JUDGMENT : Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. This criminal appeal preferred by the accused/appellant under Section 374(2) of the CrPC is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction recorded and sentence awarded by the learned Sessions Judge by which the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months. 2. It is admitted position on record that marriage of the appellant was solemnized with deceased Kamini Sahu in the year 2003 and they were blessed with two daughters Ku. Benika Sahu (PW-2) & Ku. Khushi. On 26-3-2011, between 8 and 9 p.m., deceased Kamini Sahu suffered superficial to deep burn injuries and at that time, Ku. Benika Sahu (PW-2) & Ku. Khushi both were present and the appellant had taken his wife/deceased to Durg hospital and got her admitted over there and on the next day, she was referred to Medical College Hospital, Raipur, but she was hospitalized at Sector-9 Hospital, Bhilai on 27-3-2011 and she was got discharged from Sector-9 Hospital on 25-4-2011 and thereafter, she died on 25-5-2011 at 6.30 p.m. Further case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 26-3-2011, the appellant and the deceased along with their two daughters Ku. Benika Sahu (PW-2) & Ku. Khushi were staying in Village Selud, Distt. Durg and at that point of time, the appellant was serving as Home Guard. Benika Sahu (PW-2) & Ku. Khushi were staying in Village Selud, Distt. Durg and at that point of time, the appellant was serving as Home Guard. It is the case of the prosecution that ten days prior to the date of offence i.e. 26-3-2011, Suryakant Sahu (PW-5) – brother of the deceased, was also staying with the deceased at Village Selud and on 26-3-2011, in the morning, he had gone to Village Pahanda and on that day, father of the deceased Suresh Kumar Sahu (PW-1) asked Suryakant Sahu (PW-5) to call his daughter Kamini Sahu to have a conversation with her, then on being called, they heard the cry of Kamini Sahu ‘bachao bachao’ and then immediately, Suresh Kumar Sahu (PW-1), Suryakant Sahu (PW-5) & Teekamchand Sahu (PW-7) all reached to the house of the appellant at Village Selud where the smell of burn was coming and kerosene oil was found scattered, and both daughters of the appellant & the deceased were present over there and servant Durga Thakur (PW-4) was also present, and on being asked, it was informed by Durga Thakur (PW-4) that the appellant had taken deceased Kamini Sahu to Durg hospital. It is also the case of the prosecution that Ku. Benika Sahu (PW-2) and another daughter of the appellant & the deceased – Ku. Khushi informed Suresh Kumar Sahu (PW-1), Suryakant Sahu (PW-5) & Teekamchand Sahu (PW-7) that the appellant assaulted their mother by wooden stick and poured kerosene oil on her body and set her on fire, thereafter, all reached to the District Hospital, Durg where the deceased was already admitted. Deceased Kamini Sahu was examined in Outdoor Patient Department, District Hospital, Durg, vide Ex.P-12 which has been proved by Dr. V.S. Baghel (PW9) and in Ex.P-13, which is Indoor Patient Admission Ticket, it was clearly mentioned that the deceased was conscious and it is a case of 50-55% burn injuries and complaint was “flame burn while cooking”. Information was given by Govt. Distt. Hospital, Durg to the police on 26-3-2011 at 10.15 p.m. vide Ex.P-14 which has been proved by Dr. V.S. Baghel (PW-9). But later-on, on 27-3-2011, looking to the condition of the deceased that there was superficial to deep burn injuries on chest, abdomen, both limbs, right arm, face & neck, Dr. Information was given by Govt. Distt. Hospital, Durg to the police on 26-3-2011 at 10.15 p.m. vide Ex.P-14 which has been proved by Dr. V.S. Baghel (PW-9). But later-on, on 27-3-2011, looking to the condition of the deceased that there was superficial to deep burn injuries on chest, abdomen, both limbs, right arm, face & neck, Dr. V.S. Baghel (PW-9) referred her to Medical College Hospital, Raipur / higher centre, however, she was not taken to the Medical College Hospital by the appellant and she was admitted in Sector-9 Hospital, Bhilai on 27-3-2011. Initial Assessment Sheet (Ex.P-16) proved by Dr. Parag Gupta (PW-11) shows that in the column of Chief Complaints, history given by the patient / deceased herself was, she sustained burns while cooking on wooden chulha when she poured kerosene over it at her residence on 26-3-2011. The deceased remained hospitalized and the said hospital informed the appellant and father of the deceased Suresh Kumar Sahu (PW-1) that condition of the deceased is critical having suffered 70% burn injuries and treatment may cost Rs. 4-5 lacs to which they agreed and duly signed vide Ex.P-17 which has been proved by Dr. Parag Gupta (PW-11) and thereafter, she remained hospitalized. Thereafter, her treatment remained continued in the said hospital at Bhilai and on 25-4-2011 at 10.30 a.m. vide Ex.P-18 proved by Dr. Parag Gupta (PW-11), the deceased was discharged leave against medical advice (LAMA) duly signed by deceased Kamini Sahu as well as her husband, the appellant herein. Thereafter, she was again admitted in hospital at Durg and on 25-5-2011 at 6.30 p.m., deceased Kamini Sahu died pursuant to which morgue intimation under zero number was recorded vide Ex.P9 on the report of Rajesh Kumar, son of Kashyap Kumar and consequently, Morgue Intimation No.48/2011 was registered vide Ex.P-10. 