Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1059 (HP)

Surjeet Singh v. State of H. P.

2014-08-07

RAJIV SHARMA, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2014
JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal, is, directed by the appellant/accused, against the impugned judgment, rendered, on, 19.3.2010, by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, H.P., in, Sessions Trial No. 20 of 2009, whereby, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as under : (i). 302, IPC:- The accused/appellant is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount he shall undergo further imprisonment for a period of two months. (ii) 498-A, IPC:-The accused/appellant is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further imprisonment for a period of one month. 2. The brief facts of the case, are, that, on 10th February, 2009, at about 2.10 P.M., a telephonic call was received in Police Station, Hamirpur, from an unknown person to the effect that, at, Village Kangru, one Kanta Devi has been burnt by her husband, namely, Surjit Singh, accused, by sprinkling kerosene oil on her person and she is being shifted to the Regional Hospital, Hamirpur. The said information was recorded in the daily diary comprised in Ex.PW15/A and Inspector Anjni Kumar along with SI Guler Chand, ASI Surinder Singh, H.C. Duni Chand, No.24 and Lady Constable Nisha Devi, No.28, proceeded to the Regional Hospital, Hamirpur. Inspector Anjni Kumar moved an application, Ex.PW9/A, to the Medical Officer, Regional Hospital, Hamirpur, with a request to examine Smt. Kanta Devi and to report as to whether her clothes smelt of kerosene oil or not or whether she was fit to make her statement or not. The Medical Officer, PW-9, Dr. L.P. Mathur, made an endorsement Ex.PW9/B, to the effect that Kanta Devi was fit to make the statement. Thereafter, Inspector Anjni Kumar recorded her statement under Section 154, Cr.P.C., to the effect that she was married to the accused in the year 1988 and out of the said wedlock two daughters and one son were born. They were all school going children. Her husband was posted as a constable in the 2nd Battalion, Dharamshala. On 10th February, 2009, her children had gone to the school and the accused was on leave at home. They were all school going children. Her husband was posted as a constable in the 2nd Battalion, Dharamshala. On 10th February, 2009, her children had gone to the school and the accused was on leave at home. At about 1.45 PM, the accused started demanding money from her to purchase liquor, but she declined his demand, on which, he threatened to burn the house as also her. At that time, he set the clothes, kept in the room, on fire and there was a kerosene oil bottle kept there. He sprinkled kerosene oil on her, from the bottle and threw upon her a burning cloth and, hence, her clothes caught fire. She cried for help and the neighbours came there and they doused the fire. Thereafter, she was shifted the hospital. It was reported by her that the accused is in the habit of giving beatings to her and, as and when her children interfere, he beats them also. It was further stated by her that she was making the statement in her full senses and that she had heard the statement and admitted it to be correct. The said statement was signed by her in the presence of Inspector Anjni Kumar and attested by PW9, Dr. L.P. Mathur. On the basis of statement made by the deceased, FIR was registered in the Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 307, IPC. The police investigated the case. During the course of the investigation, the police took into possession the clothes of the deceased. The accused was arrested by the police and got medically examined. The Medical Officer had preserved the clothes, which the accused was wearing and handed over the same in a sealed cover to the police. The sealed cover was deposited on the same day with the MHC. During the course of the investigation, Inspector Anjni Kumar collected one plastic bottle, half burnt shawl, one bed sheet and a match box from the spot which were sealed in separate parcels with seal ‘H’ and were taken into possession vide separate recovery memos, in the presence of the witnesses. The specimens of seal were also drawn on a separate piece of cloth. The Investigating Officer got clicked the photographs of the spot and also prepared the site plan. 3. The specimens of seal were also drawn on a separate piece of cloth. The Investigating Officer got clicked the photographs of the spot and also prepared the site plan. 3. The condition of Smt. Kanta Devi deteriorated at Regional Hospital, Hamirpur and she was referred to Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla, where she was treated under the care of Dr. Rakesh Chauhan. But Kanta Devi succumbed to the burn injuries on 22nd May, 2009 at about 11.45 PM. ASI Rajinder Kumar filled in the inquest papers and had moved an application to the Medical Officer, Forensic Medicines, IGMC, Shimla for conducting the post mortem of the deceased. Her post mortem examination was conducted by Dr. Rahul Gupta and as per the opinion, she died as a result of multiple organs failure due to septicaemic shock in a case of approximately 32% dermo epidermal anti mortem burns. Thereafter the case was converted to one under Sections 498-A and 302, IPC and the accused was again arrested for the said offences on May, 26, 2009. 4. During the course of further investigation of the case, the investigating officer obtained the revenue records on an application having been moved by him and the statements of the witnesses were recorded. 5. On conclusion of the investigation, into the offences, allegedly committed by the accused, report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was prepared and filed in the Court. 6. The accused was charged, for, his having committed offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 of IPC, by the learned trial Court, to, which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 7. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 24 witnesses. On closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded, in, which he pleaded innocence and chose to lead evidence in defence. The accused examined two defence witnesses. 8. On appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of conviction against the accused/appellant. 9. The accused/appellant, is, aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, recorded by the learned trial Court. The learned defence counsel has concertedly, and, vigorously contended, that, the findings of conviction, recorded by the learned trial Court, are, not based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, rather, they are sequelled by gross mis-appreciation of the material on record. 9. The accused/appellant, is, aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, recorded by the learned trial Court. The learned defence counsel has concertedly, and, vigorously contended, that, the findings of conviction, recorded by the learned trial Court, are, not based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, rather, they are sequelled by gross mis-appreciation of the material on record. Hence, he, contends that the findings of conviction, be, reversed by this Court, in, the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, and, be replaced by findings of acquittal. 10. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General, has, with considerable force and vigour, contended that the findings of conviction, recorded by the Court below, are, based on a mature and balanced appreciation of evidence on record, and, do not necessitate interference, rather merit vindication. 11. This Court with the able assistance of the learned counsel on either side, has, with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence on record. 