JUDGMENT : S.M. Soni, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 5.4.86 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panchmahals at Godhra in Sessions Case No. 49 of 1985 under Section 302 of the IPC. 2. Deceased Arunaben was the wife of appellant, accused No. 1. Accused No. 2 (now acquitted) is the brother of the accused No. 1. Accused No. 1 had married with deceased Arunaben in May 1981. Deceased was graduated in Commerce as well as Education. Accused No.1 is also a double graduate. Both were serving in school, but at the relevant time services of deceased Arunaben were discontinued in view of the retrenchment. After marriage, it appeared that they had some happy days of ma age, but later on it is alleged that accused No started misbehaving and used to expose his anginal temperament. It appears from the correspondence that father of both the spouses had exchange of correspondence reflecting the grievances of spouses against each other. Deceased Arunaben and accused No.1 were residing at Kalol. Accused No. 1 was serving in the school at village Malav. Accused No. 2, younger brother of accused No. 1, was residing with his father at village Narukot. On 11.5.84, accused No. 2, his wife, his child and his mother had come to Kalol to attend some thread ceremony of the relative in the neighbourhood. Accused No. 1, accused No. 2, his child and deceased Arunaben were in the house and other lady members had gone for marketing in Kalol. Sister of the accused No. 1 had also come to Kalol and she had also left with her mother. When they were all talking at about 5.00 to 5.30 p.m., it is stated that Arunaben, deceased, all of a sudden went upstairs and accused Nos. 1 and 2 and the child remained at downstairs. All of a sudden, they heard shouts of outsiders about the fire in the house. Both the accused went upstairs and finding middle door of the room closed, they shouted to call Arunaben, but she did not reply. As accused doubted something wrong, accused No. 1 kicked the door and the door was broken open and they found Aruna lying in a burnt condition. Both the accused went upstairs and finding middle door of the room closed, they shouted to call Arunaben, but she did not reply. As accused doubted something wrong, accused No. 1 kicked the door and the door was broken open and they found Aruna lying in a burnt condition. Accused No. 1 made an attempt to extinguish the fire with the help of quilt, but he was also burnt on the face and on both of his hands. It appears that accused were stunned and thereafter accused No. 2 went to the Police Station and disclosed the incident, which was recorded as suicide. Thereafter, at about 7.30 p.m. accused No. 1 had gone to the doctor for treatment and accused No. 1 informed the brother of the deceased at Baroda telegraphically. Police Inspector Mr. Chauhan, on receipt of the information, reached the scene of offence. However, he did not proceed to investigate the matter, but drew the inquest Panchnama on the next day and then the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. It appears that the police accepted the incident as of suicide, but the father of the deceased, when he came next day evening from Dhari, sent higher authority in motion and investigation started subsequently on the basis of his written complaint dated 13.5.84. As the complainant had some doubt in his mind as to the Investigating Officer, he had moved the Government and the investigation was entrusted to one P.I. Mr. Sonavane, who, on completion of the investigation, submitted charge-sheet in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Kalol. The Judicial Magistrate, in his turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Godhra. Accused No.1 was charged under Section 302 as well as 498-A IPC and both the accused were charged under Section 302 read with 34, 439, 498-A with 114 and 201 of IPC. Accused pleaded not guilty and prayed for trial. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, after hearing the parties, held the accused No. 1 guilty of an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and awarded life imprisonment and acquitted accused No. 2. Against this judgment and order of conviction, this appeal is directed. 3. It will be relevant to state at the inception that there are no eye witnesses in this case and the case solely hinches on the circumstantial evidence. Learned Counsel Mr. Against this judgment and order of conviction, this appeal is directed. 3. It will be relevant to state at the inception that there are no eye witnesses in this case and the case solely hinches on the circumstantial evidence. Learned Counsel Mr. Shethna has challenged this order of conviction on the ground that circumstances relied upon by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge are firstly not proved at all and, if proved, they do not form a complete chain, from which the conclusion of only guilt can be drawn. Learned Counsel Mr. Shethna contended that the circumstances relied on by the prosecution are also consistent with the hypothesis of non-guilty of the accused and they do not exclude the other possible hypothesis, of not guilty. Learned Counsel Mr. Shethna also contended that there are number of omission in the evidence of the witnesses relied upon by the prosecution, which makes the evidence of those witnesses suspicious and unreliable one. Mr. Shethna, therefore, contended that the appeal should be allowed and the appellant be acquitted. 4. Mr. K.P. Raval, learned A.P.P., supports the judgment. 