3. Inquest was conducted on 26-5-2011 vide Ex.P-2. Postmortem was conducted vide Ex.P-15 by Dr. Vipin Jain (PW-10) and cause of death was reported to be shock and septicemia as a consequence of antemortem burn. Thereafter, FIR was registered on 30-5-2011 vide Ex.P-20 against the appellant and on 1-6-2011 at 7.30 p.m., memorandum statement of the accused was recorded vide Ex.P-4 pursuant to which seizure was made on 1-6-2011 at 7.50 p.m. and danda was seized and on the same day, jerry can was also seized vide Ex.P-6. Thereafter, FIR was registered on 30-5-2011 vide Ex.P-20 against the appellant and on 1-6-2011 at 7.30 p.m., memorandum statement of the accused was recorded vide Ex.P-4 pursuant to which seizure was made on 1-6-2011 at 7.50 p.m. and danda was seized and on the same day, jerry can was also seized vide Ex.P-6. The appellant was arrested on 1-6-2011 at 10.30 p.m. and the jurisdictional police requested the District Hospital for examination of the injured vide Ex.P-11A and injured Kamini was examined vide Ex.P-11 in which also it has been stated, “flame burn while cooking”. Thereafter, statements of the witnesses including the statement of eyewitness Ku. Benika Sahu (PW-2) under Section 161 of the CrPC were recorded on 1-6-2011 and statements of Suresh Kumar Sahu (PW-1), Suryakant Sahu (PW-5) & Teekamchand Sahu (PW-7) – both brothers, were also recorded. 4. After completion of investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted by the respondent herein and on the case being committed, charge was framed against the appellant herein for offence under Section 302 of the IPC. The appellant abjured the guilt and entered into witness/defence. 5. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited 29 documents Exs.P-1 to P-29, whereas no witness was examined on behalf of the defence, however, the statement of Teekamchand Sahu recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC was brought on record as Ex.D-1 and the OPD ticket of the appellant’s medical examination was also brought on record as Ex.D1. The appellant has been examined under Section 313 of the CrPC in which he abjured the guilt, pleaded innocence and false implication. 6. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment against which this appeal has been preferred and conviction has been sought to be questioned by the appellant herein. 7. Mr. M.P.S. Bhatia, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit as under:- 1. The prosecution has failed to prove that death of the deceased was homicidal. Statements of Dr. V.S. Baghel (PW-9), Dr. Vipin Jain (PW-10), Dr. Parag Gupta (PW-11) & Dr. 7. Mr. M.P.S. Bhatia, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit as under:- 1. The prosecution has failed to prove that death of the deceased was homicidal. Statements of Dr. V.S. Baghel (PW-9), Dr. Vipin Jain (PW-10), Dr. Parag Gupta (PW-11) & Dr. Meenakshi Dave (PW-12) would show that death of the deceased was accidental in nature and the deceased has suffered burn injuries while cooking and apart from that, in the hospital documents, it has clearly been recorded that the deceased suffered burn injuries while cooking, therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the death to be homicidal in nature. In alternative, learned counsel would also submit that the prosecution has failed to prove that burn injuries were caused by the appellant after pouring kerosene oil on her body and Ku. Benika Sahu (PW-2) is tutored witness and is not reliable, as in case of child witness, corroboration is required and furthermore, Ku. Benika Sahu (PW-2) has stated that the appellant caused injury by wooden stick on the head of the deceased, whereas no head injury was found over the body of the deceased. 2. Ku. Benika Sahu (PW-2) is cited and relied upon by the trial Court as eye-witness. The incident is of 26-3-2011, whereas her statement under Section 161 of the CrPC has been recorded on 1-6-2011 which goes to show that she has been tutored and on the basis of the evidence of tutored witness, conviction cannot be rested. 