JUDGMENT H.B. Prabhakara Sastry, J. - The present appellant as the sole accused was tried and later convicted by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri, (hereinafter referred to as Trial Court for brevity), in Sessions Case No. 77/2010, by its judgment of conviction dated 22-01-2014 and order on sentence dated 28-01-2014, for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC for brevity) and was sentenced accordingly. It is against the said judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the appellant/accused has preferred this appeal. 2. The summary of the case of the prosecution before the Trial Court is that, the accused and the complainant (PW-1) - Sri. B.M. Murthy are the wife and husband. The accused who is the wife was a divorcee with a child and the complainant being younger in age than the accused had married her. The accused knowing that their marriage was not acceptable to the other family members of the complainant and that they were planning to get him again married to some other girl, took the complainant to Madikeri on 20-11-2008 and both of them took a room in a Lodge and on the same night at about 10:30 p.m., she poured petrol on the complainant in the said Gokul Lodge at Madikeri, where they were staying, with an intention to kill him and set fire. Consequently, the complainant sustained burns. However, he was rescued by the room boy of the said Lodge. With the said allegations, the complainant Police had filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC, for which she was tried. 3. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, in order to prove the allegations made against the accused, the prosecution examined in all ten witnesses from PW-1 to PW-10, got marked documents from Exhibits P-1 to P-14(a) and Material Objects from MO-1 to MO-14. Neither any witnesses were examined nor any documents were marked as exhibits from the side of the accused. 4. After hearing both side, the Trial Court by its impugned judgment of conviction dated 22-01-2014, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and by its order on sentence dated 28-01-2014, sentenced her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 4. After hearing both side, the Trial Court by its impugned judgment of conviction dated 22-01-2014, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and by its order on sentence dated 28-01-2014, sentenced her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five months. It is against the said judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the accused has preferred this appeal. 5. The Trial Court records were called for and the same are placed before this Court. 6. The appellant/accused earlier was being represented by her counsel. However, when the matter was listed for final hearing, the said learned counsel for the appellant had remained absent. Considering the fact that the appeal was of the year 2014 and causing further delay in disposing of the matter was not in the best interest of justice, this Court by its detailed order dated 04-03-2020 appointed learned counsel Dr. J.S. Halasetti, a panel advocate from the Legal Services Committee of this Court, to appear on behalf of the appellant and conduct the case of the appellant in this matter. Accordingly, the said learned counsel from the panel of Legal Services Committee of this Court is representing the appellant in the matter. 7. Heard arguments of the learned panel advocate from the Legal Services Committee of this Court for the appellant and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent State. 8. Perused the material placed before this Court including the impugned judgment and also Trial Court records. 9. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as per their ranks before the Trial Court. 10. The points that arise for my consideration in this appeal are:- 1] Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that on 20-11-2008, at about 10:30 p.m., in Gokul Lodge of Madikeri, within the limits of complainant Police Station, the accused by pouring petrol and putting fire upon the complainant-B.M. Murthy, attempted to cause his murder and thereby has committed an offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC? 2] Whether the judgment of conviction and order on sentence deserves any interference at the hands of this Court? 11. 2] Whether the judgment of conviction and order on sentence deserves any interference at the hands of this Court? 