JUDGMENT S. Zaheer Hasan, J. 1. This is a revision against an order dated 10-6-1981 passed by Sri R. C. Verma, Session Judge Rae Bareli. 2. The admitted pedigree of the family is as follows :- Ganga Bishun : (accused) Bharat (accused) Smt. Tara Devi (P.W. 5) = Smt. Sukhrana (P.W. 1) = Lakshmi Shanker (P.W. 4) On 22-8-1978 Bharat and Ganga Bishun accused were at their field when Lakshmi Shanker (PW 4) demanded clothes of the accused Bharat from his wife Smt. Sukhrana (PW I) because his own clothes were dirty and he had to go to Rae Bareli city. Sukhrana gave her husband's clothes to Lakshmi Shanker who went to Rae Bareli and ultimately returned from there. When both the accused persons returned to their house and Bharat came to know that his wife Sukhrana had given his clothes to his brother- in-law Lakhsmi Shanker, he got annoyed and started beating her. She ran inside her Kitchen followed by Bharat and when he started wrapping her own Sari around her waist, her father-in-law Ganga Bishun reached there with a tin containing kerosene oil which he sprinkled on her body. Then Bharat accused lit a match-stick and set her body on fire with the result that 30% to 40% of the head, neck and Front and back of chest of Sukhrana got burn-injuries. There were blisters at places and the doctor has stated that odour of kerosene oil was coming from the burnt area of the body. Tara (PW 5) threw water and in this way the fire was extinguished. On receiving the news Sant Lal, the brother of Sukhrana, and Ram Lakhan (PW 2) came to the village on the next day and lodged a report at 7.45 P. M. on that day and the medical examination took place at 3.45 P. M. On 28-8-78 the matter was again referred to the doctor who found two contusions on the body of Sukhrana and he had not noted the same at the time of her first medical examination. PW 2 Ram Lakhan has stated about writing the FIR etc. and going to the village after receiving the news. PW 3 Dr. G. K. Srivastava has proved the injury reports. PW 4 Lakshmi Shanker has stated that he came to the house lateron and found burn-injuries on the body of Sukhrana. He was declared hostile. PW 2 Ram Lakhan has stated about writing the FIR etc. and going to the village after receiving the news. PW 3 Dr. G. K. Srivastava has proved the injury reports. PW 4 Lakshmi Shanker has stated that he came to the house lateron and found burn-injuries on the body of Sukhrana. He was declared hostile. Similarly Tara (PW 5), the sister of the accused, was declared hostile as she stated that it was a case of accidental fire when Smt. Sukhrana was inside the kitchen. Sukhrana. (PW 1) has supported the prosecution case. The remaining witnesses are more or less formal. Both the accused denied the charge and stated at the time of occurrence they were not present inside the house and were working in their field. The accused ted no evidence. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge sentenced Bharat and Ganga Bishun to four years' R. I. under section 307 IPC and 307/34 IPC respectively. In appeal the conviction and sentence of Bharat were upheld, but the sentence of Ganga Bishun accused was reduced to six months' R. I. on account of his old age. Aggrieved by this judgment, both the accused persons have come up in revision 3. According to the doctor, Sukhrana had burn injuries over 30% to 40% of the head, neck and back and front of chest. Odour of kerosene oil was coming from the burnt area. It was suggested to Sukhrana during cross-examination that Ram Lakhan applied kerosene oil on her body to give a shape to the defence version. But this question was not put to Ram Lakhan (PW 2). Had it been a case of accidental fire, the husband and the father-in-law of the victim, after return from the fields (as alleged by them), would have rushed her to tie hospital because 30% to 40% area of the portions stated above got barn-injuries. These relations did not care to take her to the doctor for medical treatment. When the news reached the brother of Sukhrana, he came on the next day and thereafter a report was lodged and she was medically examined. PW 4 Lakshmi Shanker has stated that when he saw these burn-injuries he did not make any enquiry and in an angry mood he left that house for his own village. When the news reached the brother of Sukhrana, he came on the next day and thereafter a report was lodged and she was medically examined. PW 4 Lakshmi Shanker has stated that when he saw these burn-injuries he did not make any enquiry and in an angry mood he left that house for his own village. All the circumstances and the oral evidence of Sukhrana clearly establish that kerosene oil was sprinkled and then burning match stick was applied. The defence