3. Testimony of Suresh Kumar Sahu (PW-1) – father of the deceased, Suryakant Sahu (PW-5) – brother of the deceased and Teekamchand Sahu (PW-7) – another brother of the deceased, is not worthy of credence / reliable, as the alleged incident of assaulting the deceased was allegedly informed by Ku. Benika Sahu (PW-2) on 26-3-2011, but no FIR was lodged to that effect and it was not informed to any one till her death on 25-5-2011 and only when she died on 25-5-2011 and when morgue was recorded at the instance of District Hospital, Durg, then only Suresh Kumar Sahu (PW-1), Ku. Benika Sahu (PW-2), Suryakant Sahu (PW-5) & Teekamchand Sahu (PW-7) have implicated the appellant for no reason. As such, their evidence deserves to be discarded. 4. Benika Sahu (PW-2), Suryakant Sahu (PW-5) & Teekamchand Sahu (PW-7) have implicated the appellant for no reason. As such, their evidence deserves to be discarded. 4. He would further submit that it is admitted position on record that the appellant tried to save the life of the deceased, he had immediately taken her to the hospital, got her hospitalized and incurred Rs. 3,50,000/- in her treatment and when they could not further get her treated in Sector-9 Hospital, Bhilai which is the best hospital in the State of Chhattisgarh, they got her discharged duly signed by the appellant and the deceased and then admitted her in the hospital at Durg where she succumbed to death on 25-5-2011. As such, conduct of the appellant being bona fide and having tried to save the life of the deceased, would show that the appellant has not committed the offence and he has been falsely implicated. While saving the life of the deceased and extinguishing the fire, the appellant has also suffered injuries which is apparent from OPD ticket Ex.D-1 of the appellant examined at Durg hospital where he was found to have suffered superficial to deep burn injuries on right knee, thigh and right thumb. Even in the examination of the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC, he has clearly stated that he has been falsely implicated, he has tried to save the life of his wife/deceased and incurred huge expenses in her treatment. As such, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction recorded and sentence awarded deserves to be set aside. 8. Mr. Ashish Tiwari, learned State counsel, would submit that death of the deceased was due to shock and septicemia as a consequence of antemortem burn caused by the appellant which is duly proved by Ku. Benika Sahu (PW-2), as such, the trial Court is absolutely justified in convicting the appellant relying upon the evidence of Ku. Benika Sahu (PW-2) and the prosecution has been able to bring home the offence that has rightly been found to be proved by the trial Court, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record of the trial Court with utmost circumspection. 10. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record of the trial Court with utmost circumspection. 10. The first question for consideration would be, whether the death of deceased Kamini Sahu was homicidal in nature? 11. It is well settled law that in order to convict an accused for an offence under Section 302 of the IPC, the first and foremost aspect to be proved by the prosecution is the homicidal death. In the absence of proof of homicidal death of the deceased, the accused cannot be convicted for offence under Section 302 of the IPC. (See Madho Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2010) 15 SCC 588.) 12. Now, the question is, whether, the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature in the instant case? 13. It is the case of the prosecution that it is the appellant who poured kerosene oil on the body of the deceased and set her on fire by which she suffered burn injuries. Immediately after she suffered burn injuries she was taken to the District Hospital, Durg by the appellant herein where she was examined as Outdoor Patient vide Ex.P-12 and thereafter, she was examined by Dr. V.S. Baghel (PW-9) as Indoor Patient vide Ex.P-13 in which it has clearly been mentioned that “flame burn while cooking“ and her condition was conscious, pulse rate is 90, blood pressure is 100/70 mmHg and she had suffered superficial to deep burn on chest, abdomen, left leg, right leg, right arm, neck & face, and total burn area is 50-55%. Immediately vide Ex.P-14 duly proved by Dr. V.S. Baghel (PW-9), the police was informed which also shows that the injury was flame burn with history of home burn. Thus, Exs.P-12, P-13 & P-14, where the deceased was first admitted for medical treatment, have been proved on behalf of the prosecution by Dr. V.S. Baghel (PW-9) in which it has been clearly been established that she suffered flame burn while cooking. Thereafter, on 