blanket in the room in which Asha Devi was found dead. There is no legally admissible evidence about presence of the appellant at that time in the house. But a circumstance that the appellant was seen leaving his house, driving the tempo in speed, was taken against him. But, DW-2 has stated in the Court that in the morning the appellant had taken his wife on the tempo to Kalyaneshwmi Temple, Maithan. Moreover, leaving the house hurriedly or the circumstance that he has been found leaving his house immediately before smoke was detected coming from the house, without any other corroborative evidence on complicity of the appellant, cannot be treated as an incriminating material against him. There must be a live link between ascendance or leaving the house hurriedly with the crime. 13. The parents of Asha Devi have not supported the prosecution and they have deposed in the Court in favour of the appellant. DW-l, the mother of Asha Devi has stated that her daughter was never harassed or beaten by her husband. She was suffering from mental illness and was treated with the doctor. PW-6, PW-7 and PW-8 have also deposed in the Court that they have not seen any quarrel between the appellant and his wife. The charge under section 304-B IPC has failed and therefore it must be held that there is no evidence on demand of dowry or harassment and torture of Asha Devi. PW-6, PW-7 and PW-8 have also deposed in the Court that they have not seen any quarrel between the appellant and his wife. The charge under section 304-B IPC has failed and therefore it must be held that there is no evidence on demand of dowry or harassment and torture of Asha Devi. The learned trial Judge has relied on three circumstances to find the appellant guilty; the doors of the house was bolted from outside, hands and feet of Asha Devi were tied and no information was given by the appellant to the police. However, we find that the aforesaid findings recorded by the learned trial Judge arc contrary to the record. The circumstance that no information was given by the appellant to the police is, in the face of the evidence of DW-2 that he had taken his wife to Kalyaneshwari Temple, Maithan, cannot be treated as an incriminating circumstance. From the evidence of DW-2 this stand explained why the information to the police was not given by the appellant about the Occurrence. He has been found in his house at the time of the inquest proceedings and he is a witness to the inquest report. PW-11 has admitted in cross-examination that in his written report he has not stated name of the villagers who had informed him that the house of the appellant was bolted from the outside and the appellant, would commit maarpit with his wife. 14. There is one rule of evidence which says that the prosecution has to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and section 106 of the Evidence Act is not intended to relieve the prosecution of its initial burden (refer, "Shambhu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer" A/R 1956 SC 404). We would also keep in mind that merely because a woman has been found dead in her matrimonial home is not a ground to raise a presumption under section 106 of the Evidence Act to convict the husband for murder of his wife (refer, Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab" (2011) 15 SCC 285 ). PW-12, Dr. Shailendra Kumar has slated in his cross-examination that possibility of suicide cannot be ruled out. PW-12, Dr. Shailendra Kumar has slated in his cross-examination that possibility of suicide cannot be ruled out. The evidence of defence witnesses including DW-1, the mother of Asha Devi has seriously challenged the prosecution case that Asha Devi has suffered a homicidal death and no material was placed before the trial Court nor before us that on the objective findings recorded by PW-12 who has conducted the post-mortem examination it can be conclusively held that she has suffered a homicidal death. 15. In "Gargi v. State of Haryana" (2019) 9 SCC 738 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the circumstantial evidence in the context of a crime means such facts and surrounding factors which do point towards the complicity of the charged accused and to prove the charge the chain of circumstances must be complete and the Surrounding factors should establish the guilt of the charged accused beyond reasonable doubt, while ruling out any other theory or possibility or hypothesis. 16. In "State of U.P v. Krishna Gopal" (1998) 4 SCC 302 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed thus; “25…Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract speculation. Law cannot afford any favourite other than truth. To constitute reasonable doubt, it must be free from an over-emotional response. Doubts must be actual and substantial doubts as to the guilt of the accused person arising from the evidence, or from the lack of it, as opposed to mere vague apprehensions. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely possible doubt: but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence ill the case. 17. In the background of the aforesaid observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the factual scenario that we have noted herein above, in the end we arrive at the conclusion that the appellant is entitled for the benefit of doubt. The prosecution has failed to prove the charge under section 302 IPC and, accordingly, the judgment of conviction of the appellant, namely, Rajiv Ranjan Kumar under section 302 IPC, and the order of sentence of R.I for life under section 302 IPC, both, dated 05.12.2008, passed by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No.258 of 2007, are set-aside. 18. 18. The appellant above-named is acquitted of the charge under section 302 IPC framed against him in Sessions Trial No.258 of 2007. 19. Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, the learned APP states that the appellant is in custody. 20. The appellant, namely, Rajiv Ranjan Kumar who is in custody shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection to any other case. 21. In the result, Criminal Appeal (D.B) No.36 of 2009 is allowed. 22. Let a copy of the judgment be transmitted to the Court concerned and the concerned jail superintendent through 'Fax'. 23. Let the lower Court records be sent to the Court concerned forthwith.