5. Before we proceed to appreciate the contentions raised by learned Counsel Mr. Shethna, the following few facts which, in our opinion, are not disputed are required to be borne in mind. Aruna had died of burns, Dr. Shah PW 5 (Ex. 59) who has performed postmortem, has shown the extent of burns as under: "Even though the shape of the face was normal the eyes were partially open. The face was blackened and burnt. Eye lashed were burnt. Mouth was partially opened. Teeth could be seen from the mouth. The tongue was caught between the teeth. There was reddish flothy fluid from nose. Both ears were burnt. Nose was burnt and a Chuni was seen. The skin was peeled off from neck, both hands and many parts of abdomen, both thighs and legs. Burns of 6th degree on both thighs and left side of abdomen were noticed. Singeing of hair on head, body axila and pubic were noticed ....Vegina was completely burnt. No steels were found.....Lips were burnt....Both the hands were burnt and skin was found peeled off from both the hands...Both the breasts were completely burnt and skin peeled off from many parts of the chest. Abdomen was burnt and distented. Singeing of hair on head, body axila and pubic were noticed ....Vegina was completely burnt. No steels were found.....Lips were burnt....Both the hands were burnt and skin was found peeled off from both the hands...Both the breasts were completely burnt and skin peeled off from many parts of the chest. Abdomen was burnt and distented. Skin of the right side of the abdomen was found blackened and peeled off at many places. The burns on left side of abdomen were of 6th degree and muscles were exposed and seen burnt and red. Yellowish flesh was found on the abdomen, where skin from the abdomen was peeled off. Upper part of the right thigh was burnt, skin was burnt and yellowish fat was found on some parts and muscles were found burnt...skin from the thighs and knees were burnt and blackened and skin was peeled off on the right side. Skin and muscles were burnt from left thigh and big fussurers were seen due to burns. Skin from medial side of both legs was burnt and muscles were also burnt and cracks were also seen and nerves were exposed. Skin from dorsum of left foot was burnt and tendance of muscles were exposed." According to the Doctor, the burns were of the nature of 6th degree. The accused No. 1 in his statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code has come out with the following say:- "I am injured. I got burn injuries while extinguishing her fire. Neither I have burnt Aruna nor I have helped her in burning, but I have gone to extinguish her fire after breaking open the door and while extinguishing her fire, hairs of my face, head were burnt, my hands were burnt and my clothes were also burnt." 6. The question is whether presence of accused No.1 there at the time of incident was as a saviour or a savage. Was he there to rescue Aruna or roast her alive? Learned Addl. Sessions Judge has held that it is accused No. 1, who has burnt Aruna and killed her and for this conclusion, he has relied on number of circumstances, which we will deal hereinafter. 7. Learned Counsel Mr. Shethna contended that Ex. Was he there to rescue Aruna or roast her alive? Learned Addl. Sessions Judge has held that it is accused No. 1, who has burnt Aruna and killed her and for this conclusion, he has relied on number of circumstances, which we will deal hereinafter. 7. Learned Counsel Mr. Shethna contended that Ex. 146, information given by accused No. 2 to the Police is not admissible in evidence, firstly on the ground that the same is hit by Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code, secondly that the same is not duly proved, thirdly that it amounts to a confession, which directly involves the accused; and fourthly that even if it is admissible in evidence, the same cannot be used against accused No. 1. 8. Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that the statement made by any person to a Police Officer in the course of an investigation ... or any record thereof, whether in a police diary or otherwise, or any part of such statement or any record..., cannot be used for any purpose, save as provided therein, at any enquiry or trial in respect of any offence under investigation at the time when such statement was made. When information Ex. 146 was lodged by accused No. 2, the same was not in the course of investigation of any offence under Chapter XII of the Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, in our opinion, the same is not hit by Section 162 of the Code. 9. So far as the second limb of argument is concerned, it is about non-admissibility on the ground that the document is not proved, much less the contents thereof. It is necessary to decide whether the document Ex. 146 is wrongly admitted in evidence and the learned Judge has erred in relying on the same. 10. There is no dispute of the fact that the incident took place at about 5.00 or 5.30 p.m. because it is in evidence that there was hue and cry at about 5.00 to 5.30 p.m. that there is a fire in the house of Bhanuprasad, father of the accused. It is also in evidence that in view of this hue and cry, a message was sent at Godhra to call for Fire Brigade. It is in evidence that in the hue and cry, it was stated that the fire was caused because of short circuit. It is also in evidence that in view of this hue and cry, a message was sent at Godhra to call for Fire Brigade. It is in evidence that in the hue and cry, it was stated that the fire was caused because of short circuit. Undisputedly, the incident took place at about 5.00 to 5.30 p.m. Accused No. 2, who was present in the house, has then gone to the Police Station and has revealed the information that deceased Aruna has committed suicide and that report is at Ex. 146. Learned Counsel Mr. Shethna has