JUDGMENT : Ananda Sen, J. Appellant has preferred this appeal against the Judgment of Conviction and Order of Sentence dated 27th March, 2017 and 1st April, 2017, respectively, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge XII, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Sessions Trial No.117 of 2013, whereby the appellant has been convicted for offences under Sections 302, 307 and 436 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand) for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and in case of default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for 6 (six) months; further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 (five) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code; and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months for offences under Section 436 of the Indian Penal. 2. On 01.12.2012 at about 22.00 Hrs. the informant alongwith her two children Shruti (daughter aged 7 years) and Ayush (son aged 5 years), after having their meal went for sleep. At about 23.00 Hrs. the informant woke up due to flames of intense fire in her house and she saw the accused (appellant) running away from the house. She asked him as to what had happened, upon which he replied that he will come after paying to the tempo person. The informant any how tried to save her two children and with the help of neighbours managed to come out of the house with her children. During this, her daughter was badly burnt and the informant and her son also were partially burnt. It is stated that the appellant was friend of informant’s husband and due to this she got acquaintance with him and even in absence of informant’s husband also the appellant used to visit their home. It is alleged that last night also the appellant had visited her house when a verbal altercation had occurred, post which the appellant had threatened her of consequences. It is alleged that it is the appellant who had set the house of the informant on fire with an intention to kill them. 3. It is alleged that last night also the appellant had visited her house when a verbal altercation had occurred, post which the appellant had threatened her of consequences. It is alleged that it is the appellant who had set the house of the informant on fire with an intention to kill them. 3. Fardbeyan with the above allegations by the informant Chanchal Devi, was recorded by the A.S.I. of Police, Gopal Hembram on 02.12.2012 at 01.00 a.m. at M.G.M. Hospital. Farbeyan of the informant was forwarded by the Officer-in-charge of M.G.M. Police Station to the Officer-in-Charge, Mango Police Station, whereupon Mango Police Station Case No.589 of 2012 dated 02.12.2012 was registered for offences under Sections 285, 337, 338, 307, 436 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, the daughter of the informant died during course of treatment, whereafter Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added. Inquest was done and postmortem was also conducted. Appellant was arrested at Mumbai and remanded to Arthur Road Jail. He was remanded to custody in this case on 17.12.2012. 4. Investigation was taken up by the police and upon completion, the Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet against the appellant under Sections 285, 337, 338, 307, 436, 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter cognizance of the offence was taken by order dated 28.01.2013 and case was committed to the Court of Sessions by order dated 18.02.2013. 5. Charges were framed against the appellant under Sections 302, 307, 436 of the Indian Penal Code, which were read over to the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. The prosecution, in order to bring home the charges, examined nine witnesses, namely, P.W.1 Subodh Gaur, P.W.2 Chotelal Sharma, P.W.3 Pappu Singh, P.W.4 Chanchal Devi (informant), P.W.5 Santosh Upadhaya, P.W.6 Aayush Kumar Upadhaya, P.W.7 Dr. Uma Shankar Prasad, P.W.8 Ramashish Prasad Singh and P.W.9 Gopal Hembram. The prosecution also exhibited following documents in support of the prosecution case :- Ext. 1 Signature of Informant Chanchal Devi on fardbeyan Ext. 1/1 Fardbeyan Ext. 1/2 Forwarding of Fardbeyan Ext. 1/3 Endorsement regarding registration of case Ext. 2 Postmortem report of deceased Shruti Kumari (daughter of informant) Ext. 3 Confessional statement of accused Ext.4 Formal FIR Ext. 5 Carbon copy of inquest report. P.W.1 Subodh Gaur and P.W.3 Pappu Singh were declared hostile. P.W.2 Chotelal Sharma is the neighbor of the informant. 