The prosecution failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal based on unreliable evidence and inconsistencies in testimonies.

JUDGMENT :

(R.G. Avachat, J.) :

The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order of conviction and consequential sentence dated 03.05.2017, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar (Trial Court) in Sessions Case No.188 of 2015. Vide the impugned and order, the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 323 of Indian Penal Code and therefore, sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and simple imprisonment, respectively, with default stipulation.

2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are as follows:-

The appellant married Suvarna (deceased) in 2002. The couple was blessed with two children. The appellant got addicted to liquor. On the given day, i.e. on 02.01.2015, by little past 10.00 p.m., the appellant returned to his one-room house. He was drunk. Since his son Aditya (PW1) was not seen studying, he assaulted him with belt. Suvarna intervened. A petty quarrel ensued between the couple. The appellant doused Suvarna with kerosene and set her ablaze after closing the door from inside. PW1 – Aditya raised cries and called his uncle. His uncle (Pralhad), in turn, broke open the door. He extinguished fire and rushed Suvarna to Civil Hospital, Ahmednagar.

3. On her admission to the hospital, a medico-legal case was registered. The police ofÏcial on duty (PW10) recorded her statement, which, lateron, became her dying declaration (Exh.59). He also availed services of the Special Executive Magistrate to have recorded her statement. Before and after recording her statements, the Medical OfÏcers on duty certified Suvarna to be conscious oriented to make a statements. In her both the statements (dying declarations), she narrated the incident of the appellant to have set her ablaze. Her brother (PW3-Shivaji) was informed. He along with his relations, rushed to the hospital. Suvarna orally informed him of having been set ablazed by the appellant. On the third day, Suvarna succumbed to the burn injuries.

4. Based on her statement (Exh.59) to the police ofÏcial (PW10), a crime was registered, being crime No.4 of 2015, with Police Station, Jamkhed, Dist. Ahmednagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 304, 323, 504 of Indian Penal Code. On her demise, Section 302 of Indian Penal Code was invoked. The crime-scene panchnama (Exh.52) was drawn. The mortal remains was subjected to autopsy. The clothes on the person of both appellant and Suvarna (deceased) were seized. All the seized articles were sent for analysis and report. Upon completion of the investigation, the appellant was proceeded against by filing a charge sheet.

5. The trial court framed Charge (Exh.5). The appellant pleaded not guilty. His defence was that deceased Suvarna was hot- tempered. She was younger daughter of her parents and was, therefore, pampered. His brother – Pralhad had made gold ornaments to his wife. Suvarna wanted the appellant to make such ornaments for her. The appellant had financial constraints. The appellant could not satisfy her demand. She, therefore, set herself ablaze. The appellant and his brother Pralhad extinguished the fire and rushed to the hospital. According to him, their children were influenced by their maternal grand-parents and therefore, testified against him.

6. To bring home the charge, the prosecution examined ten witnesses and produced in evidence certain documents. On appreciation of the evidence in the case, the appellant was convicted and consequently, sentenced, as stated above.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit the prosecution to have failed to bring home the Charge beyond reasonable doubt. He took us through the cross-examination of the children of the appellant and deceased Suvarna, and submitted that the deceased wanted the appellant to make gold ornaments for her. He would further submit that both the children had been residing with their maternal grand parents and were, therefore,