12. The first witness, who stepped into the witness box, in, proof of the prosecution case, is, PW-1, Parma Ram, who deposed that on 10.2.2009 at about 1.00 p.m., the mother of the accused, came to his house and apprised him that the accused had taken his wife to his room. He further deposes that she apprised him that the accused had bolted the room from inside, and, requested him to save her daughter-in-law. However, this witness disclosed her that since he was in advance age and was helpless and advised her to seek help from somebody else. He further deposes that after five minutes the mother of the accused again came to him. On her arrival in the house of PW-1, he deposed that he apprised her that no body interferes in such like matters. In the meanwhile, he heard some noise from the back side of his house. Sheela Devi was proclaiming “Phook Di Phook Di”. Thereupon, the mother of the prosecutrix ran towards the room of the accused and, he, too followed her. On his reaching the room of the accused, he found that Kanta Devi was lying on a cot in the room, in, a burnt condition, and, the accused was keeping his hands on the feet of his wife. He further deposes that he noticed that some fire was burning inside the room as some clothes were burning. On his reaching the room of the accused, he found that Kanta Devi was lying on a cot in the room, in, a burnt condition, and, the accused was keeping his hands on the feet of his wife. He further deposes that he noticed that some fire was burning inside the room as some clothes were burning. Hence, he brought a bucket of water and doused the fire. Thereafter, he telephoned the police. He denied the suggestion that he poured water on Kanta Devi. On this the learned Public Prosecutor, requested for cross-examining this witness, and, his request was acceded to by the learned trial Court. During the course of his cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, he admits the suggestion to be correct that when Mansha Devi had come to him, she had apprised him that the accused was burning the clothes and that he would burn Kanta Devi also. He admits it to be correct that when they went there, the room was emitting smoke. However he deposes that he noticed that the clothes on the lower body of Kanta Devi were burnt. However, she was not claiming that he had been burnt by the accused. It is also deposed by this witness during his cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor that Kanta Devi was not accompanied by the accused to the hospital. 13. PW-2 is Smt. Mansha Devi, who, is, the mother of the accused. She deposes that the accused is her youngest son and is serving in Police Department as constable. Since, she during her examination-in-chief having not supported the prosecution version, she was declared hostile and was requested by the learned public prosecutor to be cross-examined, on his request having come to be acceded to, she was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. During her cross-examination, she deposes that her statement was not recorded by the police and denied the prosecution version. During the cross-examination by the learned defence counsel she deposes that on the fateful day it was quite cold as it was cloudy and was drizzling. She admitted the suggestion that on that day Kanta Devi and Surjit Singh had lit an earthen Angithi in their room with the help of fire wood for warming up. She proceeds to depose that there was a room almirah above the Angithi in wall of the room and the almirah was without shutter. She admitted the suggestion that on that day Kanta Devi and Surjit Singh had lit an earthen Angithi in their room with the help of fire wood for warming up. She proceeds to depose that there was a room almirah above the Angithi in wall of the room and the almirah was without shutter. She also admitted the suggestion that Kanta Devi used to keep kerosene oil lamp and other articles including kerosene oil bottle there. She proceeds to depose that at that time her two grand daughters were at home and the accused was sitting in the outer room with his daughters and son. She admits that when Kanta Devi was taking out some articles from the almirah, a plastic bottle of the kerosene oil fell down and kerosene oil fell on the Angithi, as well, as, on the clothes of Kanta Devi and she accidentally caught the fire, in, the process. On seeing this, the accused is deposed to have then proceeded to her room and put off the fire and thrown out the Angithi in the courtyard. The accused has been deposed to have doused the fire by pouring water on the clothes burning in the room. She admits the suggestion that on the relevant day Sunita Devi and Sarita Devi were going to school, but Sarita developed some ailment on the way and so both of them had returned home and remained present in the house, since morning. She deposed that her son always lived with his wife cordially without quarrelling. She admits that Kanta Devi had become unconscious on the spot and regained consciousness on the next day in the hospital. Moreover, she admits the suggestion that Kanta Devi was a lady of over sensitive nature. 14. PW-3 Shri Rajinder Kumar is the brother of the deceased. He deposes that the accused kept his wife properly for about 5-6 years and thereafter, he started picking up quarrels with her over trifles. Moreover, the accused used to drink also. Besides, he deposed that after some years of marriage, the accused started absenting from his duty and also did not provide maintenance to his family. His sister has been deposed by this witness to have told the accused to join duty and behave like a normal person, yet he would pick up a quarrel with her also. Besides, he deposed that after some years of marriage, the accused started absenting from his duty and also did not provide maintenance to his family. His sister has been deposed by this witness to have told the accused to join duty and behave like a normal person, yet he would pick up a quarrel with her also. He continues to depose that sometimes his father used to render financial help to the deceased. At times, he deposes that the deceased used to work as a labourer also to earn her livelihood. Two days prior to her death, Kanta Devi had come to his house and on that day the accused was on his duty. Next day he came on leave and the incident occurred. He deposes that ‘jathani’ of Kanta Devi, namely, Kala Devi, telephoned him and informed him that the accused had poured kerosene oil on Kanta Devi and had burnt her. Then, he went to Regional Hospital, Hamirpur. He proved recovery memo Ex.PW3/A to Ex.PW3/D. He continued to depose that his sister Kanta Devi was referred to IGMC, Shimla where he stayed with her yet, the accused came there only once about 2-3 days prior to her death. The mother of the accused and his daughters have been deposed by this witness to be staying at Shimla, during this period. PW-3 deposes that her sister told him that the accused first assaulted her on head outside the house and then she was taken to the room. The deceased has been deposed by this witness to have told him that in the room the accused poured kerosene oil on her and set her on fire. In cross-examination by the learned defence counsel it emanates that he had told the police that the accused would remain absent from duty and would not pay maintenance to his sister. However, the said fact has been omitted to by recorded in his previous statements, besides, the fact that the deceased had come to his house two days prior to her death is also omitted to be recorded in his previous statement. He deposed that many villagers had gathered on the spot. The father of the accused and his two children were present there. Sarita and Sumit were also present at home. He deposed that many villagers had gathered on the spot. The father of the accused and his two children were present there. Sarita and Sumit were also present at home. He deposed that he has seen the affidavit Ex.DB and it is signed by him as also by his deceased sister Kanta Devi. The said affidavit has been deposed by this witness to be signed by the deceased while she was admitted at Regional Hospital, Hamirpur. He denied the suggestion that the accused never tortured his sister. 15. PW-4 Pritam Chand deposed that on 10.2009, he brought Kanta Devi to Regional Hospital, Hamirpur from Bohani in his taxi bearing No. HP-01-8327. 