1/1 Fardbeyan Ext. 1/2 Forwarding of Fardbeyan Ext. 1/3 Endorsement regarding registration of case Ext. 2 Postmortem report of deceased Shruti Kumari (daughter of informant) Ext. 3 Confessional statement of accused Ext.4 Formal FIR Ext. 5 Carbon copy of inquest report. P.W.1 Subodh Gaur and P.W.3 Pappu Singh were declared hostile. P.W.2 Chotelal Sharma is the neighbor of the informant. He has stated that the incidence is of 2-3 years back. They were sleeping after having their meal. On hearing hulla, when he came out of house, he saw that informant’s house was on fire. He stated that they had controlled the fire and save the daughter of Chanchal from inside the fire. He expressed ignorance about who had set the fire. He stated that Chanchal Devi also did not say anything in this regard. The girl was taken to MGM and later on he could know that she has died. He has stated that his statement was not recorded by the police and expressed his ignorance about how the fire took place. P.W.4 Chanchal Devi is the informant. She has stated that the occurrence is of 01.12.2012. She was in her house at Mukhiadanga. There was no roof in her house and doors were also not there. Tarpaulin was used as a roof. She along with her two children Aayush and Shruti, after having meal, were sleeping. At about 11.00 p.m. Mukesh Shivhare (appellant) had set her house on fire. As he was going out of the door after setting fire, the informant woke up. She stated to have asked as to what he is doing, on which he replied that after paying money to the tempo driver he will return. She stated that the appellant also set fire on the door, so she could not come out. On raising alarm, the neighbours came, who all saw the appellant fleeing. She tried to save her children. She could save her son. His leg was burnt and informant’s leg also was burnt. She stated that she could not save her daughter Shruti. They were taken to MGM and after reaching there she informed her brother-in-law (devar) over phone whereafter he reached at 01.00 a.m. to MGM. She has proved her signature on the fardbeyan. She has stated that the accused was having acquaintance with her husband. She stated that she could not save her daughter Shruti. They were taken to MGM and after reaching there she informed her brother-in-law (devar) over phone whereafter he reached at 01.00 a.m. to MGM. She has proved her signature on the fardbeyan. She has stated that the accused was having acquaintance with her husband. One day he had come and had evil eyes on her which she had objected, due to which he had threatened her. From MGM she had taken her daughter to TMH, but she could not save her and on 05.12.2012 she died. In her cross examination, she has stated that she had seen the appellant lighting match stick. She has stated that she do not remember as to whether her beyan was read over to her or not. She again stated that it is not that her fardbeyan was not read over to her or she has improved her statement. She has stated that she do not remember as to whether the statement regarding raising of alarm and the fact that the appellant was seen fleeing by the neighbours was there in the fardbeyan or not. She has further stated that it is incorrect that she had husband-wife like relationship with the appellant for 2½ years and was living together. P.W.5 Santosh Upadhaya is the brother in law (devar) of the informant. He has stated that he was informed by her sister-in-law (informant) over phone about her house being set on fire by the appellant. He was also informed that they were badly burnt and admitted in MGM. Nephew Aayush Kumar and Niece Shruti Kumari were among them. He stated that informant also informed him that the appellant was fighting since last two days and she was alone with her children when fire was caused. From MGM Shruti was taken to TMH as her condition became serious. At TMH Shruti was in Burn Unit where she died on 5th December. He has identified his signature on the inquest report. P.W.6 Ayush Kumar Upadhyay is the son of the informant. He has stated that the occurrence is of December 2001. He again states that it is of 2011. It was 10.00 p.m. night. His house was not constructed and tarpaulin was placed on the roof. He along with his mother and sister were sleeping. His sister’s name is Shruti. P.W.6 Ayush Kumar Upadhyay is the son of the informant. He has stated that the occurrence is of December 2001. He again states that it is of 2011. It was 10.00 p.m. night. His house was not constructed and tarpaulin was placed on the roof. He along with his mother and sister were sleeping. His sister’s name is Shruti. When he woke up at 11.00 p.m. his house was set on fire. His mother was moving out with him. His sister came from behind but she fell down. Thereafter Mukesh fled. When he asked Mukesh (appellant) as to where he is going, he told that he is going to make payment of tempo fare. He stated that he, his mother and his sister were burnt. His right leg was burnt. They were treated. Huge money was spent in treatment of his sister but she did not survive. He stated that the appellant used to come to their home only when their father was there. He stated that his mother had a fight with appellant. He identified the appellant, who was present in Court. In cross examination, he has stated that his mother was operating shop of “Litti-Chokha”. He stated that they never went to Chhattisgarh with the appellant. He stated that when appellant use to come to their home, he used to stay for 1-2 hours. He stated that appellant only used to come when his father used to be there. He stated