version that it was a case of accidental fire in the kitchen is clearly nagatived by the circumstances referred to above and the position and the nature of injuries as detailed in the injury report Ext. Ka-2. So it remains to be seen as to whether both the accused persons committed this crime, alleged or not. 4. Delay does not necessarily spell unveracity nor discrepancies necessarily demolish testimony which does not suffer from any material infirmity. The husband and father-in-law of Sukhrana were there. It was being asserted to be a case of accidental fire and inspite of all that they did not care to take her for medical examination. So there was no question of lodging of report by these persons. When the news was received by the brother of Sukhrana, he came to this village on the next day and Ram Lakhan (PW 2) and Sant Lal, the brother of Sukhrana, took her for medical examination and a report was lodged by Sukhrana on the next day. So the delay stands explained. However, at the most,, the prosecution evidence should be scrutinised carefully. Lakshmi 'Shanker (PW 4) has admitted that Sukhrana gave him clothes of her husband and after wearing the same he went to Rae Bareli. He corroborates Sukhrana on this point. The accused has stated that when he returned he came to know that his clothes were given to his brother-in- law Lakshmi Shanker. So there is no doubt that on that day Sukhrana gave her husband's clothes to Lakshmi Shanker (PW 4) who went to Rae Bareli in same clothes. This inadequacy of motive may appeal to an unskilled observer. Normally a person would not set fire to his wife over such a triffling matter. But it is evident that the wife suspected the fidelity of her husband and had clearly stated that her own father-in-law had evil designs. This inadequacy of motive may appeal to an unskilled observer. Normally a person would not set fire to his wife over such a triffling matter. But it is evident that the wife suspected the fidelity of her husband and had clearly stated that her own father-in-law had evil designs. In the cross-examination of Sukhrana it was suggested that she had illicit connection with Ram Lakhan (PW 2). So it may be that the husband and the father-in-law both were greatly annoyed with Sukhrana and when the husband heard that his clothes; were given to his brother-in-law without his permission, the "wolf" got the *' excuse " and in this way both the husband and the father-in-law of Sukhrana could have a motive to commit this crime. The prosecution case cannot be thrown out merely on the ground of aforesaid delay in lodging the report and the so- called inadequacy of motive. 5. Curiousity is not cat's monopoly. It preys on human beings also. So it was unnatural on the part of Lakshmi Shanker (PW 4} not to enquire as to how his wife's sister, who gave him clothes without her husband's permission, got burn injuries. He admits that he got annoyed and left the house. He also admits that on that day he was present and he took the clothes of his brother- in-law from his wife Sukhrana. Tara (PW 5) is the sister of accused Bharat. She admits that she extinguished the fire by throwing water from her balti. If it was a case of accidental fire, Tara and Lakshmi Shanker should have in the ordinary course and also due to favour shown by her in giving those clothes insisted on sending Sukhrana for medical examination. They were present in that house on that day. They are closely related to the accused. They could be easily tempted to save both the accused persons. A perusal of the statements of both these witnesses would give an impression, for the reasons stated above, that they have been won over. So there was corroborative evidence which was snatched away from the prosecution. So it cannot be contended that the solitary statement of Sukhrana should not be relied upon. The occurrence took place inside the house. The sprinkling of kerosene oil and applying match-stick would have taken a very short time. So there was corroborative evidence which was snatched away from the prosecution. So it cannot be contended that the solitary statement of Sukhrana should not be relied upon. The occurrence took place inside the house. The sprinkling of kerosene oil and applying match-stick would have taken a very short time. We do not normally expect outsiders witnessing such crimes inside the house of another person. Had the prosecution "imported" some witnesses, the defence have stood a good chance of exposing them with the contention that on such occasions outsiders are not expected to witness such occurrence inside a house. So we have simply to see whether the statement of Sukhrana can be relied upon or not irrespective of the fact that