16. PW-5 Smt. Sheela Devi is the neighbour of the accused. He deposes that on 10.2.2009, in the noon, on hearing the cries of Kanta Devi, she came to the spot. On her arrival at the scene of occurrence, she saw that the accused and his mother were present in the outer room. However, the deceased Kanta Devi was not proclaiming that she had been burnt by the accused. Since, she during her examination-in-chief has not supported the prosecution version, she was declared hostile and was requested by the learned public prosecutor to be cross-examined, on his request having come to be acceded to, she was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. During her cross-examination, by the public prosecutor, she has denied the suggestion that Kanta Devi was proclaiming that she had been burnt and she be saved. During the cross-examination by the learned defence counsel, she has admitted the suggestion that on that day it was drizzling and it was quite cold. She proceeds to depose that when she visited the spot, she acquired knowledge that one Angithi was burning in the room, which had been thrown out by the accused. Besides, there was an almirah above the Angithi in the room and household articles were kept in the almirah. She admits the suggestion to be correct that when she reached the spot, Kanta Devi was lying on the spot and the accused was extinguishing the fire in the room. She deposed that Kanta Devi apprised her that while she was collecting some articles from the almirah, the bottle of kerosene oil fell down and the oil was splashed on her and in the Angithi owing to which she caught fire. She deposed that Kanta Devi apprised her that while she was collecting some articles from the almirah, the bottle of kerosene oil fell down and the oil was splashed on her and in the Angithi owing to which she caught fire. Lastly she deposed that PW-1 Parama Ram came to the spot when Kanta Devi was being shifted on the cot upto the road head. She also deposes that deceased Kanta Devi apprised her in the Hospital that she had caught fire accidentally. 17. PW-6 Smt. Savitri Devi is the other neighbour of the accused. She deposes that when she heard the cries of Kanta devi, she ran towards her house from the field and by that time she had been brought out from the room and placed on a cot to be taken to the road head. The deceased Kanta Devi has been deposed by this witness to be not in a position to speak. She deposed that the deceased was not proclaiming that she had been burnt. Since, she during her examination-in-chief has not supported the prosecution version, she was declared hostile and was requested by the learned public prosecutor to be cross-examined, on his request having come to be acceded to, she was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. During her cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, she has denied the prosecution case as put to her. In cross-examination by the learned defence counsel, she has deposed that she did not hear Kanta Devi uttering anything because she was being shifted to the road head on a cot. 18. PW-7 Amar Chand deposes that he issued Aks Sajra Kistwar comprised in Ex.PW7/A and copy of jamabandi Ex.PW7/B, on an application comprised in Ex.PW7/C, forwarded by the Tehsildar. 19. PW-8 Dr. R.K. Agnihotri, Medical Officer, Regional Hospital, Hamirpur, H.P., deposes that on 10.2.2009, he medically examined the accused and he was found normal. He deposes that there was smell of kerosene oil in the hands and clothes of the accused. He deposes that after the receipt of chemical examiner report comprised in Ex.PW8/B, the traces of kerosene oil could not be detected on clothes. He proved on record MLC, Ex.PW8/C which has been deposed to be bearing his signature. He deposes that there was smell of kerosene oil in the hands and clothes of the accused. He deposes that after the receipt of chemical examiner report comprised in Ex.PW8/B, the traces of kerosene oil could not be detected on clothes. He proved on record MLC, Ex.PW8/C which has been deposed to be bearing his signature. During the course of cross-examination by the learned defence counsel it is admitted by him that in such case smell of kerosene oil can appear on the body of a person helping the victim in removing to the hospital or otherwise coming in contact with the victim. 20. PW-9 Dr. L.P. Thakur deposes, that, on an application Ex.PW9/A having been moved by the police, he gave his opinion comprised, in, Ex.PW9/B, on the application, that the deceased was fit to make statement. Thereafter, the police recorded the statement of deceased Kanta Devi, comprised in Ex.PW9/C in his presence, which has been deposed by this witness to be signed by the deceased in his presence. He deposes, that, thereafter he attested the same and appended his endorsement to the effect that the statement was recorded in his presence. He deposes that he issued MLC Ex.PW9/D and found the following injuries on her person : “Kanta Devi was having burn injuries. She was conscious, oriented, screaming with pain, smell of kerosene like substance was present. Pulse 90 pm, BP 130/90, chest clear, pupil reacting to light, S1 S2 normal. Local Examination :- Burn injury on anterior abdomen wall around omblicus with blisters formation present, tenderness over the area of injury was present. Skin over the injury removed at places with fluid oozing from the wound. Burn of second degree. Burn injury involving left anterior thigh extending to medial aspect of right hip. Further extending to anterior of left leg with involvement of anterior medial and anterior alteral aspect of left leg with skin over the wound are removed, fluid was oozing from the described area with tags of skin hanging from the wound side. Burn injury involving left hand dorsal aspect upto finger margin second in nature with area of the skin removed with oozing from the wound present. Ventral aspect of left palm. Blister formation was present. Burn injury involving right lower limb extending from anterior aspect of right thigh second in nature with skin tags at places and plasma oozing from the wound. Ventral aspect of left palm. Blister formation was present. Burn injury involving right lower limb extending from anterior aspect of right thigh second in nature with skin tags at places and plasma oozing from the wound. Anteriorly injury was involving anterior lateral and anterior middle aspect of right leg second degree in nature with line of demarcation present.” He deposes that on the receipt of the report of the chemical examiner comprised in Ex.PW8/B, he, rendered his final opinion comprised in Ex.PW9/E. It has emanated during the course of his deposition that if Ex.P-1, bottle containing kerosene oil duly corked, falls down from a height in a room there is no likelihood of the oil falling on any one. He further deposes that even if the cork is not put on the bottle and the bottle falls down, even then the oil would not fall on some individual standing there, but it will pour out from the bottle on the floor. However, in the instant case, this witness has over ruled the possibility of the burns to be sequelled by falling down of the bottle, Ex.P-1 containing kerosene oil from a height. During the course of his cross-examination by the learned defence counsel, he deposes that in the instant case the burn injuries are of second degree and they are more than 45 %. He deposes that the deceased was treated by a surgeon. He admits that the second degree burn injury falls in the epidermal category. He admits that if the bottle Ex.P1, falls from a height and the kerosene oil falls in a burning Angithi and also on a person standing by the side of the Angithi, in that case, the clothes of the person can catch fire. He deposes that septicemia is an infection. It can be bacterial infection also. He deposes that Ex.PW9/C was recorded in his presence and in the presence of the Investigation officer. He deposes that when Kanta Devi was brought to the hospital her relatives were present there. He has denied the suggestion that Kanta Devi was not in a position to record her statement and that the police had recorded Ex.PW9/C