that his mother never told that the appellant was his father. P.W.7 Dr. Uma Shankar Prasad is the Medical Officer of Deptt. of FMT, MGM Medical College, Jamshedpur, who had conducted postmortem of the deceased Shruti Kumari, daughter of the informant. He stated that the body was of average built, rigor mortis present all over body but weak in lower limbs. Ante-mortem deep burn wounds were found on face, front of scalp, front of chest, front of neck, scattered areas on front of abdomen, both fore arms, both hands and both lower limbs. On dissection of scalp and removal of skull bones, the brain was found congested. On dissection of thorice-abdominal cavities all the viscera were found congested. In stomach scanty dark colour fluid was found. He has opined the death as due to burn shock. Time since death is within 12 hours approximately from the time of postmortem examination. On dissection of scalp and removal of skull bones, the brain was found congested. On dissection of thorice-abdominal cavities all the viscera were found congested. In stomach scanty dark colour fluid was found. He has opined the death as due to burn shock. Time since death is within 12 hours approximately from the time of postmortem examination. He has proved the postmortem report and his signature. P.W.8 Ramashish Prasad Singh is the Investigating Officer. He has stated that he came to know that the appellant was in a Jail of Maharashtra. Thereafter, after obtaining permission to move out from the State, he went to Maharashtra. Obtaining Court’s order from Arthur Road Jail, he brought the appellant to Jamshedpur and produced before the Court. He had recorded the confessional statement of the appellant at Mumbai. He identified and proved the confessional statement of appellant and his handwriting and signature. He also identified the signature of the appellant. The confessional statement was marked Exhibit 3. He thereafter procured postmortem report of the deceased Shruti Kumari. On the basis of the investigation conducted by him and the earlier investigating officer, he submitted Chargesheet No.115/12 dated 31.12.2012 for the offences under Sections 285, 337, 338, 307, 436, 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In his cross examination, he has stated that he did not try to ascertain as to why the fight took place between the informant and the appellant. He also admits that at the time when he had recorded the confessional statement of the appellant, no other police officer was present. He has stated to have recorded the confessional statement at Azad Maidan Police Station. He also admits that he has not procured signature of any of the police officers of the said police station over the confessional statement of the appellant. P.W.9 Gopal Hembram was also an investigating officer. He has stated that on 02.02.2012 he was posted as A.S.I. of Police at MGM Police Station, Jamshedpur. He has also stated to have recorded the fardbeyan of the informant. He has identified his handwriting and signature as also the signature of the informant over the fardbeyan. Fardbeyan was exhibited as Exhibit 1/1. He also identified the handwriting and signature of Ratibhan Singh, the then Officer-in-Charge of MGM Police Station over the forwarding note. The forwarding note was marked Exhibit 1/2. He has identified his handwriting and signature as also the signature of the informant over the fardbeyan. Fardbeyan was exhibited as Exhibit 1/1. He also identified the handwriting and signature of Ratibhan Singh, the then Officer-in-Charge of MGM Police Station over the forwarding note. The forwarding note was marked Exhibit 1/2. He has stated that Ratibhan Singh had handed over the investigation of the case to him. On the basis of the fardbeyan Mango Police Station Case No.589/2012 under Section 285, 337, 338, 307, 436 was registered and later on Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added. The notings in relation to the case number has been made in the handwritings and signature of Himanshu Chandra Manjhi, Officer-in-Charge, Mango Police Station. He has identified the same. The notings has been marked Exhibit 1/3. He has stated that the formal First Information Report of the case is in the handwriting and signature of Himanshu Chandra Manjhi, the then Officer-in-Charge, Mango Police Station. Formal First Information Report has been marked Exhibit 4. After taking over the investigation of the case, he has stated to have recorded the statements of the informant Chanchal Devi, witness Pappu Singh, witness Chhote Lal Sharma. There he has stated to have inspected the place of occurrence. He has stated that the place of occurrence is at a distance of 5 k.m. from the MGM Police Station, which is in Mukhiadanga Village. He has stated about the boundaries of the place of occurrence. While giving description of the place of occurrence, he has stated that the place of occurrence is an under-construction house made of bricks wherein there are two rooms and one verandah inside. All doors whereof are open and tarpaulin was