11. From a reading of the evidence led from the prosecution side, the undisputed facts remain that, the complainant and accused are the husband and wife. However, the accused was earlier married to another person from whom she had got a son born to her who was aged about eight years as on the date of her second marriage with the present complainant. She had left her first husband and married the complainant which was not acceptable to the other members in the family of the complainant. On 20-11-2008, both the complainant and the accused had been to Madikeri and had stayed in a room at Gokul Lodge. On the same night at about 10:30 p.m., a fire was noticed in the said room where this couple was staying. These aspects have come in the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-5 and have remained un-denied. However, the main question of dispute is, whether the said fire incident was accidental or an intentional act of the accused. If the said act were to be an intentional act of the accused, whether the act can be called as an attempt to murder the complainant - B.M. Murthy. It is in that regard the entire evidence of the prosecution is required to be analysed. 12. PW-1 - complainant-Sri. B.M. Murthy in his evidence has stated that on the night when they stayed at Gokul Lodge in Madikeri on 20-11-2008, at about 10:30 p.m., there was no electricity supply in the said Lodge, as such, they had put on a candle. The said candle fell on the bed, due to which, the bed caught fire and in the said incident, both himself and accused sustained burn injuries. He has also stated that when fire was caught, it was the room boy who rushed and put-off the fire. Thereafter they were shifted to Government Hospital at Madikeri. The witness has also stated that while he was in the Hospital, the Police came, before whom he has given the details of the incident. He has identified the said document at Ex. P-1. Identifying a pant at MO-1, he has stated that it was the same pant which he had worn at the time of the incident. The witness has also stated that while he was in the Hospital, the Police came, before whom he has given the details of the incident. He has identified the said document at Ex. P-1. Identifying a pant at MO-1, he has stated that it was the same pant which he had worn at the time of the incident. Since this witness did not make any allegation against the accused, on the contrary, stated that the fire incident was purely an accidental one, which goes totally against the case of the prosecution, according to which, the complainant has specifically accused the overt act against the accused alleging that it was she who had poured petrol upon him and set fire, the witness was treated as hostile and the prosecution was permitted to cross-examine him. Even in his cross-examination, the witness adhered to his original version and reiterated that the incident of fire was only because a burning candle had accidentally fallen on the bed which caught fire. He denied that contents of Ex. P-1 are as stated by him before the Police. 13. PW-2 (CW-3) - G.M. Sathish Pai - the owner of the said Gokul Lodge at Madikeri has stated that on 20-11-2008, both accused and the complainant had booked a room in their Lodge and were staying there. CW-2 - Revanna was looking after the entire supervision of the Lodge and was working as a manager-cum-server. On that night, at about 10:00 p.m., hearing from the people that one of the rooms in their Lodge had caught fire, he went there and noticed that a bed in the room and accused as well as the complainant had caught fire. However, again, he stated that by the time he went to the Lodge, the injured were already shifted to the Hospital. He further stated that when he enquired, he came to know that the incident of fire was due to a fall of a candle. When he verified the room, he noticed that the bed and the pillow were burnt with fire and came to know that the room boy had put-off the fire. The witness further stated that on the same evening, the Police had come to his Lodge to verify the place and to draw a scene of offence panchanama. Accordingly, in his presence, a scene of offence panchanama as per Ex. The witness further stated that on the same evening, the Police had come to his Lodge to verify the place and to draw a scene of offence panchanama. Accordingly, in his presence, a scene of offence panchanama as per Ex. P-2 was drawn and several of the articles which were burnt in the incident were seized by them under the said panchanama. However, with respect to one mahazar, which according to prosecution was drawn in his presence, was not supported by this witness. He was treated as hostile, but still, the prosecution could not get any support from him in his cross-examination. 14. PW-3 (CW-4) - Narasimhaprabhu though was shown to be a witness for scene of offence panchanama at Ex. P-2, but he has not supported the case of the prosecution. 15. PW-4 (CW-5) - Mariswamy - the elder brother of complainant has stated that it is through phone from the complainant on the night of 20-11-2008, he name to know that, due to the injuries sustained by his brother in the fire incident at Gokul Lodge, he has been admitted to Hospital. Next day morning, he went to the Hospital and saw his injured brother. However, his brother did not reveal him the cause for the fire. Since this witness did not support the case of the prosecution with respect to the alleged seizure panchanama as per Ex. P-5, he was treated as hostile and the prosecution was permitted to cross-examine him. However, he did not support the case of the prosecution any further. 