on its own. 21. PW-10 Dr. He deposes that when Kanta Devi was brought to the hospital her relatives were present there. He has denied the suggestion that Kanta Devi was not in a position to record her statement and that the police had recorded Ex.PW9/C on its own. 21. PW-10 Dr. Rakesh Chauhan deposes that the deceased Kanta Devi was admitted in the Surgery Department Unit-3, on 21.2.2009 with the history of burns 30%, 8 days old, second degree involving front of lower part of abdomen and lower limbs and posterior parts of left lower limbs, also, with a small area involving dorsal of left hand. He deposes that on admission the patient’s vitals were normal and emergency investigations were done. Patient showed improvement with the treatment and remained febrile, wounds started healing until about 3rd and 4th week when she developed fever and purulent discharge from the wounds. During the 6th, 7th weeks of treatment, the patient’s oral intake started decreasing. He deposes that in the 10th week, the patient developed hypotension, hypo albuminemea. Medicine and cardiology consultation was also taken and treatment was accordingly started along with the routine treatment which was in progress. He deposes that despite all these measures, the patient failed to respond to the treatment and subsequently she succumbed to the burn injuries with septicaemia with shock on May 22, 2009 at 11.30 p.m. He proved on record copy of summary record of the deceased comprised in Ex.PW10/A which has been stated to be correct as per the original brought by him in the Court. In cross-examination by the learned defence counsel he has denied the suggestion that second degree burns are epidermal burns. He admits that septicaemia is a condition where blood gets infected by bacteria. 22. PW-11 Smt. Lajwati Gupta, Ward Sister, Regional Hospital, Hamirpur, has proved on record the copy of treatment summary of the deceased comprised in Ex.PW11/A which has been stated to be a true and correct copy of the original as brought by her in Court. 23. PW-12 Lady Constable Nisha Devi deposes that on 10.2.2009, she along with H.C. Duni Chand and Inspector Anjani Kumar had gone to R.H., Hamirpur. H.C. Duni Chand had moved an application Ex.PW9/A to the Medical Officer, R.H., Hamirpur. 23. PW-12 Lady Constable Nisha Devi deposes that on 10.2.2009, she along with H.C. Duni Chand and Inspector Anjani Kumar had gone to R.H., Hamirpur. H.C. Duni Chand had moved an application Ex.PW9/A to the Medical Officer, R.H., Hamirpur. She deposes that thereafter Inspector Anjani Kumar recorded the statement of Kanta Devi comprised in Ex.PW9/C. In her cross-examination, she deposes that the statement Ex.PW9/C was handed over to her by H.C. Duni Chand. She deposes that no family member or relative of Kanta Devi was present inside the room when her statement was recorded. 24. PW-13 Constable Ramel Singh deposes that MHC Vijay Parkash handed over to him six sealed parcels and two sealed envelop and R.C. No.234/09, on 13.2.2009, which he handed over at RFSL, Gutkar, Mandi, on the same day and returned the R.C. to the MHC. 25. PW-14 H.C. Vijay Parkash deposes that on 10.2.2009, Inspector Anjani Kumar deposited with him six sealed parcels and two sealed envelopes and these were sent by him on 13.2.2009 through constable Ramel Kumar to RFSL, Gutkar Mandi vide RC No.234 of 2009. He proved on record copy of abstract of Malkhana register Ex.PW14/A and copy of R.C., Ex.PW14/B, which have been deposed by this witness to be correct as per the original brought by him in the Court. 26. PW-15 C. Sunil Kumar proved on record the copies of the daily diaries comprised in Ex.PW15/A and Ex.PW15/B which have been deposed by this witness to be correct as per the original Rojnamcha register brought by him in the Court. 27. PW-16 H.C. Raghujit Singh proved on record copy of rapat No.16 dated 6.2.2009 comprised in Ex.PW16/A and copy of rapat No.11 dated 8.2.2009 comprised in Ex.PW 16/B which have been deposed by this witness to be correct as per the original brought by him in the Court. 28. PW-17 ASI Surinder Singh deposes that on 10.2.2009, he along with other police officials was deputed by Inspector/SHO Anjani Kumar to preserve the site of occurrence. He deposed that, he, reached the spot at about 4.00/4.30 p.m. where he found the accused sleeping on the bed. The articles were scattering in the room. He deposes that the half burnt clothes, empty bottle, half burnt shawl and match box were also found inside the room. He deposed that, he, reached the spot at about 4.00/4.30 p.m. where he found the accused sleeping on the bed. The articles were scattering in the room. He deposes that the half burnt clothes, empty bottle, half burnt shawl and match box were also found inside the room. He further deposes that there were traces of smoke in the room and there was no incriminating article in the courtyard. He deposes that SHO Anjani Kumar came to the spot at 6.00 p.m. and the accused was arrested by him and sent for medical examination. He deposes that he along with two constables brought the accused to R.H.. Hamirpur for medical examination and moved an application comprised in Ex.PW8/A for medical examination of the accused, in pursuance to which he obtained the MLC Ex.PW8/C of the accused. He deposes that the medical officer had preserved the clothes which the accused was wearing and had sealed them in a parcel and handed over to him. He deposited the parcel with the MHC. In his cross-examination by the defence counsel, he feigned ignorance about the size of the room. He deposes that empty bottle was lying there. He denied the suggestion that there was a shelf or open almirah on one wall of the room, to the left of the entrance. He deposes that there are two courtyards outside the house of the accused and that only the accused was present in the house when he went there. He deposes that he was only asked to preserve the spot which he did. He denied the suggestion that when he went to the spot, the accused was not present there and that he was arrested by the SHO from the hospital. 29. PW-18 ASI Rajinder Kumar deposes that he filled in the inquest papers, Ex.PW18/A and Ex.PW18/B and got done the post mortem examination of deceased Kanta Devi at IGMC, Shimla on an application comprised in Ex.PW18/C, having been moved by him. He deposes that he collected the postmortem report of the deceased and brought the same to the police station. The case was converted from under Section 307 IPC to under Section 302, IPC by him on the death of Kanta Devi. 30. He deposes that he collected the postmortem report of the deceased and brought the same to the police station. The case was converted from under Section 307 IPC to under Section 302, IPC by him on the death of Kanta Devi. 30. PW-19, H.C. Duni Chand deposes that on 10.2.2009 he accompanied the SHO to Regional Hospital, Hamirpur vide rapat Ex.PW15/A, where deceased Kanta Devi was admitted in the surgical ward in burnt condition. She was crying out of pain and the medical officer and para-medical staffs were treating her. The SHO moved an application comprised in Ex.PW9/A to the Medical Officer to the effect that as to whether she was in a fit condition to make statement on which the medical officer opined that she is fit to make statement. He deposes that he was directed by the SHO to take down the statement of Kanta Devi. He further deposes that the SHO went on asking Smt. Kanta Devi and he was taking down whatever was being stated by her. The medical officer was also present there. He deposes that statement Ex.PW9/C was attested by the SHO and the medical officer and Kanta Devi had signed on it. All of them signed it in his presence. He further deposes that on the instruction of SHO, he made the endorsement, Ex.PW19/A, on the reverse of the statement and sent the statement through L.C. Nisha Devi to the Police Station. He deposes that thereafter, he, along with SHO and other police officials went to the spot. On reaching the spot, the empty plastic bottle Ex.P1, half burnt shawl, Ex.P2, half burnt bed sheet, Ex.P3 and one match box were taken into possession by the SHO vide