contended that this report is given by accused No. 2 and whatever therein incriminating against the accused No. 1 cannot be looked into inasmuch as the said complaint was availed of. This information is lodged by accused No. 2 before the Police Station Officer, Kalol at about 7.45 p.m., wherein it is disclosed that the incident took place at about 5.30 p.m. Before we look into the facts stated in that application, it will be necessary to decide whether the same can be read in evidence or not. This information is produced in the evidence of P.S.I. Mr. Chauhan PW 37 and after the production thereof, a permission was sought by the prosecution to put questions to that witness in the nature of cross-examination. Before the permission was sought to cross-examine that witness, said information recorded by Savitaben (Police Station Officer) is exhibited with the consent of the Advocate of the accused. Now, the question is when a document is produced and exhibited with the consent of the other side, the accused in the instant case, how does it fit in the mouth of the Advocate, for the defence to say that document cannot be read in evidence, as contents thereof are not duly proved and no opportunity to challenge the facts stated therein or no opportunity to cross-examine the witness, who has so stated, is given? In our opinion, this objection of learned Counsel Mr. Shethna is without any substance. It can be said that because the learned Advocate consented to exhibit the same, there was no necessity to prove the said document in view of provisions of Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act. Said Section provides as under: "58. In our opinion, this objection of learned Counsel Mr. Shethna is without any substance. It can be said that because the learned Advocate consented to exhibit the same, there was no necessity to prove the said document in view of provisions of Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act. Said Section provides as under: "58. No fact need be proved in any proceeding which the parties thereto or their agents agree to admit at the hearing, or which before the hearing, they agree to admit by any writing under their hands, or which by any rule of pleading in force at the time they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings:" Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require the facts admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admissions." Proviso to this Section provides for discretion with the Court to make an exception to the main provision of proof on admission. In this case, learned Addl. Sessions Judge has not required the prosecution to prove the said document (Ex. 146) otherwise than by the admission. Thus, there was first no necessity to prove that document (Ex. 146), as it was not asked by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge to prove the same, saying or stating that the proof by admission is not accepted. In view of this fact situation, the opportunity to prove the said document is either taken away by the defence or the prosecution is deprived of the same. It was open for the accused to nob admit the document or to dispute the contents thereof. It is not known or expected of the party who produced the document to prove that document, despite the fact that the same is admitted by the other side and/ or not disputed by the other side and not disputing it by a specific act and not by inference. If the learned Advocate for the defence would not have consented for exhibiting the same, the said document would not have exhibited and could not have been read in evidence except without being duly proved according to law. Then it remained open for the prosecution to decide whether they wanted to prove the same if that document to be read in evidence. Then it remained open for the prosecution to decide whether they wanted to prove the same if that document to be read in evidence. But once the Advocate for the other side i.e. defence in this case, admits the document and the Court did not ask for proof despite admission, then what can be the reason to admit the same if the same is not to be read in evidence. If we read Ex. 146, in our opinion, it is not an admission of guilt on their part, which may amount to confession. Therefore, in our opinion, we do not find any substance in the objection raised by the learned Counsel Mr. Shethna. 11. The contents of the documents can be proved by a special kind of evidence, called primary evidence, unless it falls in exception when it can be proved otherwise. In the instant case, in our opinion, the contents are also proved firstly as the witness Savitaben PW 30, who recorded the statement, has deposed to the effect that accused No. 2 had come to the Police Station on a Scooter of one Gopalbhai at about 7.00 p.m. He had informed that his Bhabhi has died of burns. He told her to note down the same. As she asked him to give it in detail, he was found confused and went away saying that he will just come within a short time. He then came within 15-20 minutes and narrated the facts, which she took down in her own handwriting. The facts stated in the said information are not disputed. Said entry is produced in evidence of P.S.I. Mr. Chauhan and is exhibited with the consent of the Advocate of the defence. When accused No. 2 was asked in his further statement about Ex. 146, he has replied that he had given that complaint, Ex. 146, and the contents thereof were dictated by him and it bears his signature. Now, when the accused No. 2 had admitted the contents thereof to have been stated before Savitaben PW 30 and when the same is admitted with the consent of the Advocate for the parties, in our