16. PW-5 (CW-8) - Chikkamma the mother of the complainant has stated that, the accused is the wife of the complainant and they reside at Bengaluru. She did not accept their relationship as husband and wife. It is because the accused by force had married the complainant (her son). Since the complainant had told the accused that she had married him by force and that she is elder to him in her age, she took him to a Lodge at Madikeri and by pouring petrol, set fire on him. The witness says that this came to her knowledge. After knowing the information, she went to Madikeri Government Hospital and saw her son, who had sustained burns on his face and body. She stated that, from there, they shifted the injured to K.R. Hospital, Mysuru for higher treatment. The witness says that this came to her knowledge. After knowing the information, she went to Madikeri Government Hospital and saw her son, who had sustained burns on his face and body. She stated that, from there, they shifted the injured to K.R. Hospital, Mysuru for higher treatment. She also stated that, when she enquired with her son, he stated about these things. 17. PW-6 (CW-11) - Dr. Nagaraj has stated that, he was working as a Medical Officer at District Hospital, Madikeri. On 20-11-2008, in the night at about 11:10 p.m., he examined two patients who are the complainant and the accused. The complainant had approached him with the history of burns caused by his wife, i.e. the accused. Per contra, the wife also had a similar history of burns caused upon her by her husband i.e. the complainant. He examined both the witnesses and noticed the burns on the chest, left arm, face and on back of the complainant. The burn injuries were to the extent of 30% to 40%. He referred the injured (complainant) to K.R. Hospital at Mysuru for higher treatment. As per the medical report of K.R. Hospital, Mysuru, the injured complainant had sustained 35% to 40% superficial to deep burns and those injuries were grievous in nature. He has stated that he has issued a Wound Certificate in that regard as per Ex. P-7. The witness has further stated that, in his examination of the accused, he noticed that she had sustained superficial burns on both her hands on the face, and on the neck portion. She was admitted as an in-patient for a day and thereafter was referred for higher treatment on the next day. She had sustained burn injuries to the extent of 20% to 30%. In this regard, he has issued a Wound Certificate which he has identified at Ex. P-8. In his cross-examination, a suggestion was made to the witness suggesting that the injuries described in the Wound Certificates at Exs. P-7 and P-8 can also be caused due to accidental fire which suggestion the witness has admitted as true. 18. PW-7 (CW-14) - Bojappa - the then Head Constable of respondent Police Station has stated that, while he was on Station supervision on 20-11-2008, based on the information regarding Medico-Legal Case (MLC) received from the District Hospital, Madikeri, at about 03:15 hrs. 18. PW-7 (CW-14) - Bojappa - the then Head Constable of respondent Police Station has stated that, while he was on Station supervision on 20-11-2008, based on the information regarding Medico-Legal Case (MLC) received from the District Hospital, Madikeri, at about 03:15 hrs. on 21-11-2008, he went to the District Hospital and recorded the statement of the injured Murthy (CW-1) as per Ex. P-9. After returning to the Police Station, he registered the same in their Station Crime No. 126/2008 and prepared an FIR as per Ex. P-10 and submitted it to the Court. 19. PW-8 (CW-15) - Prakash Gowda, the then Police Sub-Inspector of the respondent Police Station has stated that he took up further investigation in this case from PW-7 - Head Constable on 21-11-2008 and after conducting the investigation in this matter, has filed the charge sheet in this case. He has also stated that in the course of investigation, he visited the spot of the offence and has drawn the scene of offence panchanama as per Ex. P-2 and collected the Material Objects as per MO-2, MO-3, MO-4, MO-5, MO-6, MO-7 and MO-8 from the spot. He also drew one more scene of offence panchanama at the gate of the Lodge as per Ex. P-3 and collected MO-9 to MO-14 there under. He seized the pant of the complainant at MO-1, by drawing a mahazar as per Ex. P-5, recorded the statement of many of the witnesses, sent seized articles for their chemical examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) and also collected the Wound Certificate of the injured complainant and Marriage Certificate of the complainant with the accused and completing the investigation, has filed the charge sheet. 