placed as the roof. It was the tarpaulin which was set to fire. He has stated about recording of statements of witness Gurdeep Singh, witness Subodh Gaur, witness Santosh Upadhyay. He has stated to have made attempts to arrest the appellant Mukesh Shivhare. Thereafter on 03.12.2012 received information over telephone that the injured Shruti Kumari has died in course of treatment. There he has stated to have gone to TMH. Reaching there, he prepared the inquest report at about 03.00 p.m. on 05.12.2012. He has identified his handwriting and signature over the carbon copy of the inquest wherein Santosh Upadhyay and Surendra Kumar have put their signature as witnesses. There he has stated to have gone to TMH. Reaching there, he prepared the inquest report at about 03.00 p.m. on 05.12.2012. He has identified his handwriting and signature over the carbon copy of the inquest wherein Santosh Upadhyay and Surendra Kumar have put their signature as witnesses. He has identified the same. The carbon copy of the inquest report has been marked Exhibit 5. Thereafter the dead body was sent for postmortem. On 06.12.2012, due to personal family reasons, he quit from investigation of this case. In cross examination, he has stated that he had recorded the fardbeyan and re-statement of the informant. He stated that in the fardbeyan, the informant had not stated that the appellant had set her house on fire at 11.00 p.m. night. The informant had also not stated in the fardbeyan that the appellant had also put fire on the door due to which the informant could not come out. The informant had also not stated that the neighbours had seen the appellant fleeing. The informant had not stated this even in her re-statement. It was also not stated that the home was completely set on fire. He has stated that the informant in her re-statement had not stated that the appellant had an evil eye on her. The informant in her entire statement had never stated that she had seen the appellant putting fire. In cross examination, he has also stated that he did not find any container (dibba), bottle or any other article wherein any inflammable material were brought at the place of occurrence. 7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, appellant being the sole accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein he denied the charge against him and claimed to be innocent. In his defence, the appellant did not adduce any evidence. 8. The Trial Court, on the basis of analyzing the oral and documentary evidence, adduced on behalf of the prosecution and after hearing the argument of the defense and the prosecution, passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant on the ground that no independent witness has seen the occurrence. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant on the ground that no independent witness has seen the occurrence. She submits that though the informant has claimed in her evidence that neighbours had seen the appellant fleeing from the place of occurrence, but not a single independent witness has stated to have seen the appellant fleeing from the place of occurrence. She further submits that the investigating officer did not find any inflammable article or any container which was used for bringing any inflammable article to the place of occurrence for purposes of setting the house on fire. She further submits that there is no material seized by the investigating officer. She further submits that though it has been stated in the prosecution evidence that the informant and her son Aayush Kumar had also suffered burn injuries, surprisingly, there is no medical record of any treatment extended to them at the MGM hospital or at any other hospital. 10. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State submits that the informant is the eye witness, who had seen the appellant setting the house of the informant on fire. She submits that the tarpaulin, which was used as a shed was burnt, ultimately resulting in death of the daughter of the informant. The evidence of the eye witness, i.e., the informant cannot be doubted, thus, there is no scope for interfering with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 11. From the evidence adduced, we find that the only important witness is P.W.4 who is the informant. She stated that she was sleeping in the house along with her children. At about 11p.m., appellant had set fire in her house. She stated that she had seen the appellant running out of her house. On query the appellant had stated that he is going to pay the fare of tempo, a three wheeler vehicle. She also stated that she had seen the appellant lighting fire near the door, as a result of which, she could not come out. She tried to save her children, but, ultimately could not save her daughter and there was burn injury on the leg of her son. She also stated that she had seen the appellant lighting fire near the door, as a result of which, she could not come out. She tried to save her children, but, ultimately could not save her daughter and there was burn injury on the leg of her son. P.W.6, who is a child witness and son of the informant, also stated that he had seen this appellant running out and on being asked, he told that he is going to pay the fare of three wheeler. He also stated that the house is under construction. He also admitted that his right leg got burnt and he received treatment. 