opinion, nothing more is enquired to prove the same. It cannot be said that the contents of the documents are not proved. Now, when the accused No. 2 had admitted the contents thereof to have been stated before Savitaben PW 30 and when the same is admitted with the consent of the Advocate for the parties, in our opinion, nothing more is enquired to prove the same. It cannot be said that the contents of the documents are not proved. Assuming that giving of only consent by the party to exhibit a document may not amount to an admission of the contents, then on giving consent and getting the document exhibited if the genuineness or correctness of the contents are not challenged in the cross-examination, in our opinion, the same is required to be held proved and read in evidence. In the instant case, so far as the contents of Ex. 146 are concerned, they are not challenged in the cross-examination of Savitaben PW 30 or P.S.I. Mr. Chauhan, Ex. 37, and, therefore, the same can be read in evidence and is rightly read in evidence by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. Apart from this, the legal position is t'- it the objection for exhibiting the same ought to have been raised before it is admitted by the Court in evidence and marked as exhibit on record. Thus, in our opinion, there is no substance in the challenge of the admissibility of that document on this ground also. 12. If we read that document, the third limb of challenge also does not survive for the simple reason that the document Ex. 146 cannot be said to be a confession. There is nothing in the document to show that either of the accused had directly or indirectly acknowledged the guilt in the occurrence of that incident. It is only stated that they went upstairs on hearing the shouts of some persons and they found the door of the middle room closed. Accused No. 2 shouted "Bhabhi", but it was not replied from inside and as the smoke was coming out, they suspected and he and his brother kicked the door with force and the chain from inside got opened and on entering the room, they saw that his Bhabhi was lying in a burnt condition. His brother, therefore, went to extinguish with guilt and got burns on his face and both hands. This statement neither directly nor indirectly acknowledge the fact of burning Aruna or committing any offence thereby. Therefore, this complaint, Ex. His brother, therefore, went to extinguish with guilt and got burns on his face and both hands. This statement neither directly nor indirectly acknowledge the fact of burning Aruna or committing any offence thereby. Therefore, this complaint, Ex. 146, is not a confession and, therefore, the question of non-admissibility does not arise. 13. So far as the use of this document Ex. 146 against accused No.1 is concerned, it is necessary to scrutinise the document to find out if there is any fact or circumstance, which can be used against accused No. 1. Accused No. 1 has admitted in his further statement that when he went upstairs, he found the door of the room from which the smoke was coming out chained from inside and he had broken open the door by kicks and he got burn injuries when he tried to extinguish fire on Aruna. Only difference in Ex. 146 and in the further statement of both the accused is that fact of getting open of chain from inside and using the guilt to extinguish fire is absent in further statement. In the further statement, accused No. 1 has come out with the say that he kicked the door whereby 'chapla' fitted in frame of the door to insert the bolt, which was a barrel bolt, came out from its screws and the door got opened and it is silent as to how he extinguished the fire. Therefore, in our opinion, Ex. 146, has been rightly relied upon by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge as duly proved. 14. If we look at the extent of burns on the persons of deceased Aruna, the point of time at which accused No. 1 reached in the room is required to be taken note of. It is proved by the evidence of PW 14 and PW 16 that fire in the house must have taken place at about 5.00 to 5.15 p.m. or round-about. It is also admitted by the accused and proved through the prosecution witnesses that some outsiders raised alarm when they saw the smoke coming out from the first door of the house of the accused. It is the case of the accused that on hearing the alarm, immediately they vent upstairs. They broke open the door and accused No. 1 attempted to extinguish the fire on the person of deceased Aruna. It is the case of the accused that on hearing the alarm, immediately they vent upstairs. They broke open the door and accused No. 1 attempted to extinguish the fire on the person of deceased Aruna. If this was the fact situation, it is surprising as to how Aruna got burns to the extent referred above vide the evidence of Dr. P.C. Shah PW 5. It is not stated by the accused as to what was the condition of Aruna pertaining to degree of burns or stage of bums when they reached the room. If they had gone immediately and extinguished the fire, it is surprising as to how she went on burning even after the fire was extinguished by the accused. In our opinion, there are the clinching circumstances required to be appreciated carefully as it has direct nexus with the guilt or otherwise of the accused. It will be pertinent to note that according to Ex. 146, both the brothers went upstairs and broke open the door. It is only accused No. 1 who brought quilt and tried to extinguish the fire on deceased and it is only he who got burn injuries. There is no burn injuries on the person of accused No. 2. It is not the case that accused No. 2 participated in extinguishing fire on deceased. It, therefore, can be said that on opening the door, the accused No. 2 did not even enter the room or if he did, he did not participate or attempt to extinguish the fire on the person of the deceased. The extent of burns found on the person of the deceased normally would not have been caused within few minutes of time, as alleged by accused. It is in evidence that accused and Aruna were sitting and talking on the ground floor just outsiders that there is a fire, as they found smoke coming out from the house. Keeping in mind the extent of burn injuries of deceased, burn injuries on the person of accused No. 1 and the time within which accused No. 1 tried to extinguish the fire and accused No. 1 not disclosing before the Court as to how he tried to extinguish the fire, we will now appreciate the other circumstances on record. 