20. PW-9 (CW-18) - Smt. Durga, a woman Police Sub-Inspector has stated that she received the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report as per Ex. P-13 in this case. 21. PW-10 (CW-16) - C. Manjappa - the then Scientific Officer of Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Bengaluru, has stated that the articles sent to their Office in this case were examined by him and noticed that, the articles No. 1 to 6, 10 and 11 were containing petrol element in them. However, no such petrol element was found in the articles No. 8 and 9. He also stated that in article No. 7, the sedative ingredient like Benzodiazepine and Barbiturate group of drugs were not present. However, no such petrol element was found in the articles No. 8 and 9. He also stated that in article No. 7, the sedative ingredient like Benzodiazepine and Barbiturate group of drugs were not present. In this regard, he has issued a report which he has identified at Ex. P-13. He has identified a model seal sent from his Office at Ex. P-14 (sample seal). 22. In the light of the above evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it was the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the material witnesses including the complainant have not supported the case of the prosecution. One important material witness i.e. CW-2 Revanna, who admittedly was the room boy-cum-manager and who is said to have put-off the fire has not been examined by the prosecution. He also stated that when accused is also said to have sustained burns, who had revealed before the Doctor that it was the complainant/(her husband) who had put fire on her, the prosecution has not ascertained as to why no case was made against complainant in that regard. He also stated that the non-detection of petrol smell in the Material Objects at MO-8 and MO-9 also creates doubt in the case of the prosecution. 23. Learned High Court Government Pleader in his argument submitted that it is only the complainant who has not supported the case of the prosecution, but all other witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. Even the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report also shows the presence of elements of petrol in the seized articles including the bed sheet, pillow cover, etc. Learned Government Pleader further submitted that the accused should have questioned PW-2 (owner of the Lodge), in his cross-examination about the reason of the fire incident in his Lodge, as such, non-questioning of PW-2 leads to believe that it was the accused who had lit the fire. He further submits that the evidence of PW-5 - the mother of the complainant is very natural, as such, it is believable. Her evidence clearly shows the guilt against the accused. He further submits that the evidence of PW-5 - the mother of the complainant is very natural, as such, it is believable. Her evidence clearly shows the guilt against the accused. Stating that mere hostility of PW-1 would not take away the case of the prosecution and that a culprit should not be let go scot-free, learned Government Pleader relied upon a judgment of the Honble Apex Court in the case of Kameshwar Singh v. State of Bihar and others reported in 2018 Criminal Law Journal 2533 . 24. It is only three persons who can speak about the alleged incident. First is the complainant (PW-1), second is the room-boy cum Manager-Revanna (CW-2) who is said to have put-off the fire and shifted the injured to Hospital and thirdly it is none else than the accused herself who is also alleged to have sustained burns, however, at the instance of the complainant. Since she being the accused, it is only from PW-1 - complainant and PW-2, the prosecution was mainly expected to extract the details of the incident and also about the alleged role of the accused in the alleged act. 25. Admittedly, the very important and material witness who is the complainant himself has not supported the case of the prosecution. Though he has spoken about the incident of fire said to have taken place in Gokul Lodge at Madikeri on that night on 20-11-2008, but he has categorically and in unequivocal terms stated that, the said fire incident was by an accidental fall of a candle on the bed. He has also stated that at about 10:30 p.m. in the night on the said day, electricity supply was not there, as such, they had put on a candle which fell on the bed, from which, it caught fire. It is in the said process, he sustained burns. As observed above, even in his detailed cross-examination, the prosecution could not get any support from him. The witness even gone to the extent of denying the contents of Ex. P-1. Therefore, even though PW-7 - Bojappa - the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police has stated that, he has recorded the statement of injured, which he has identified at Ex. P-1, but since the very injured himself has denied the contents of the same, the evidence of said PW-7 - Bojappa would not benefit the prosecution. 