12. When we go through the aforesaid evidence of two eye witness and compare the same with the evidence of the Investigating Officer, P.W.9, we find that it is an admitted fact that the house of the informant was under construction. He stated that there was no inflammable articles like kerosene or other liquid were found, which would facilitate in lighting fire to the entire house. Further, admitted fact is that there was no doors in the said under construction house. The informant stated that she had seen this appellant lighting a match stick. Without there being any inflammable article, it is not possible to light fire in an under construction house, which is constructed with bricks, that too with a match stick. The Investigating Officer, while describing the place of occurrence, stated that the house was under construction and was constructed with bricks. He also stated that doors were open and on the roof there was tarpaulin and he stated that the said tarpaulin was set on fire, but, surprisingly, no burnt remains of any material was seized. He in paragraph 16 of his statement, has clearly stated that there was no bottle or container in the place of occurrence which contained inflammable liquid or article. He also stated that he did not record the statement of the injured son of the informant, as he was not in a position to give statement. In cross-examination, he also admitted that in the fardbeyan, the informant had not stated that this appellant had put fire in the doors as a result of which she could not come out. He has also stated that the informant in the First Information Report has not mentioned that this appellant had set the house on fire. 13. In cross-examination, he also admitted that in the fardbeyan, the informant had not stated that this appellant had put fire in the doors as a result of which she could not come out. He has also stated that the informant in the First Information Report has not mentioned that this appellant had set the house on fire. 13. After going through the First Information Report, which is Exhibit 1/2, we find that the informant has stated that she was sleeping and she woke up as the house was on fire. She stated that she saw this appellant running out. No where she stated that she had seen the appellant putting the house on fire. She only has claimed that the appellant had set the house on fire. 14. We further find that there is evidence on behalf of the prosecution that the son of the informant suffered burn injuries, but, surprisingly, no doctor has been examined to corroborate the aforesaid claim. Further, the P.W.6, who is the son of the informant, also has not stated that he has seen the appellant putting the house on fire. 15. All these circumstances create doubt in the mind of this Court as to whether actually this appellant has set the house on fire or not. It is well settled principle that the prosecution has to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Kumar Mishra @ Jittu versus State of Madhya Pradesh [Criminal Appeal No.1348 of 2011] reported in 2024 INSC 20 at paragraph 17 thereof has held as under : 17. We are conscious of the fact that the appellate court should be slow in interfering with the conviction recorded by the courts below but where the evidence on record indicates the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and that a plausible view, different from the one expressed by the courts below can be taken, the appellate court should not shy away in giving the benefit of doubt to the accused persons. 16. Thus, if the defence is successful in creating a doubt in the mind of the Court about about the involvement of the accused, the defence then succeeds. 16. Thus, if the defence is successful in creating a doubt in the mind of the Court about about the involvement of the accused, the defence then succeeds. In this case, on the facts and evidence discussed above, we find that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Thus, we are inclined to acquit the appellant. 17. In view of what has been held and observed hereinbefore, we allow this appeal. The impugned Judgment of Conviction and Order of Sentence dated 27th March, 2017 and 1st April, 2017, respectively, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge XII, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Sessions Trial No.117 of 2013 are hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted from the charge of the offence. This appeal is, accordingly, allowed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. The appellant is directed to be released forthwith if he is not wanted in any other case. 18. Let the Trial Court Records be transmitted to the Court concerned along with a copy of this judgment.