15. Important circumstances, in our opinion, is the opinion of Dr. Deshmukh PW 38. Before we consider the opinion of Dr. 15. Important circumstances, in our opinion, is the opinion of Dr. Deshmukh PW 38. Before we consider the opinion of Dr. Deshmukh, it is relevant to decide the objection of learned Counsel for the defence as to the admissibility of photographs and reliance thereon by Dr. Deshmukh to come to his opinion. Photographs are at Ex. 19. It is true that unless the photographers explains the photographs in detail, they cannot be looked in as an evidence. According to learned Counsel Mr. Shethna, the photograph by themselves are not the substantive evidence, but they can be used as a corroborative piece of evidence. We are in agreement with this contention of Mr. Shethna, Photographs, Ex. 19, show and suggest the position of the room, wherein the incident took place. Accused No. 1 in his further statement has admitted that photographs Ex. 19 are of the room wherein the incident took place. He has, however, stated that they are not taken in his presence and he does not know at whose instance they are taken and who has produced the same. Apart from this, Vrajlal PW 7, has stated that he asked PSI Mr. Chauhan to arrange for a photographer and he got the photographs taken through photographer S.D. Darji PW 31 and it is in his evidence that these photographs which are shown to him (Ex. 19) are taken in his presence whatever and is seen in the photographs he had found so at the scene of offence. Therefore, this part of the evidence that the photographs are of the room where the incident took place and things seen therein were there as PW 7 has seen on the third day, is not disputed or challenged in the cross-examination. Therefore, in our opinion, the photographs are duly proved and then have been -rightly looked into by Dr. Deshmukh PW 38. 16. Dr. Deshmukh has given two opinions, first a preliminary opinion and second a final opinion, after obtaining certain further information. His preliminary opinion, relevant for our purpose, was that the body received burns even after the victim's death for a considerable time and the burns, etc., described on the person of husband Deepak Kumar co-relate in time factor with the clinical finding. His preliminary opinion, relevant for our purpose, was that the body received burns even after the victim's death for a considerable time and the burns, etc., described on the person of husband Deepak Kumar co-relate in time factor with the clinical finding. It will be relevant to state that accused No. 1 has admitted in his further statement that at the time when deceased Aruna burnt, he had received burn injuries while he was extinguishing the fire. In his final opinion, he has stated that: "1. Victim died of ante-mortem burns; 2. Super imposed post-mortem bums were present all over the body as burns occurred even after death; 3. Kerosene oil has been used in considerable quantity; 4. Presence of another person helping the fire to burn the body is indicative. 5. Husband has been exposed to fire which must be big enough to reach his person and causing the burns. 6. Considering the facts in various re cords there must be some intention of the second person to destroy the evidence or the similar facts. He has then deposed as under: "My opinion at No. (6) in my report Ex. 149, I mean to say that second person present had made an attempt to destroy the other injuries which may be there by keeping the body burning. By opinion No. (4) in Ex. 149, I mean to say that the super imposed burns which were post mortem were present all round the body and from that, I concluded that there must be some other person who was changing the position of the body to destroy completely. My opinion No. (4) is corelated with opinion No. (6) in Ex. 149. The presence of burning evidence in respect of the hair on the head, moustaches, beard neck, right hand with burnt hairs, left hand also with burnt hair and burns on both the legs together with a blackening of the front portion deposits led me to conclude that Deepak Kumar was so much near to the fire that he received burns and other evidence. I opined that kerosene oil had been considerably used because there was not only the blackening of the body put also of the floor of the room, ceiling and all the clothings of the victim was burnt of and there were severe burns on the body. As regards opinion No. (2) in Ex. I opined that kerosene oil had been considerably used because there was not only the blackening of the body put also of the floor of the room, ceiling and all the clothings of the victim was burnt of and there were severe burns on the body. As regards opinion No. (2) in Ex. 149, I found that opinion because ante mortem features of burns were destroyed from every part of the body and post mortem burns occurred means even after death the body continued burning. Opinion No. (4) in my preliminary report Ex. 148 is based on the facts mentioned in the medical certificate in respect of injuries to Deepakkumar and it is proved that the injuries received by Deepakkumar at 5.30 p.m. were examined by Dr. Shah at about 7.30 p.m. The injuries on Deepakkumar were fresh in (sic.) when Dr. Shah examined him....". From the opinion of Dr. Deshmukh, it is clear that there was presence of another person helping the fire to burn the body and there were super imposed post mortem burns all over the body as bums occurred even after death. 