26. P-1. Therefore, even though PW-7 - Bojappa - the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police has stated that, he has recorded the statement of injured, which he has identified at Ex. P-1, but since the very injured himself has denied the contents of the same, the evidence of said PW-7 - Bojappa would not benefit the prosecution. 26. The second important witness - Sri. G.M. Sathish Pai (PW-2), who is the owner of the Lodge, is admittedly not an eye witness to the incident. He has only stated that it is after hearing from the people about the incident of fire in his Lodge, he rushed there, only to see that a fire had broken in the room where the accused and the complainant were staying. According to him, both the complainant and the accused had sustained burns and they had already been shifted to Hospital. In his examination-in-chief, this witness has stated that on his enquiry, he came to know that, fire took place because of fall of a burning candle on the bed. Even though the prosecution cross-examined him, after getting him treated as hostile as well, the prosecution did not ask him any question about the alleged human act in the accident of fire, on the other hand, only concentrated in cross-examining him with respect to an alleged mahazar at Ex. P-3 said to have been drawn near the gate of his Lodge, where under, the Material Objects at MO-9 to MO-14 were said to have been seized. Thus, even from the evidence of PW-2 also, nothing could be elicited to show that the alleged incident of fire was by any human act. 27. Admittedly, PW-4 and PW-5 are hearsay witnesses. PW-4 who is the elder brother of the complainant has stated in his examination-in-chief itself that, it is only from the complainant, he came to know about the incident and after visiting the Hospital, he saw his injured brother. However, nowhere in his evidence, he has stated as to how the said incident was caused, on the other hand, he has stated that his brother (complainant) did not tell him as to how the incident of fire took place. In this way, PW-4 is also proved to be of no help to the prosecution. 28. However, nowhere in his evidence, he has stated as to how the said incident was caused, on the other hand, he has stated that his brother (complainant) did not tell him as to how the incident of fire took place. In this way, PW-4 is also proved to be of no help to the prosecution. 28. PW-5 - the mother of the complainant though has stated that she came to know that it was the accused who put petrol and set fire to it, but the said witness is admittedly a hearsay witness. She has not specifically stated as to when and who told her all those details, however she has, at the end of her examination-in-chief has stated that when she enquired her son (complainant), he told about the incident. But even according to her, the source of her information about the details alleged to have been told to her is, her son. As already observed, the said son who is PW-1 - Complainant has turned hostile to the prosecution, who has categorically stated that, the incident of fire was purely an accidental one and the same was due to fall of a burning candle on the bed and not due to any human intervention, much less, by the accused. Therefore, when the very basic source of information of PW-5 itself, i.e. the complainant has denied the case of the prosecution and has given a different reason for the act of fire, the hearsay evidence of PW-5 is not safe to rely upon. 29. Barring the above, no other witnesses have spoken about the incident. The prosecution evidence of PW-6 - Doctor would only show that, both accused and complainant had sustained burns when he examined them on the same night. Though the evidence of PW-10 - FSL Officer would go to show that the elements of petrol were noticed in Material Objects at MO-1 to MO-6, MO-10 and MO-11, which articles are pant, pillow, bed sheets seized from the spot of the alleged offence, but by that itself, it cannot be deduced that the accused had poured petrol and put fire to it. Though the prosecution could have examined CW-2 - Revanna, the alleged room boy cum Manager, who was said to have put-off the fire and rescued the complainant, it is brought to the notice of the Court by the learned High Court Government Pleader that, the Trial Court in its order sheet dated 28-08-2012 has recorded that the said Revanna -(CW-2) was reported to be dead. Therefore, the benefit of evidence of said CW-2 - Revanna could not have been got by the prosecution. Further, according to PW-1 complainant, at the time of alleged incident, there was no electricity in the said Lodge. However, the prosecution has not made any attempt to disprove the same. The prosecution could have either summoned the concerned Electricity Supply Company officials and examined them or at least could have posed a question in that regard to PW-2, who undisputedly is the owner of the said Lodge. Thus, even after knowing that PW-1 has turned hostile to it, the prosecution, for the reasons best known to it, did