JUDGMENT : Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. 1. Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sanjay Kr. Srivastava, learned A.P.P. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 29.09.1997 passed by Shri D.P. Singh, learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-IV, Ranchi, in Sessions Trial No. 65 of 1996, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 304B of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 3. The prosecution case arises out of the Fardbeyan of Subasi Devi recorded on 02.05.1995 at Holy Family Hospital, Mandar in which it has been stated that the marriage of the daughter of the informant Gita Devi was solemnized three years back as per Hindu rites and customs with Ram Badan Chauhan (appellant). After marriage, the daughter of the informant stayed at her matrimonial house for five days after which the son of the informant Rabindra brought her back to the house of the informant. It has been stated that after six months Vidai was done and various articles were also given by the informant during Vidai. It has been alleged that after about a year, the son in law of the informant started putting pressure upon the daughter of the informant to bring VCR and a Gold chain from her parents and on non-fulfillment, she was subjected to assault. The informant had herself gone to the house of her son-in- law and tried to reason with him, but of no avail as her son-in-law continuously abused her. On 30.04.1995, the informant came to know that her daughter has suffered burn injuries at which she went to Holy Family Hospital, where she saw her daughter lying on the bed in a badly burnt condition. The daughter of the informant disclosed that her husband had sprinkled kerosene oil upon her and had set her ablaze. At the time of the incident, there was no other person present. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Khelari P.S. Case No. 29/1995 was instituted for the offences punishable u/s 302 of the I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. On conclusion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as Sessions Trial No. 65 of 1996. On conclusion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as Sessions Trial No. 65 of 1996. Charge was framed u/s 498A and 304B of the I.P.C. which was read over and explained to the accused in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution has examined as many as four (4) witnesses in support of its case. P.W. 1 Satyendra Chauhan is the brother of the deceased who has stated that the fardbeyan of his mother was recorded on 02.05.1995 at Holy Family Hospital, Mandar and he and his mother had put their respective signature on the fardbeyan. He has proved the fardbeyan which has been marked as Ext. 1. He has stated that the marriage of his sister Gita Kumari was solemnized in April, 1992 with the accused Ram Badan Chauhan. He used to frequently meet his sister who used to complain of her illness. On 28.04.1995, his wife had disclosed that his sister has suffered burn injuries and is admitted at Dakra Hospital. When he went to Dakra Hospital, he came to know that his sister has been shifted to Mandar. He went to Mandar and found his sister fully burnt. He has stated that his sister had disclosed to his mother that the accused on 24.04.1995 had poured kerosene oil upon her and had set her ablaze. The police had recorded his statement and he had not stated that his sister had disclosed to him about the demand of a VCR, a Gold chain and cash made by her husband and in-laws. This witness was thereafter declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W. 2 Subasi Devi is the informant and mother of the deceased who has stated that the father of the deceased had informed her that her daughter has suffered burn injuries. When she went to Mandar Hospital, she found her daughter badly burnt and this was the cause of her death. Her daughter had not disclosed the reason for suffering such burn injuries. This witness has also been declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.3 Renu Devi is the sister-in-law of the deceased who has stated that the police had not recorded her statement. She has feigned ignorance about any demand of dowry made by the accused. Her daughter had not disclosed the reason for suffering such burn injuries. This witness has also been declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.3 Renu Devi is the sister-in-law of the deceased who has stated that the police had not recorded her statement. She has feigned ignorance about any demand of dowry made by the accused. When she had gone to the hospital, her sister-in-law was in an unconscious state. It is incorrect to say that she had stated before the police that since the demand made by the accused was not fulfilled, the accused had sprinkled kerosene oil upon her sister-in-law and set her ablaze. P.W. 4 Yashwant Sharan was posted as a Sub Inspector of Police in Khelari P.S. and on 02.05.1995 he had received the fardbeyan which has already been marked as Ext. 1. After instituting a case, he had taken over the investigation. He has proved the endorsement of Shri S.D. Singh, Officer-in- Charge of Khelari P.S. in the fardbeyan which has been marked as Ext. 2. He has proved the formal F.I.R., which has been marked as Ext. 3. He has also proved the inquest report as well as the injury report which have been marked as Ext. 4 and 5 respectively. He had recorded the statement of the informant in which she had supported the allegations made in the fardbeyan. The informant had stated about the demand made by the accused of a Gold chain, motorcycle and other articles and for non-fulfillment of which the deceased was subjected to assault. The informant had also stated that when her daughter regained consciousness, she had disclosed about the accused pouring kerosene oil over her and setting her ablaze. He had also recorded the statement of Satyendra who had stated about the demand of dowry and the torture committed upon his sister by the accused. Satyendra had also stated that the deceased in presence of Satyendra, his wife and mother had disclosed about she being burnt by the accused. The witness Renu Devi had also stated before him about the demand of dowry made by the accused and the disclosure made by the deceased as to how she had suffered the burn