17. It is the defence case that when accused heard and found that the door was bolted from inside. They shouted for Aruna, which was not responded to and when they found the smoke coming out of the room, they immediately kicked the door and broke it open. To support this say, the defence has relied on the Panchnama of the scene of offence to show that the eye of the bolt (chapla) has come out from its screws because of the force applied by the accused to open the door. From this, defence wants to suggest that the door was bolted from inside. The question, in our opinion, is if one wants to establish that the door was bolted from inside and the same is broken open by applying force from the other side, there is bound to be some violence on the bolt before it takes out from the 'chapla' the upper portion of the bolt, wherein the bolt is fitted. Whether there was any violence on the bolt or not, an opinion was sought from the Forensic Science Laboratory and they have specifically opined vide Ex. 126 that there was no bend found on the bolt. Whether there was any violence on the bolt or not, an opinion was sought from the Forensic Science Laboratory and they have specifically opined vide Ex. 126 that there was no bend found on the bolt. If some force is applied from the other side, then the bolt must have been affected first and if it could yet resist even by bending, in that case that upper 'chapla' wherein the bolt is fitted would have come out, but it is in evidence that part was again fitted in with the screw when it was found by the Panchas. Once a screw is pulled out by force without using the screw driver, then that screw cannot be fitted in again by screw driver. It may only be inserted like a nail. Therefore, in our opinion, there is no proof that any force was applied in opening the door. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has rightly not accepted this defence. 18. Dr. Deshmukh has further opined that the super imposed burns, which were postmortem, were present all around the body and from that he has concluded that there must be some other person, who was changing the position of the body to destroy completely. He has co-related this opinion with another opinion in Ex.-149. He has stated that presence of burning evidence in respect of the hair of the head, moustaches, beard, neck, right hand with burnt hairs, left hand with burnt hair and burns on both the legs together with a blackening of the front ortiun of the shirt due to carbon particles deposit, led him to conclude that Deepak Kumar was so much near to the fire that he received the burns. He has further stated that anti-mortem features of burns were destroyed from every part of the body and post-mortem burns occurred and were found present. From this, he wanted to suggest that even after the death, the body continued burning. Accused No. 1 in his further statement has stated that he got injuries while he extinguished the fire. This suggests that he extinguished fire completely. I f this is so, how The deceased had post-mortem bums all over the body. From the opinion of Dr. Deshmukh, the probability of having committed suicide has been rightly ruled out. 19. Accused No. 1 in his further statement has stated that he got injuries while he extinguished the fire. This suggests that he extinguished fire completely. I f this is so, how The deceased had post-mortem bums all over the body. From the opinion of Dr. Deshmukh, the probability of having committed suicide has been rightly ruled out. 19. Admittedly, accused No.1 was present at the scene of offence at the relevant time and the same fact is established by his own admission as well as bum injuries found on his person. 20. This brings us to the circumstance of motive as revealed from the correspondence on record. Admittedly, the correspondence is exchanged between the father of the deceased and the father of accused No. 1. From that correspondence, it appears that accused No. 1 had treated the deceased as a chattel and had tried to establish his dominance over her. It appears from the correspondence that it was always an attempt on the part of the father of the accused No. 1 to see that his family does not get disrupted. From the correspondence, it appears that he has always treated the deceased as a member of his family and not an outsider. Father of the accused No. 1 appears to be a man of hardly understanding and appears to be always trying to see that the differences between the two i.e. husband and wife, are iron out and/or solved smoothly. But it is clear from the correspondence that there were differences between the deceased and her husband, accused No. 1, and that went to the extent that accused No. 1 used to use criminal force and assault her also. It is pertinent to note that accused No. 1 is M.A. B.Ed. and serving as a teacher in the school at Malay. Despite having such a high educational qualification and a teacher by profession when he is using criminal force and assaults his wife, this reflects his temperament. One can easily say that he must be a man of very wild temperament and also