memos Ex.PW3/A, Ex.PW3/B, Ex.PW3/C and Ex.PW3/D, respectively, in his presence and in the presence of Vikram Singh and Rajinder Singh. The aforesaid memos have been stated by this witness to have been signed by him as well as by Vikram Singh and Rajinder Singh as witnesses. The aforesaid memos have been stated by this witness to have been signed by him as well as by Vikram Singh and Rajinder Singh as witnesses. He further deposes that on 2.6.2009, he was deputed for partial investigation of the case and he moved an application ex.PW7/C to the Tehsildar and obtained the copies of tatima Ex.PW7/A and copy of jamabandi Ex.PW7/B. In his cross-examination, he deposes that when the statement of Kanta Devi was recorded, only SHO, he and medical officer were present in the room and no relative of Kanta Devi was present there inside the room at that time. He deposes that the statement of Kanta Devi was recorded in 20-25 minutes. He admits that he had not recorded the statements of Sunita Kumari, Sarita Kumari and Sumit Kumar under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. He deposes that they left the police station for hospital at about 2.10 P.M. He has denied the suggestion that at that time the mental condition of Kanta Devi was not stable and that the accused was also present there. He has denied the suggestion that he had recorded the statement of Kanta Devi on its own and that she never made any such statement. He has also denied the suggestion that he had not gone to the hospital. 31. PW-20 Shri Anjani Jaswal deposes that on receiving the information on telephone from unknown person in the Police Station that a lady has been burnt and has been shifted to the Regional Hospital, he along with other police official proceeded to the hospital vide rapat Ex.PW15/A. He deposes that he directed H.C. Duni Chand to write an application to the Medical Officer to get his opinion as to whether the deceased is fit for making statement or not. He deposes that on application Ex.PW9/A, the medical officer give his opinion Ex.PW9/B that she was fit to make statement. After obtaining the opinion of the medical officer, the statement of Kanta Devi was recorded. He deposes that he kept on asking Kanta Devi about the incident and whatever she was answering that was dictated by him to H.C. Duni Chand, who recorded the statement in his hand in the presence of the medical officer. He deposes that statement Ex.PW9/C was signed by deceased Kanta Devi in his presence and thereafter it was attested by him and the Medical officer. He deposes that statement Ex.PW9/C was signed by deceased Kanta Devi in his presence and thereafter it was attested by him and the Medical officer. He further deposes that the same was sent vide endorsement Ex.PW19/A to the police station through L.C. Nisha Devi for registration of the FIR. He deposes that he sent ASI Surinder Kumar to the spot along with constables to preserve the spot. On receipt of the file from the police station, he proceeded to the spot. It has been deposed by this witness that till the receipt of the file, he was enquiring about the incident from Sunita Devi and Sarita and their statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C. were got recorded by him through SI Guler Chand in the hospital. He deposes that on the spot many villagers were present. He clicked the photographs of the spot, which have been deposed by this witness to be Ex.PW20/A to Ex.PW20/F. He further deposes that he took into possession articles Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/A to Ex.PW3/D in the presence of the witnesses and sealed every articles in separate parcels with seal H. He deposes that he prepared spot map, Ex.PW20/G. The accused was present on the spot and he was arrested by him and thereafter, he was sent by him for medical examination with ASI Surinder Singh. He deposes that he recorded the statements of the witnesses on the spot. He deposes that initially, he arrested the accused under Sections 498-A and 307, IPC and later on it was converted under Section 302, IPC. The accused was again arrested under Section 302, IPC, as, he has earlier been released on bail for the original offences. He deposes that he did not come to know during investigation that Kanta Devi had executed some affidavit about the cause of incident. It has been deposed by this witness that formal FIR Ex.PW20/H was printed on the computer on the basis of statement Ex.PW9/C by Inspector Pritam Singh, whose signatures were identified by him on the FIR. In cross-examination he deposed that H.C. Duni Chand was sitting on a stool while taking down the statement of the deceased and he was standing along with the medical officer on the left side of the bed. He deposes that when statement of the deceased was recorded, no relative of Kanta Devi was present inside the room. In cross-examination he deposed that H.C. Duni Chand was sitting on a stool while taking down the statement of the deceased and he was standing along with the medical officer on the left side of the bed. He deposes that when statement of the deceased was recorded, no relative of Kanta Devi was present inside the room. He admits that Regional Hospital is about 500 meters from District Court. He did not request any executive Magistrate to be present to record such a statement. He deposes that the burnt articles were lying within the radius of 2-3 feet of the door of the room. He has denied the suggestion that there was one almirah on the wall of the room. He has also denied the suggestion that the accused was present in the hospital. He has also denied the suggestion that it came to his notice during investigation that Kanta Devi was warning to burn herself with the help of Angithi in the room. He has also denied the suggestion that pieces of some earthen Angithi were lying in the courtyard. He has denied the suggestion that application Mark-A, was sent to him by Kant Devi through her daughter Sunita Devi during investigation. It has also been denied by this witness that affidavit, Ex.DB was also accompanying this application. He has also denied the suggestion that thereafter supplementary statement of Kanta Devi was also recorded. He has also denied the suggestion that Kanta Devi never made statement, Ex.PW9/C and that he had obtained her signatures on some blank papers. He has denied the suggestion that he has falsely implicated the accused at the behest of Kanta Devi. He has also denied the suggestion that Kanta Devi has not signed Ex.PW9/C. 32. PW-21 Dr. Rahul Gupta deposes that on 23.5.2009 at about 3.50 p.m., SI Rajinder Kumar P.S. Sadar, Hamirpur, moved an application Ex.PW18/C along with inquest papers, Ex.PW18/A and Ex.PW18/B for conducting the post mortem examination of deceased Smt. Kanta Devi. On this, he along with Dr. Piyus Kapila, conducted the postmortem examination of the deceased. He deposes that on examination, the dead body was found 154 cms in length of female with apparent generalized swelling and antiseptic dressing insitu over both lower limbs. Body was cooled sown to room temperature. Regor mortis was present over all joints. No evidence of putrefaction was present externally. Piyus Kapila, conducted the postmortem examination of the deceased. He deposes that on examination, the dead body was found 154 cms in length of female with apparent generalized swelling and antiseptic dressing insitu over both lower limbs. Body was cooled sown to room temperature. Regor mortis was present over all joints. No evidence of putrefaction was present externally. No evidence of any kind of external injury other than burn was present. He observed as under: “Ante mortem injuries :- Dermo-epidermal burns were present over both lower limbs as depicted in page No.5 diagrammatically with evidence of healing at places and multiple greenish coloured pus points present in burns surface. Pressure sores were present in sacral region in an area of 6x6 cm. and over right shoulder in an area of 5x4 cm. over right scapula. Carnium and spinal cord. Scalp, skull and vertebrae and spinal cord were normal. Nemberances-Brain was congested. Thorax Walls, ribs and