not attempt to elicit any answer in that regard from PW-2 about the presence of electricity at the time of the incident. Thus, the said evidence of PW-1 that there was no electricity at that point of time would also support his contention that it was for the said reason a candle was lit and due to the fall of which the bed and beddings in the room caught fire. 30. Apart from the main loopholes in the case of the prosecution, still, assuming that the prosecution version as per Ex. P-1 - the complaint can be believed, still, it can be seen that in the complaint, the complainant is said to have stated that when he woke up due to the heat of fire on that night, he saw the accused holding a knife, a packet of chilli power and some petrol in a Can in his front. Still, the very complaint itself creates a doubt in it, as to in that spur of the moment, when a fire is alleged to be spreading in the room, how come the complainant could notice as to what was the content in the packet as well in the Can alleged to have been held by his wife (accused). Still, the very complaint itself creates a doubt in it, as to in that spur of the moment, when a fire is alleged to be spreading in the room, how come the complainant could notice as to what was the content in the packet as well in the Can alleged to have been held by his wife (accused). Secondly, in the very same complaint, it is further alleged that, when he came out of the room near the stair case in the Lodge, the accused followed him and pouring petrol upon him had set fire through a lighter, which she was holding. Complainant, nowhere says as to how, where and when that lighter came into the hands of the accused. It is because, even according to the complainant, when the complainant saw the accused, just a short while ago, she was only holding a knife, chilli power and a Can, but, there is no whisper about she holding or possessing a lighter in her hand. Thus, the very complaint itself raises further doubts, which have remained un-answered. However, incidentally, the complainant who is the author of the said complaint has turned hostile to the prosecution. As such, the prosecution case has fallen on its own feet, without much difficulty from the other side. 31. In the above context, when the judgment of the Honble Apex Court in Kameshwar Singhs case (supra) relied upon by the learned Government Pleader, in his argument is verified, the Honble Apex Court in the said judgment, regarding the duty of the Court in appreciating the evidence of the witnesses under Section 3 of the Evidence Act, 1872, was pleased to hold on one hand, that no innocent man should be punished, but on the other hand, it must be seen that no person committing offence should go scot-free and if in spite of such effort, suspicion is not dissolved, it remains writ of large, benefit of doubt has to be credited to accused. Following the principle laid in the said case, no doubt the accused should not be led to go scot-free, provided the guilt against her is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Since the above analysis would reveal that there are abundant lacunas in the case of the prosecution, even as per the above referred judgment of the Honble Apex Court, the benefit of the same has to be credited to accused. 32. Since the above analysis would reveal that there are abundant lacunas in the case of the prosecution, even as per the above referred judgment of the Honble Apex Court, the benefit of the same has to be credited to accused. 32. However, the Trial Court without noticing these glaring lapses and lacunas in the case of the prosecution, has embraced the alleged hearsay evidence of PW-5 - the mother of the complainant and the FSL report which led it to jump to a conclusion holding the accused guilty of the alleged offences. Since the said judgment has now proved to be erroneous, the same deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER [i] The appeal filed by accused/appellant is allowed; [ii] The judgment of conviction dated 22-01-2014 and order on sentence dated 28-01-2014, passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri, in Sessions Case No. 77/2010, is set aside; [iii] The accused/appellant - Smt. Sumithra, W/o. Murthy, Aged about 35 years, Resident of Kundanahalli, White Field, Bangalore - 560066, is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; [iv] The fine amount deposited, if any, by the accused, in the Trial Court, be refunded to her, after the period of appeal and if no appeal is preferred; The Court acknowledges the services rendered by Dr. J.S. Halasetti, learned panel advocate from the High Court Legal Services Committee. While acknowledging the assistance rendered by him in this case, the Court recommends to consider the remuneration payable to him to an amount not less than a sum of Rs. 5,000/-. Registry to transmit a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court records to the Trial Court immediately.