27-3-2011, she was referred to Medical College Hospital, Raipur/higher centre, but the appellant had taken her to Sector-9 Hospital on 27-3-2011 and in Initial Assessment Sheet (Ex.P-16) of that hospital proved by Dr. Parag Gupta (PW-11), history given by the patient herself has been noticed by Dr. Thereafter, on 27-3-2011, she was referred to Medical College Hospital, Raipur/higher centre, but the appellant had taken her to Sector-9 Hospital on 27-3-2011 and in Initial Assessment Sheet (Ex.P-16) of that hospital proved by Dr. Parag Gupta (PW-11), history given by the patient herself has been noticed by Dr. Parag Gupta (PW-11) stating that she sustained burns while cooking on wooden chulha when she poured kerosene over it at her residence at Village Selud, Utai at 8 p.m. on 26-3-2011. On 27-3-2011, her position being critical, it was informed that 4-5 lacs is required for treatment which the appellant readily agreed and signed the document Ex.P-17 duly proved by Dr. Parag Gupta (PW-11) and Suresh Kumar Sahu (PW-1) – father of the deceased had also signed the said document. Thereafter, her treatment continued in the same hospital i.e. Sector-9, Bhilai which is one of the best hospitals at that time in the State of Chhattisgarh and on 25-4-2011, the deceased made a note in Progress Sheet (Ex.P-18) that further operation is required for which money and blood are required which they cannot arrange, therefore, they have obtained leave against medical advice duly signed by her husband – the appellant herein, and the deceased herself which has been proved by Dr. Parag Gupta (PW-11) vide Ex.P-18. As such, from the statements of Dr. V.S. Baghel (PW-9) & Dr. Parag Gupta (PW-11), who examined the deceased before her death in two hospitals, it is clearly established that she suffered burn injuries while cooking when she poured kerosene oil on the wooden chulha. Thereafter, she died on 25-5-2011 at District Hospital, Durg which was duly intimated by the hospital authorities pursuant to which morgue intimations vide Exs.P-9 & P-10 were registered at the jurisdictional police station and thereafter, postmortem and inquest were conducted. MLC report of the deceased dated 26-3-2011 sent by the District Hospital, Durg to police vide Ex.P-11 has duly been proved by Dr. V.S. Baghel (PW-9) in which also it has been stated that it is history of flame burn while cooking. 14. After morgue intimation, inquest was conducted vide Ex.P-2 proved by Suresh Kumar Sahu (PW-1) – father of the deceased, in which it has clearly been stated that the deceased suffered burn injuries up to 60-70% during cooking, yet, for the sake of satisfaction, postmortem of the body was recommended and postmortem was conducted vide Ex.P-15 by Dr. 14. After morgue intimation, inquest was conducted vide Ex.P-2 proved by Suresh Kumar Sahu (PW-1) – father of the deceased, in which it has clearly been stated that the deceased suffered burn injuries up to 60-70% during cooking, yet, for the sake of satisfaction, postmortem of the body was recommended and postmortem was conducted vide Ex.P-15 by Dr. Vipin Jain (PW-10) and according to him, cause of death was shock & septicemia as a consequence of antemortem burn. No other injury was found over the body of the deceased which has been duly proved by other doctors Dr. V.S. Baghel (PW-9) and Dr. Parag Gupta (PW-11). 15. From the aforesaid analysis, it is quite vivid that from the day the deceased was admitted to the hospital on 26-3-2011 till discharge from Sector-9 Hospital on 25-4-2011, the deceased herself has given statement to Dr. V.S. Baghel (PW-9) & Dr. Parag Gupta (PW-11) that she suffered burn injuries while cooking and while pouring kerosene oil on the wooden chulha. Furthermore, in the inquest which was conducted vide Ex.P-2 in presence of Suresh Kumar Sahu (PW-1), Suryakant Sahu (PW-5) & Teekamchand Sahu (PW-7), cause of death was stated to be burn injuries while cooking, by the Panchas. 16. The question for consideration is, whether the statement of the deceased recorded by Dr. V.S. Baghel (PW-9) & Dr. Parag Gupta (PW-11) during the course of treatment is relevant under Section 32 of the Evidence Act or not? 17. Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 makes it clear that when a statement, written or verbal, is made by a person as to the cause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, in cases in which the cause of that person's death comes into question, such statement is relevant. The Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 clearly held that Section 32 is an exception to the rule of hearsay and makes admissible, the statement of a person who dies, whether the death is homicide or a suicide, provided the statement relates to the cause of death or deals with circumstances leading to the death. The decision of the Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra) has further been followed by the Supreme Court in the matter of Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, AIR 2000 SC 2324 reviewing the earlier authorities. In Sharad Birdhichand (supra), following propositions have been held: “(1) Section 32 is an exception of the rule of hearsay and makes admissible the statement of a person who dies, whether the death is a homicide or a suicide, provided the statement relates to the cause of death, or exhibits circumstances leading to the death. In this respect, as indicated above, the Indian Evidence Act, in view of the peculiar conditions of our society and the diverse nature and character of our people, has thought it necessary to widen the sphere of Section 32 to avoid injustice. (2) The test of proximity cannot be too literally construed and practically reduced to a cut-and-dried formula of universal application so as to be confined in a straitjacket. Distance of time would depend or vary with the circumstances of each case. For instance, where death is a logical culmination of a continuous drama long in process and is, as it were, a finale of the story, the statement regarding each step directly connected with the end of the drama would be admissible because the entire statement would have to be read as an organic whole and not torn from the context. Sometimes statements relevant to or furnishing an immediate motive may also be admissible as being a part of the transaction of death. It is manifest that all these statements come to light only after the death of the deceased who speaks from death. For instance, where the death takes place within a very short time of the marriage or the distance of time is not spread over more than 3-4 months the statement may be admissible under Section 32. It is manifest that all these statements come to light only after the death of the deceased who speaks from death. For instance, where the death takes place within a very short time of the marriage or the distance of time is not spread over more than 3-4 months the statement may be admissible under Section 32. (3) The second part of clause (1) of Section 32 is yet another exception to the rule that in criminal law the evidence of a person who was not being subjected to or given an opportunity of being cross-examined by the accused, would be valueless because the place of cross-examination is taken by the solemnity and sanctity of oath for the simple reason that a person on the verge of death is not likely to make a false statement unless there is strong evidence to show that the statement was secured either by prompting or tutoring. (4) It may be important to note that Section 32 does not speak of homicide alone but includes suicide also, hence all the circumstances which may be relevant to prove a case of homicide would be equally relevant to prove a case of suicide. (5) Where the main evidence consists of statements and letters written by the deceased which are directly connected with or related to her death and which reveal a tell-tale story, the said statement would clearly fall within the four corners of Section 32 and, therefore, admissible. The distance of time alone in such cases would not make the statement irrelevant." 18. Thereafter, in the matter of Devinder alias Kala Ram and others v. State of Haryana, (2012) 10 SCC 763 wherein the deceased, who sustained burn injuries while cooking meals on stove, had made a statement to the doctor, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that statement of the deceased recorded by the doctor is relevant under Section 32 of the Evidence Act and observed as under: - “14. In the facts of the present case, we find that PW 7, the Medical Officer of the Civil Hospital, examined the case of the deceased on 6-8-1992 at 6.30 a.m. and he has clearly stated in his evidence that on examination she was conscious and that there were superficial to deep burns all over the body except some areas on feet, face and perineum and there was smell of kerosene on her body. He also stated in his evidence that the deceased was brought to the hospital by her husband Kala Ram (Appellant 1). He has proved the bed-head ticket pertaining to the deceased in the hospital (Ext. DD) as well as his endorsement at Point ‘A’ on Ext. DD, from which it is clear that he was told by the patient herself that she sustained burns while cooking meals on a stove. This statement of the deceased recorded by PW 7 is relevant under Section 32 of the Evidence Act, 1872 which provides that statements, written or verbal, of relevant facts made by a person who is dead, are themselves relevant facts when the statement is made by a person as to the cause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, in cases in which the cause of that person’s death comes into question.” 