cartilages were normal. Pleurae was congested and pleural cavity contained 700 mls. of straw coloured fluid bilaterally. Multiple pus points were present. Laryanx and treachea was congested. Right and left lungs were bilaterally congested with multiple patches of consolidation were present in lung parenchyma. Heart was congested. Abdomen. Partioneum was congested and peritoneal cavity contained 900 mls. of straw coloured fluid. Mouth, pharynx and oesophagus were congested. Stomach was containing around 400 mls. of semi digested meal. Gastric mucosa was congested. No peculiar odour of any kind was present. Small and large intestines were congested and distended with gases of decomposition. Liver, spleen were congested. Kidneys were congested with multiple pus points in parenchyma. Bladder was congested and empty. Organs of generation, external and internal, were congested and uterine cavity was empty. Muscles, Bones and joints were normal.” He deposes that as per their opinion the deceased died as a result of multiple organ failure due to septicaemic shock in a case of approximately 32% dermo epidermal ante mortem burns. He deposes that they issued post mortem report Ex.PW21/A which has been deposed by this witnesses to be in his hand and signed by him. Dr. Piyus Kapila has been deposed by this witness to have signed the same. In cross-examination by the learned defence counsel he has denied the suggestion that Kanta Devi had epidermal burn injuries. He has denied the suggestion that septicaema is viral infection. Dr. Piyus Kapila has been deposed by this witness to have signed the same. In cross-examination by the learned defence counsel he has denied the suggestion that Kanta Devi had epidermal burn injuries. He has denied the suggestion that septicaema is viral infection. He deposes that it may be fungal or bacterial. He deposes that failure of organ is possible due to cardiac arrest. 32. PW-22 Dr. Sanjay Kumar, Medical Officer has deposed that on 10.2.2009 Kanta Devi was admitted in the hospital in surgical ward. She was attended by her along with Medical Specialist Shri Satish Kumar and other medical officers. On the next day, as per bed head ticket, the patient was advised to be referred to higher centre by Dr. Satish, Medical Officer as well as by him vide endorsement Ex.PW22/A. He further deposes that on 14.2.2009, the patient was again advised to be shifted to higher centre for better treatment/care but Sunita Devi, the daughter of the deceased had given in writing that she is unable to shift her mother to IGMC, Shimla vide endorsement, Ex.PW22/B and he has also made his endorsement Ex.PW22/C. He further deposes that on 20.2.2009, the patient was advised to be shifted to higher centre for better care and he made his endorsement Ex.PW22/D to this effect. In cross-examination he has denied the suggestion that Ex.PW22/B was not written by Sunita, the daughter of deceased Kanta Devi. 33. PW 23 Smt. Staya Gloda, President of All India Democratic Women Association, Himachal Pradesh, deposed that in the end of November, 2008 or early December, 2008 when she had gone to Village Kangru, Kanta Devi met her and she was depressed. She deposes that Kanta Devi told her that she was being harassed by the accused and was being treated like a beast. She deposed that she was requested by Kanta Devi to take her case also. She advised her to move an application to her so that the association could move in the matter. She deposes that the deceased did not file any application and after some time she came to know about that Kanta Devi was burnt by the accused. She has denied the suggestion that when the accused was posted in police department at Hamirpur, there was some verbal wrangle between them owing to that reason she is stating falsely. 34. She deposes that the deceased did not file any application and after some time she came to know about that Kanta Devi was burnt by the accused. She has denied the suggestion that when the accused was posted in police department at Hamirpur, there was some verbal wrangle between them owing to that reason she is stating falsely. 34. PW-24, Inspector Guler Chand deposes that on 28.7.2009, he recorded the statements of Smt. Satya Galoda and Smt. Brahmi Devi under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. He further deposes that on completion of investigation he prepared the cahllan and presented the same in the Court. 35. DW-1 is Miss Sunita Kumari, the daughter of the accused. She deposes that on 10.2.2009, she was present at home. Her father, grand parents, her sister and mother were also present at home. It was drizzling on that day and it was quite cold. She deposes that at about 12.45 p.m., her mother was sitting beside the Angithi and her father and sister, Sarita along with her grand parents were sitting in the outer room. She deposes that in the meantime, her mother gone to take out some articles from the almirah in the wall above the Angithi, the kerosene oil bottle, whose lid was not fully tightened, fell down and some kerosene oil fell in the Angithi and some oil splashed on her mother. Clothes of her mother caught fire in that process from the Angithi. She further deposes that her father put a blanket on her mother to douse the fire and she was shifted to the outer room from the bed room. She deposes that her father put water on the burning Angithi and thrown out it in the courtyard. She deposes that Sheela Devi, Savitri and Mala came to the spot and her mother apprised them as to how she caught fire. It has been deposed by this witness that PW1 Parma Ram came to the spot when her mother was being shifted to the hospital. She deposes that it takes about 30 minutes from Bohani to Hamirpur by vehicle. He deposes that her mother never made any statement to the police in the hospital at Hamripur and that her mother was left hander. It has been deposed by this witness that the police arrested his father at Zonal Hospital, Hamirpur, on the same day. She deposes that it takes about 30 minutes from Bohani to Hamirpur by vehicle. He deposes that her mother never made any statement to the police in the hospital at Hamripur and that her mother was left hander. It has been deposed by this witness that the police arrested his father at Zonal Hospital, Hamirpur, on the same day. She further deposed that he had been attending his mother at Zonal Hospital as well as at IGMC, Shimla. Her mother had stopped taking medicines and they informed the doctors and nurses but they did not care about it. It has been deposed by this witnesses that her mother had dictated an application comprised in Ex.DW1/A to her which has been addressed to the SHO. She deposes that the said application was handed over by her to the SHO, Police Station, Hamirpur and on the next day one police officer came to the hospital at Hamripur and recorded the statement of her mother. She further deposes that her mother told the cause of fire in her statement to that police officer in her presence. She deposes that her father does not have good relations with the matrimonial family of her mother. In her cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, she has denied the suggestion that when she came back, her mother had already sustained burn injuries. She deposes that there was no Angithi in the outer room because they were sitting on the bed. She deposes that she also tried to put off the fire on the clothes of her mother. She has denied the suggestion that her grand mother had gone to call Parama and that her father had been threatening to burn the house and her mother since morning and so PW Parma Ram was called. She deposes that she had handed over affidavit also along with original of Ex.DW1/A in the police station on 15.2.2009. She deposes that she do not know if this affidavit was handed over to K.C. Bhatia, Advocate by the police. She feigned ignorance about the date of preparation of the affidavit. 36. DW-2 Shri Ashok Sharma, Advocate deposes that the affidavit Ex. DB has been attested by him at Zonal Hospital, Hamirpur. He deposes that she had explained the contents of the affidavit to the deponent in local dialect, which she admitted to be correct and then signed it. She feigned ignorance about the date of preparation of the affidavit. 