not able to control himself. Apart from this, when accused No. 1 is of such a wild temperament, his father appears to be a man of understanding. This conflict of temperament between the father and son must be leading to quarrel between them on the subject of the deceased. Apart from this, when accused No. 1 is of such a wild temperament, his father appears to be a man of understanding. This conflict of temperament between the father and son must be leading to quarrel between them on the subject of the deceased. Deceased had gone to Baroda for going to Dhari with the permission of her father-in-law, yet she was brought back to Kalol by accrued No.1, ignoring the permission granted by his father and it appears from the correspondence that father had to yield to the obstinacy of the accused No. 1. This shows that accused No. 1 has always tried to show his dominance on deceased. May be that accused No.1 might have thought it that in view of the temperament of his father, it may be that his father may not favour him and allow to be relieved of the deceased by process of law and if he takes such proceeding,. time consumed may made his efforts frustrated and he might have thought it fit to get rid of her by exercising this alternative. Correspondence, in our opinion, reveals the motive and also reveals the basis of the motive. Therefore, in our opinion, correspondence is also a circumstance rightly relied upon by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge for the purpose of motive. 21. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge has also relied on, as a circumstance, the presence of Lawyer at the relevant time, but, in our opinion, that circumstance by itself is not an incriminating one. In the present days, it may be that an innocent man also would like to be properly assisted so that he may not be unnecessarily and wrongly get entrapped in the legal intricacies. Therefore, we do not consider that to be a circumstance against the accused. 22. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has considered the time-lag in disclosing the incident to the Police and informing the relations of the deceased as a circumstance against the accused. In our opinion, this circumstance is a relevant one, which discloses the mind of the accused persons. When, according to the accused, the incident took place at about 5.15 p.m. or so, there is nothing on the record to show as to what happened between 5.15 to 7.00 or 7.30 p.m., when for the first time accused No. 2 went to the Police Station and disclosed the information as to the occurrence. When, according to the accused, the incident took place at about 5.15 p.m. or so, there is nothing on the record to show as to what happened between 5.15 to 7.00 or 7.30 p.m., when for the first time accused No. 2 went to the Police Station and disclosed the information as to the occurrence. There is nothing on the record to show that any medical treatment was called for, if not for the deceased Aruna as according to the accused she was fully burnt, but even for the accused No. 1, who had burn injuries on the vital parts of his body. If the accused had known that Aruna had died of burns by about 5.30 p.m. or so, normal conduct would either be to call for a Doctor or relations or convey information to her relations, simultaneously with calling a Lawyer on the spot. Therefore, this circumstance, in our opinion, has been rightly relied upon by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. 23. The room wherein the victim died of burns is of 11'x 13' with 9' height. In that room, two empty bottles were found and some unburnt match sticks were found scattered. If the deceased has burnt to the extent of 6th degree, it appears that intensive heat must have gathered and in such intensive heat, it is surprising that live match sticks would have remained unaffected. In our opinion, even some degree of heat will lit the match sticks and in the instant case though there was an intensive heat in the rooms, the live match sticks have not been affected. It is the contention of the prosecution that the presence of two bottles and live match sticks are planted by the accused persons with the assistance of the earlier Investigating Officer to misdirect the investigation and pass away the offence of murder as one of a suicide. We find some substance in this circumstance accepted by the learned Addl. Sessions judge against the defence as in the instant case though the incident took place at about 5:15 p.m. on 11.5.84, the inquest Panchanama was drawn on the next day morning and for the whole night, the charred body remained in that room and there is nothing on the record to show that it was not possible for anybody to enter that room except through the door which was broken open. Apart from all these circumstances, the clinching circumstances, in our opinion, are as under, which are already discussed herein above. 24. The incident took place at about 5.30 p.m. 25. The victim is burnt to such an extent that it would not get burnt within a short span of time as suggested by the defence, namely, that accused and deceased were sitting together and deceased went upstairs and within short time, they heard alarm of fire and they went upstairs and found Aruna burning when they broke open the door. 26. An attempt of accused No. 1 to extinguish fire. It is not shown as to how the fire was extinguished and how the super imposed burns are found on the dead body, though the fire was extinguished. 