19. Reverting to the facts of the case in light of the statements of Dr. V.S. Baghel (PW-9) & Dr. Parag Gupta (PW-11) duly proving the documents Exs.P-13 to P-19, it is quite vivid that the deceased sustained burn injuries while cooking food on wooden chulha. The statements of Dr. V.S. Baghel (PW-9) & Dr. Parag Gupta (PW-11) are relevant under Section 32 of the Evidence Act and therefore it is held that death of the deceased was not homicidal in nature, as she died accidentally while cooking food on wooden chulha and the prosecution has failed to discharge the first and foremost duty of proving the death to be homicidal in nature, as enunciated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Madho Singh (supra). 20. The next contention of Mr. Bhatia, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, is that though Ku. Benika Sahu (PW-2) had informed Suresh Kumar Sahu (PW-1), Suryakant Sahu (PW-5) & Teekamchand Sahu (PW-7) on 26-3-2011 that she had seen the appellant assaulting her mother by lathi and pouring kerosene oil on her body and setting her on fire, but the police has not registered any morgue nor recorded any statement of Suresh Kumar Sahu (PW-1), Suryakant Sahu (PW-5) & Teekamchand Sahu (PW-7) right in time, as such, delay in recording their statements is fatal and Ku. Benika Sahu (PW2) is tutored witness. 21. Benika Sahu (PW2) is tutored witness. 21. Whereas, it is the case of the prosecution that document Ex.P-14 at page 77 of the paper book did not reach to the police station right in time, therefore, the police was ignorant about the fact that the deceased suffered burn injuries and admitted in hospital and undergoing treatment, only when morgue intimations vide Exs.P-9 & P-10 were registered on 25-5-2011 & 26-5-2011, respectively, then only the police came to know about the incident and the wheels of investigation started running. True it is that the information sent to the police vide Ex.P-14 by the District Hospital, Durg on the initial date i.e. 26-3-2011 did not reach to the police right in time, but the fact remains that Ku. Benika Sahu (PW-2) had informed Suresh Kumar Sahu (PW-1), Suryakant Sahu (PW-5) & Teekamchand Sahu (PW-7), but they did not move to the police informing about the incident and the appellant continued to get the deceased treated firstly in the hospital at Durg and thereafter, at Sector-9 Hospital, Bhilai, where he incurred Rs. 3,50,000/- towards treatment which has been admitted by Suresh Kumar Sahu (PW-1), Suryakant Sahu (PW5) & Teekamchand Sahu (PW-7). As such, the conduct of Suresh Kumar Sahu (PW-1), Suryakant Sahu (PW-5) & Teekamchand Sahu (PW-7) of not lodging report is not free from malice. But the fact remains that the police came to be informed only after deceased Kamini Sahu died on 25-5-2011 and after the morgue intimations Exs.P-9 & P-10 were registered, but, in the meantime, sufficient water has flown and Suresh Kumar Sahu (PW-1), Suryakant Sahu (PW-5) & Teekamchand Sahu (PW-7) had opportunity to change their mind and to tutor Ku. Benika Sahu (PW-2) – child witness, and in morgue enquiry made allegations upon the husband of the deceased i.e. the appellant herein and thereafter impleaded him which has been accepted by the trial Court. Whereas, the natural conduct of a father i.e. Suresh Kumar Sahu (PW-1) – father of the deceased, whose daughter has suffered grievous burn injuries, particularly to whom Ku. Whereas, the natural conduct of a father i.e. Suresh Kumar Sahu (PW-1) – father of the deceased, whose daughter has suffered grievous burn injuries, particularly to whom Ku. Benika Sahu (PW-2) has clearly informed about the assault by the appellant and further informed about pouring kerosene oil and setting the deceased ablaze, is that he could have immediately lodged report to the police informing about the conduct and the offence committed by the appellant, however, he has failed to do so for the reasons best known to him. This goes to show that the testimonies of Suresh Kumar Sahu (PW-1), Suryakant Sahu (PW-5) & Teekamchand Sahu (PW-7) are not natural and they have tried to falsely implicate the appellant, when despite of all the attempts made by the appellant, the deceased could not survive. Even after the incident, Teekamchand Sahu (PW-7) – son of Suresh Kumar Sahu (PW-1) was got married in which even the appellant was also invited and he also participated in that marriage, but no finger was raised about causing death of the deceased by the appellant. As such, the statements of Suresh Kumar Sahu (PW-1), Suryakant Sahu (PW-5) & Teekamchand Sahu (PW-7) do not inspire confidence and their statements are to be discarded. 