36. DW-2 Shri Ashok Sharma, Advocate deposes that the affidavit Ex. DB has been attested by him at Zonal Hospital, Hamirpur. He deposes that she had explained the contents of the affidavit to the deponent in local dialect, which she admitted to be correct and then signed it. Thereafter, Shri K.C. Bhatia, Advocate identified her and signed it. He further deposes that witnesses Rajinder Kumar and Uttam Chand were also present there, who had signed it. In cross-examination, he deposes that he was taken to the hospital by Rajinder Kumar PW. He has denied the suggestion that he did not explain the contents of affidavit to Kanta Devi in local dialect because she was not in a position to understand it due to pain and suffering and that the affidavit was attested him in his office. 37. Shri Visheshwar Sharma, Assistant Director, RFSL, Dharmahsala appeared as court witness No.1 and stated that he examined the documents Ex.PW9/C, Ex.DB, Ex.DW1/A, Ex.PW9/D, Ex.PW1/B, statement of Sunita Devi, Ex.CW1/B, Ex.CW1/C, Ex.CW1/D andEx.CW1/E. On these documents, the questioned items were stamped and marked as Q-1 to Q-9 and the admitted items were stamped and marked as A-1 to A-6. The specimen documents are Ex. CW1/F-1 to Ex.CW1/F-15. The same were stamped and marked as S-1 to S-15. He deposes that he examined and compared the said documents by applying scientific techniques and the results are mentioned in the report Ex.CW1/G. he has also tendered his detailed reasons Ex.CW1/H. In cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor it is stated by this witness that the opinion on photostat copies can be given on the condition that the photostat copies are the true reproductions of the original and that the examination of forensic documents is hundred percent correct. In cross-examination by the learned defence counsel, it is stated by this witness that he has not mentioned specially about the measurement of words in his report but reference has been made to size of letters. He has denied the suggestion that tremors may occur in the execution of Q-2, Q-3 and Q-6, if a person having burn injuries. He has further denied the suggestion that there is a difference between the execution of letter ‘S’ with admitted and specimen signatures of Sunita Devi. He has denied the suggestion that tremors may occur in the execution of Q-2, Q-3 and Q-6, if a person having burn injuries. He has further denied the suggestion that there is a difference between the execution of letter ‘S’ with admitted and specimen signatures of Sunita Devi. It is admitted by this witness that the examination work of handwriting comparison is a team work. He deposes that in their practice only the reporting officer signs the report and the signatures of other members are available in the worksheet of their records. He has also denied that he has not calculated the mathematical value of the probabilities. He has denied the suggestion put to him by the learned defence counsel that the handwriting science is not perfect science. 37. The statement of deceased Kanta Devi is recorded in Ex.PW9/C, wherein she discloses the fact that when her children had proceeded to school in the morning and her father-in-law and mother-in-law were also not present there, then, at about 1.45 p.m., the accused asked for money from her for purchasing liquor and when she declined, he, then, threatened to burn her as also the house. It emanates on a reading of Ex.PW 9/C, that subsequently, the accused put the clothes lying in the room on fire and sprinkled kerosene oil from a bottle, on, the deceased and then threw a burning piece of cloth on her which set her aflame, sequeling, hers sustaining burn injuries to the extent of 45%. It is borne out by the deposition of PW-21, Dr. Rahul Gupta, who carried out the post mortem examination on the body of the deceased Kanta Devi and who proved post mortem report comprised in Ex.PW21/A, of the deceased having succumbed to or her death being attributable to multiple organ failure arising on account of septicaemic shock caused by approximately 32% dermo epidermal antemortem burns. The aforesaid disclosure, in, the deposition of PW-21 of the deceased having ultimately died owing to septicaemic shock sequeled by 32% dermo epidermal antemortem burns, squarely clinches the conclusion that the death of the deceased is attributable to the burn injuries. The prosecution attributes the burn injuries to the accused. The aforesaid disclosure, in, the deposition of PW-21 of the deceased having ultimately died owing to septicaemic shock sequeled by 32% dermo epidermal antemortem burns, squarely clinches the conclusion that the death of the deceased is attributable to the burn injuries. The prosecution attributes the burn injuries to the accused. On the other hand, the defence contends that the death of deceased is accidental, in as much, as, when the deceased was sitting alone in the inner room of her house, whereas, other family members were sitting in the outer room, the deceased proceeded to fetch some articles from the almirah, in which process, the bottle of kerosene oil and lamp kept in the uncovered almirah, of the inner room, fell down resulting in the kerosene oil splashing on the earthen Angithi kept in the room, which, hence, too set her on fire. The said version has come to be lent corroboration by the deposition of DW-1, the daughter of the deceased, as also, corroboration to it, is comprised in affidavit, Ex.DB and copy of the application Ex.DW1/A. 38. It is incumbent upon this Court to gauge and fathom whether in the face of the deceased having recorded her statement, Ex.PW9/C, it, comprises a truthful disclosure qua the occurrence, as also, whether it comprises evidence of immense probative worth. In the event of the statement of the deceased comprised, in, Ex.PW9/C, recorded in the hospital by PW-19 on the dictation of PW-20 in presence of Medical Officer Shri L.P. Mathur, PW-9, constitutes a tenable and valid dying declaration of probative worth and value, then, the defence version propagated by the accused would come to be both overcome, as well, as, repulsed. 39. It is imminently clear on a perusal of the evidence on record that the statement of the deceased comprised, in, Ex.PW9/C was recorded on 10.9.2009 and the deceased died on 22.5.2009. However, given the fact of the precarious and critical condition of the deceased at the time of hers having made a statement contended by the prosecution to be constituting or comprising a dying declaration, hence, when given the gravity and magnitude of the burn injuries, to which she ultimately succumbed, she was, hence, beset with imminent death, as a sequel, then, when death was imminent at the stage of hers having made a statement, comprised, in, Ex.PW9.C, it is, hence, construable to be her dying declaration. However, to impute absolute truth to it, it is also get to be further determined whether the statement of the deceased attributing an incriminatory role to the accused was rendered by her with her cognitive faculties being alive, as also, whether she made it under duress or whether it was made volitionally by her. For gauging the fact whether, it, was made by her with her cognitive faculties being alive, an advertence is required to be made to the deposition of PW-9, who has categorically voiced the fact that the deceased Kanta Devi was, at the stage contemporaneous to her rendering statement Ex.PW9/C, possessed of sound mental faculties. The said deposition of PW-9 remains unscathed, hence, his certificate comprised, in, Ex.PW9/B declaring the patient/deceased to be fit to make a statement, is to be construed to be corroboratively proclaiming the truth qua her cognitive faculties then being alive. Consequently, for reiteration and for lack of adequate rebuttal to the said fact proclaimed by PW-9 both in his deposition and his certificate, comprised in, Ex.PW9/B, an aplomb conclusion which is to be drawn is that it was rendered by her when she was fit to make it. Besides, when he deposes that the deceased Kanta Devi in his presence scribed her signatures on Ex.PW9/C, which fact, too, has come to be further corroborated by PW-19 and PW-20 and when there exists on record, no cogent evidence bearing out the submission of the learned defence counsel that, it, was her involuntary statement and was recorded under duress or compulsion, as a sequel, in the absence of the aforesaid evidence on record construed in entwinement with the fact that PW-9, Dr. L. P. Mathur, deposes, that in his presence the deceased scribed his signature on Ex.PW9/C, countervails, the submission of the learned defence counsel, that, it was her involuntary statement. More so, especially when the factum of her signatures existing on Ex.PW9/C proves that it was her volitional statement. As a corollary, it is clinchingly held that Ex.PW9/C is a valid dying declaration of the deceased, hence, it has immense and potent probative vigour and force. 