PW 4 Lakshmi Shanker and PW 5 Tara are not supporting the prosecution case. 6. It was contended that Tara and her husband Lakshmi Shanker had no grudge against Sukhrana who had given clothes of Lakshmi Shanker, so they should have tried to intervene when this drama was going on inside the kitchen. At one stage Sukhrana (PW 1) has stated that Tara was in the angan washing clothes near the pipe. Tara (PW 5) has stated that Sukhrana was inside the kitchen and when she heard her cries, she went there and ultimately threw water on her body. Some beating was done outside the kitchen. IT was a matter between the husband and wife, so naturally Tara and her husband did not intervene. The actual crime was committed in a small kitchen. Tara was at the pipe. Her husband was not inside the kitchen. All this was done within a few minutes. So it is not surprising that inspite of Tara and her husband being inside the house both the accused persons succeeded in doing this "job". It was next argued that in the first medical report the two contusions mentioned in the second report are not given. About 30% to 40% of head, neck etc. were burnt as already stated. So it may be that the doctor missed two contusions. The lady was running and during that process the husband was assaulting her. Much emphasis was laid on the statement of this lady to the effect that her husband gave her 15-20 dandas. As already stated, she was running while she was being assaulted. were burnt as already stated. So it may be that the doctor missed two contusions. The lady was running and during that process the husband was assaulting her. Much emphasis was laid on the statement of this lady to the effect that her husband gave her 15-20 dandas. As already stated, she was running while she was being assaulted. So it may be that only two blows fell on her and the other blows fell in such a manner that no visible injury was produced. Majority have received at birth a tendency to exaggerate. We sometime use this weapon to emphasise, to land a touch of truth, to beautify etc. Even in common conversation we frequently indulge in exaggeration without any motive or malice. This is human nature. So the mere fact that she stated that her husband gave 15-20 dandas blows cannot lead to automatic rejection of her testimony. 7. It was contended that there is a discrepancy as to when Lakshmi Shanker returned from Rae Bareli, and the presence of the accused when the clothes were given to Lakshmi Shanker by Sukhrana. Her statement was recorded after 2 1/2 years of the occurrence. There are always some normal discrepancies however honest the witness may be. They may be due to error of judgment, lapse of time and fault of memory. These are little infirmities and marginal mistakes which do not go to the root of the matter and pertain to insignificant aspect thereof. So these contradictions and infirmities do not suggest that the testimony of Sukhrana is false To my mind, her statement does not suffer from any material infirmity and her testimony inspires confidence and was rightly accepted. This is a revision and not an appeal. The findings of the courts below are neither perverse not illegal. To my mind, neither justice nor law has suffered. So the order of conviction passed by the courts below must be confirmed. 8. As regards the sentence passed against Bharat, the husband Sukhrana, we do not think that he deserves any leniency. So the sentence passed against him must be confirmed. The learned appellate Judge has reduced the sentence to six months' B.I in case of Ganga Bishun accused, the father-in-law of Smt. Sukhrana. He is about sixty of age. 8. As regards the sentence passed against Bharat, the husband Sukhrana, we do not think that he deserves any leniency. So the sentence passed against him must be confirmed. The learned appellate Judge has reduced the sentence to six months' B.I in case of Ganga Bishun accused, the father-in-law of Smt. Sukhrana. He is about sixty of age. He has been in jail for about three months and no useful purpose would be served sending him back to jail. I am taking a lenient view against this old man in the hope of generating better sense of life at the fag end of his "innings". The revision of Bharat is dismissed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against him is confirmed. He is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled. He should be taken into custody and sent to jail to serve out his sentence. The CJM concerned will report compliance within six weeks. 9. The revision of Ganga Bishun is dismissed with the modification that his sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone. He is on bail. His bail bonds are discharged. Revision dismissed.