22.The trial Court has convicted the appellant on the basis of sole testimony of Ku. Benika Sahu (PW-2), who is a child witness. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Vadivelu Thevar v. The State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614 in which their Lordships have held that oral testimony of a witness may be classified into three categories, namely (1) wholly reliable (2) wholly unreliable and (3) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. Their Lordships further held, in the first category of proof, the Court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way – it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the second category, the Court equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases, that the Court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial. 23. In the second category, the Court equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases, that the Court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial. 23. In light of the aforesaid statement of law, if the testimony of Ku. Benika Sahu (PW-2) is examined, it appears that in her statement before the Court, she has stated that when the deceased asked the appellant for grinding the pulse, her father (the appellant) became angry and assaulted her mother on head by wooden stick which has been recovered pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant, but as per the statements of Dr. V.S. Baghel (PW-9) & Dr. Parag Gupta (PW-11), no injury on the head of the deceased has been found. As such, this part of the statement of Ku. Benika Sahu (PW-2) that her father / appellant assaulted her mother / deceased on head by danda, is not acceptable and cannot be relied upon. Likewise, the statement of Ku. Benika Sahu (PW-2) that her father poured kerosene oil on the body of her mother and set her on fire by which she burnt is also not found to be acceptable in view of the testimonies of Dr. V.S. Baghel (PW-9) & Dr. Parag Gupta (PW-11) who have clearly stated and it has been found established in the preceding paragraphs of this judgment that the deceased suffered flame burn while coming and as such, this part of testimony of Ku. Benika Sahu (PW-2) is also not acceptable. However, Ku. Benika Sahu (PW-2) has also stated that her father has tried to extinguish the fire which finds corroboration from the statement of Dr. V.S. Baghel (PW-9) who examined the appellant vide Ex.D-1 and treated him in the hospital as he has suffered burn injuries on knee, thigh and right thumb and those were superficial to deep burns, as such, this part of the statement of Ku. Benika Sahu (PW-2) is reliable. In that view of the matter, the statement of Ku. Benika Sahu (PW-2) that her father assaulted her mother/deceased by danda and thereafter poured kerosene oil on her body and set her on fire is not reliable, therefore, that part is rejected. 24. Benika Sahu (PW-2) is reliable. In that view of the matter, the statement of Ku. Benika Sahu (PW-2) that her father assaulted her mother/deceased by danda and thereafter poured kerosene oil on her body and set her on fire is not reliable, therefore, that part is rejected. 24. Lastly, in the examination of the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC, the accused / appellant has clearly stated that he got his wife treated in hospital at Durg and Sector-9 Hospital, Bhilai and he had extinguished the fire and at that time, he suffered burn injuries and he has gone tank. He has also stated that he has also suffered burn injuries. While answering question No.22, he has stated that he had admitted his wife to hospital. He answered question No.41 in affirmative that the deceased herself has informed to Dr. V.S. Baghel (PW-9) that she suffered burn injuries while cooking. 25. From the entire analysis, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the death of the deceased to be homicidal in nature, rather it is held to be accidental death which is duly established by the statements of Dr. V.S. Baghel (PW-9) & Dr. Parag Gupta (PW-11) and even otherwise, the prosecution could not also establish that it is the appellant who has caused burn injuries to the deceased by pouring kerosene oil on her body and setting her on fire. As such, the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC. We hereby set aside the impugned judgment convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC and consequently, the appellant is acquitted of the said charge. The appellant is in jail. He be released forthwith, if his detention is not required in any other case. 26. The criminal appeal is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above.