27. If both the brothers went upstairs to save Aruna, it is only accused No.1 who had got burn injuries and accused No. 2 simply witnessed the same. 28. In the information given to the police by the accused No. 2, the substance used for extinguishing fire was referred as quilt. However, the same is not found from the room; nor has it been referred to by accused No. 1 in his further statement as a material used for extinguishing the fire. If really the quilt was used, there was no reason to suppress the said fact. 29. From the medical evidence, it is clear that the body of Aruna was burnt from all the sides i.e. from head to soles. When a person commits suicide by taking fire bath, he/she may be either standing or sitting and when sitting, on pain of burns, he/she would normally stand up. One who was standing and one who stood up from sitting, both under the pain of burns will then after skelter in the room. Therefore, the shoots of the smoke will spread all over the ceiling of the room, which is not present here, but the shoot is only found in some portion of the ceiling of the room, where the dead body was lying. If this be so, then also the soles may not burn. Soles may only burn if the person is burnt while lying down. In the instant case, the soles are burnt and it is suggestive that Aruna burnt while she was lying. If this be so, then also the soles may not burn. Soles may only burn if the person is burnt while lying down. In the instant case, the soles are burnt and it is suggestive that Aruna burnt while she was lying. This is admitted by accused No.1 in his further statement, saying that when they broke open the door, they found Aruna lying in a burnt condition. Now, if person bums while lying, at least one side of the body which touches the ground will not burn. If a burning person, as stated by the Doctor, gets rolled to extinguish fire, then also the part of the bod y which remains in contact with the ground in the last will not burn to the extent of other exposed parts of body. It may also happen that the sole will not get burn to the extent they are burnt. Therefore, if a person commits suicide, then he can burn by the upper half or the lower half of the body. If a person is standing, he may burn from all the sides, but the sole will not burn and if the sole gets burnt, then the person must be lying down and the side which touches the ground will not get burn injuries to the extent of other open exposed parts of the body. In the instant case, the whole of the body is burnt equally. It appears to have been roasted from all the sides. This cannot happen without involvement of some other person. There cannot be an involvement of other person in the commission of suicide and that, in our opinion, rules out the theory of suicide put forward by the defence. 30. Another circumstance, in our opinion, is that when a person commits suicide, normally he or she takes care to see that none rescues him/ her and he or she takes care to see that all the doors or escapes or entrance are properly chained/ bolted an inside. In the instant case, though there is enough hold drops, it is not the case that hold drops were closed from inside by the victim. It is only the bolt of the top, which is known as barrel bolt, was closed, but the bolting of that barrel bolt also, in our opinion, is not established. Therefore, non-closure of door also rules out the probability of suicide. 31. It is only the bolt of the top, which is known as barrel bolt, was closed, but the bolting of that barrel bolt also, in our opinion, is not established. Therefore, non-closure of door also rules out the probability of suicide. 31. There is nothing on the record to show that deceased at any time shouted after putting herself on fire. The accused heard the alarm from outside as to the fire in their house and, therefore, they went upstairs and found Aruna lying in a burnt condition. It is surprising that though they reached and extinguished the fire, yet the body is found burnt to the extent that ante-mortem features of burns were destroyed from every parts of the body and post-mortem burns occurred. This circumstance, in our opinion, is also a circumstance against the accused. 32. Mr. Shethna, learned Counsel, relying on the judgment in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra ( AIR 1984 SC 1622 ) contended that the facts so established are not consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Mr. Shethna contended that the probability and possibility of suicide cannot be ruled out in view of the very circumstances relied on by the prosecution. Here, in the instant case, there is a clear motive for the accused to kill Aruna. It is proved that Aruna died of burns and there was all the probability of burning Aruna if one looks into the correspondence, which reflects on his temperament as well as his moral background. Therefore, in our opinion, all the links in the chain of evidence have been satisfactorily proved, which shows the guilt of the accused with reasonable certainty and the circumstances are in proximity with the time and situation. 33. In our opinion, in view of the above discussion, the degree and extent of burns themselves rules out the possibility of suicide and in view of the medical opinion, there is probability of the presence of some other person who is none else than accused No. 1, it is clear that the accused No.1 was there to roast Aruna and not to rescue her. Therefore, in our opinion, learned Addl. Sessions Judge has rightly come to the conclusion of guilt of the accused and we do not find any reason to interfere with the same. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. Therefore, in our opinion, learned Addl. Sessions Judge has rightly come to the conclusion of guilt of the accused and we do not find any reason to interfere with the same. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.