40. More so, especially when the factum of her signatures existing on Ex.PW9/C proves that it was her volitional statement. As a corollary, it is clinchingly held that Ex.PW9/C is a valid dying declaration of the deceased, hence, it has immense and potent probative vigour and force. 40. Having clinchingly construed that Ex.PW9/C has immense value and vigour , as a sequel, when, it, attributes an incriminatory role to the accused in the incident, which occurred on the fateful day, yet the reasons for fortifying the inference that the defence version is wholly untenable and rudderless and that, hence, the narrations qua the incident, as, comprised, in, Ex.PW9/C are un-prevaricated, as well, as, truthful, are :- (a) an incisive reading of the testimony of PW1 Parma Ram, the immediate neighbour of the accused and the deceased revealing that his services were solicited by the mother of the accused for saving the deceased, who had been bolted in the room by the accused. He had, though, refused to initially lend his services for interceding, yet he deposes that after a lapse of five minutes, he, over heard Sheela Devi raising an alarm ‘phuk di-phuk di’, which led the mother of the accused to rush towards the room of the accused and also led PW-1 to follow her and on his arrival, he, deposes that he saw the deceased lying on the cot in a burnt condition and the accused clasping the feet of the deceased. This witness has not come to be cross-examined by the learned defence counsel qua the proclamation by this witness in his examination-in-chief of his having over heard Sheela Devi proclaiming ‘phuk di-phuk di’, so also, this witness was also not cross-examined by the learned defence counsel, qua, the fact as deposed by him in his examination-in-chief, of, the accused having been seen by him to be clasping the feet of the deceased. Consequently, the omissions thereto, succor a conclusion that there was an alarm raised in the family of the accused of the accused having taken the deceased to a room for setting aflame, as also, it conveys especially when the defence has not controverted the deposition in the examination-in-chief of PW-1, of his having witnessed the accused to be clasping the feet of the deceased, that he took to clasp the feet of the deceased, as, an act of forgiveness, as, it was his act of sprinkling kerosene oil and setting her aflame and that, hence, her clothes caught fire, sequeling hers sustaining burn injuries, to which she ultimately succumbed. Obviously, the act of the accused as deposed to be witnessed by PW-1 of his clasping the feet of the deceased, portrays his guilt and his conduct inconsistent with his innocence; (b) though a bold and vigour reliance is placed, by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, upon the factum of the guilt of the accused having come to be exculpated, by the deceased comprised in the fact, of, her narrations and the disclosures qua the incident comprised in statement/affidavit, Ex.DB. However, the effect of Ex.DB comes to be torn apart in the face of an expert witness Shri Vishewar Sharma, Assistant Director Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Dharmshala having pronounced in his deposition that Ex. DB not bearing the signature of the deceased. Consequently, also when Ex.DB has been concluded by the expert witness to be forged, besides when DW-1 during her cross-examination has deposed that the affidavit Ex. DB sworn by her mother along with application Ex.DW1/A, was, handed over by her to the SHO, in, the police station, consequently, it ought to have been retrieved from the police custody yet when it came to be retrieved from the custody of DW1 or it having been produced by DW1, hence, leads to an inference that Ex.DB was not the affidavit sworn by the deceased. Consequently, the narrations contained in it are both untruthful and concocted. More so, when it is forged its contents are not credible. Even when PW-3 Rajinder Kumar deposes that Ex.DB bears his signature, the said deposition does not carry any effect or value in clothing Ex.DB with tenability/authenticity, in as much, as, he has omitted to depose that it was signed by the deceased in his presence. More so, when it is forged its contents are not credible. Even when PW-3 Rajinder Kumar deposes that Ex.DB bears his signature, the said deposition does not carry any effect or value in clothing Ex.DB with tenability/authenticity, in as much, as, he has omitted to depose that it was signed by the deceased in his presence. Besides, when his testimony stands countervailed and overwhelmed by the testimony of the handwriting expert, comprised in Ex.CW1/G. It, has little significance, in, leading to the conclusion that the version as spelt out in Ex. DB, is truthful. Even otherwise, though in her examination-in-chief DW-1 has exculpated the guilt of the accused. However, her testimony, in her examination-in-chief, is, unworthy of probative worth for placing any reliance upon it, in the face of an enunciation in Ex.PW9/C, by the deceased of the incident having taken place, on the fateful day at a time when her children had proceeded to school. Consequently, when truth has been attributed to Ex.PW9/C in its entirety, the version as spelt out in Ex.PW9/C of the children of the deceased, at the relevant time, not being at home, then, the said fact also, as, a sequel has got to be construed to be bearing the hue of or acquiring a tinge of truthfulness, rendering, concomitantly, the versions qua the incident as spelt out by DW1 and in Ex.DB, in exculpation of the guilt of the accused stand repulsed and overcome. As a corollary, both the testimonies in examination-in-chief of DW-1 and the version comprised in Ex.DB, are of no value, to lead this Court to conclude that the incident which occurred on the fateful day, was not at the instance of the accused nor would this Court conclude that the incident was, as propagated by the defence before this court, an accident and (c) the conduct of the accused also does not inspire confidence of this Court, it rather is a pointer towards the guilt of the accused. The conduct of the accused inconsistent with the innocence of the accused is comprised in (i) the accused having omitted to accompany his injured wife to hospital for affording treatment and his having come to be arrested by the police from his house; (ii) his having omitted to make arrangements, to, shift the deceased to IGMC, Shimla for treatment, which steps had come to be taken by the District Administration. 41. 41. The result of the above discussion is that, the prosecution has been able to adduce cogent and emphatic evidence in proving the guilt of the accused. The appreciation of the evidence as done by the learned trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity, or, perversity. Consequently reinforcingly, it can be formidably concluded, that, the findings of learned trial Court, are, well merited, and, do not merit interference. 42. The upshot of the above discussion is that we find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed, and, the judgment of the learned trial Court is affirmed and maintained. Record of the learned trial Court be sent back forthwith.