injuries. He had inspected the place of occurrence which is at Qr. No. M/80 of CCL allotted to the father of the accused. He did not find any oven at the place of occurrence. He had inspected the place of occurrence which is at Qr. No. M/80 of CCL allotted to the father of the accused. He did not find any oven at the place of occurrence. He also did not find any trace of burning at the place of occurrence. He had recorded the statement of other witnesses. He had obtained the postmortem report which has been marked as Ext. 6. On completion of investigation, he had submitted charge sheet. In cross-examination he has deposed that he had recorded the statements of Sidheshwar and Ramjatan Mistri at the place of occurrence and they had only disclosed about the assault committed by the accused upon the deceased and had not stated about the accused setting ablaze the deceased Gita Devi. He had also recorded the statements of the females in the locality, but none have stated about the incident of putting fire on the deceased by the accused. 5. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he has denied his complicity in the incident. 6. The defence has examined two witnesses in support of its case. D.W. 1 Raj Kumar Paswan was posted as an Assistant S.I. of Police and on 25.04.1995 he had gone to Mission Hospital after receiving an O.D. slip and had seen a female in a burnt condition in bed number 3 of Room No. 506. He had recorded the fardbeyan of the female, namely, Gita Devi, who had stated that she had caught fire on her Sari while cooking and when she raised an alarm, her husband and others had come and doused the fire. The victim had not blamed any one for the incident. In cross-examination he has deposed that he had entered the recording of the fardbeyan in the Station Diary and had also sent a copy of the same to Khelari P.S. He had not instituted any case based on such fardbeyan. His statement was not recorded by the Investigating Officer. On a Court question, he has deposed that the O.D. slip is not available on record. His statement was not recorded by the Investigating Officer. On a Court question, he has deposed that the O.D. slip is not available on record. D.W. 2 Ram Badan Chauhan is the accused who has stated that the fardbeyan of his wife Gita Devi was recorded on 25.04.1995 in which she has stated about accidental burning suffered by her and had ruled out any foul play, but in order to falsely implicate him, the said fardbeyan has been suppressed by the prosecution. In cross-examination he has deposed that at the time of the incident he was outside his house and he had doused the fire by pouring water upon his wife. He had not suffered any burn injuries on his hands. On a Court question, he has deposed that though Gita was in a conscious state after suffering burn injuries, but she was not able to speak. 7. It has been submitted by Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant that the judgment of conviction is itself perverse as the same has been based on the evidence of P.W. 4 and on surmises and conjectures. None of the other witnesses who are related to the deceased have supported the case of the prosecution and even the evidence of the defence witnesses have been brushed aside by the learned trial court. In fact according to the learned counsel for the appellant, it is a case of no evidence. 8. Mr. Sanjay Kr. Srivastava, learned APP has submitted that the prosecution witnesses have been gained over by the defence, but there has been no denial about the contents of the fardbeyan as per PW-1 coupled with the evidence of PW-4 which clearly demonstrates the complicity of the appellant in setting ablaze the deceased for non fulfillment of the demand of dowry. 9. We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the trial court records. 10 Though it has been alleged in the fardbeyan that the deceased had disclosed to her mother about the role of the appellant in setting her ablaze after pouring kerosene oil upon her, but the informant (PW-2) and her son (PW-1) have not supported the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile by the prosecution. PW-3 who is the sister-in-law of the deceased has not supported the allegations initially levelled. PW-3 who is the sister-in-law of the deceased has not supported the allegations initially levelled. On a perusal of the judgment of conviction it clearly transpires that the same is based upon the evidence of PW-4 and as per the learned trial court the ingredients necessary for bringing home the charge u/s 304B I.P.C. have been satisfied. In fact the learned trial court seems to have totally brushed aside the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 and such evidence conveniently demolishes the case of the prosecution. The learned trial court seems to have travelled beyond the record and have considered certain aspects which are purely based on surmises. The case set up by the defence has been completely ignored and one of the presumptions which have been considered by the learned trial court is that the appellant if he was a good husband must have tried to save his wife as a consequence of which he must have suffered some burn injuries on his hand which he did not and therefore his complicity becomes more palpable. When we consider the evidence of PW-4 whatever has been recorded by him in course of investigation has been completely vapourised by virtue of denial of such allegations made by PW—1, PW-2 and PW-3. In fact PW-4 in his cross examination has denied about any statement made by the independent witnesses about the deceased being set ablaze by the appellant. So far as the defence version is concerned as emanating from the evidence of DW-1 and DW-2 even if we discount or disregard such version, the same would hardly be of any consequence considering the findings recorded by us which clearly demonstrates that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the appellant. 11. We, therefore, on the basis of the discussions made hereinabove, set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 29.09.1997 passed by Shri D.P. Singh, learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-IV, Ranchi, in Sessions Trial No. 65 of 1996. This appeal is allowed. 12. Since the appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the liability of his bail bond.