JUDGMENT : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. Pappu Verma @ Pappu Kumar Verma and both his parents faced the trial on the charge of committing murder of Nitu Verma and causing disappearance of her dead body. In Sessions Trial No.18 of 2011, he was convicted and sentenced to RI for life and fine of Rs.5000/- under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code with a default stipulation to undergo further SI for six months. For the offence under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, Pappu Verma has been awarded sentence of RI for two years. 2. Sadar PS Case No.607 of 2010 was registered on 28th August 2010 against Pappu Verma, his brothers and the parents. On 24th November 2010 a charge-sheet was laid against Pappu Verma for committing murder of his wife. The police submitted Final Form in respect of Raju Verma and Umesh Verma who are the brothers of Pappu Verma but the investigation in respect to Ram Lakhan Verma and Lila Devi, parents of Pappu Verma, continued for a longer time. Later on, the parents of Pappu Verma were also sent up for trial in a supplementary charge-sheet dated 7th April 2013 and they were tried separately in Sessions Trial No.265 of 2013. 3. Shiv Shankar Kumar Verma who gave his fardbeyan to Prahlad Sharma on 28th August 2010 at 13:00 hrs. at village Sirka Khirgaon made allegations of harassment and torture of his sister at the hands of the accused. The mother of Nitu Verma also made similar allegations and said that the accused would demand Rs.10,000/- or some time Rs.20,000/- in dowry. The informant expressed his apprehension before the investigating officer that his sister was strangulated to death by the accused and then put on fire in an attempt to cause disappearance of the evidence against them. In course of the investigation, neighbours of Pappu Verma gave statement to the investigating officer that the relation between Pappu Verma and his wife was not good and there were frequent fights between them. Some of the witnesses also said that on the day of occurrence they heard quarrel between Pappu Verma and his wife and that Nitu Verma had caught fire in her house. 4. Pappu Verma set up a defence that he was not at home when his wife died due to burn injury. Some of the witnesses also said that on the day of occurrence they heard quarrel between Pappu Verma and his wife and that Nitu Verma had caught fire in her house. 4. Pappu Verma set up a defence that he was not at home when his wife died due to burn injury. In an attempt to show his innocence, he went further and took a position that his wife committed suicide by setting herself on fire, or may be that she caught fire when she was alone in the house. Dr. Subhash Prasad was one of the doctors who conducted postmortem examination, however, found otherwise and recorded a finding that Nitu Verma died asphaxial death and the burns found on her body were postmortem burns. 5. The defence of the accused was considered by the learned trial Judge in paragraph no.16 of the Sessions Court's judgment in the following manner: “16. I have gone through the record and meticulously analyzed the evidence on the record. I find that the witnesses of the vicinity have turned hostile in this case, so the court will meticulously analyze the evidence adduced by the prosecution especially the evidence of Medical Officer and other witnesses to decide who is author of the crime. Admittedly, the deceased Nitu Verma was wife of this accused. She died at her matrimonial house and her dead body was found in her room. The medical officer has also found smell of kerosene oil and post-mortem burn injury on her body. The story advanced by the defence regarding suicidal death of the deceased is unbelievable only on this score that death was due to throttling which cannot be possible in a close room and a dead person cannot sprinkle kerosene oil on her body and put fire on her dead body. Absurdity of defence story begins with the plea that deceased committed suicide inside the room by pouring kerosene oil and set to fire herself. It speaks much in itself. In a criminal trial, the document can be fabricated, witnesses may be tutored but circumstantial evidence will prevail upon both. In this case, the deceased was subjected to throttling and after that miscreants tried to burn her dead body clearly indicates about the identity of the author of the crime. It speaks much in itself. In a criminal trial, the document can be fabricated, witnesses may be tutored but circumstantial evidence will prevail upon both. In this case, the deceased was subjected to throttling and after that miscreants tried to burn her dead body clearly indicates about the identity of the author of the crime. It is also settled law that evidence of single witness may sustain the sentence of death whereas a host of vulnerable witnesses may fail to support a simple charge of hurt. It appears from evidence on the record that there is no ocular witness of the occurrence and witnesses of locality which is matrimonial house of the deceased have turned hostile. The circumstances emanating as per material on the record is following: (i) There is evidence on the record to show that after the marriage of the deceased she went at her matrimonial house where she was subjected to cruelty for want of additional dowry. Thus, the motive is clear for this crime. (ii) There is further evidence to show that a divorce case was filed by accused and same was ended with compromise by the parties but after the compromise of the case miseries of the deceased had not been ended and again her husband used to torture her due to non-fulfillment of his demand of dowry. (iii) The evidence of Medical Officer is quite clear that death was due to asphyxia caused by throttling and the Medical Officer has also opined the burn injuries were post mortem in nature and no carbon soot was found in respiratory trachea. Thus, the medical evidence goes to show that death of the deceased is on account of homicidal violence and it is not a suicidal death as stated by the defence. (iv) The evidence of informant (PW8) and PW10- Premlata Devi goes to show that deceased was subjected to cruelty from very beginning of her marriage and lastly she was eliminated and after her death, the miscreants tried to cause disappearance of evidence by putting fire on her dead body.” 6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-Ist, Hazaribag held that the defence set up by the accused that Nitu Verma committed suicide on the face of the materials on record was unbelievable, for a dead woman cannot set herself on fire. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-Ist, Hazaribag held that the defence set up by the accused that Nitu Verma committed suicide on the face of the materials on record was unbelievable, for a dead woman cannot set herself on fire. Taking note that witnesses of the vicinity turned hostile and the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of Nitu Verma found that she was throttled to death, the learned trial Judge found Pappu Verma guilty for murder. 7. The learned trial Judge has held as under: “17. Generally, the burden of proof lies on the person who asserts the fact but u/s 106 of the Evidence Act provides that any fact is specifically within the knowledge of any person the burden of proof that fact is upon him. Thus, in view of section 106 of Evidence Act, it is upon the defence to prove that the death was suicidal because the accused is non else rather he is husband of the deceased. The deceased was died at her matrimonial house. She died on account of homicidal violence and miscreants tried their best to cause disappearance of evidence of murder by putting fire on her dead body in her room. Thus, the silence of the accused supplies missing link that he is the author of the crime. 18. The evidence of informant (PW8- Shiv Shankar Kr. Verma) and Premlata Devi (PW10) shows that relationship between the accused and deceased was constraint then deceased was subjected to cruelty from very beginning for want of dowry. The dead body was found in her room at her matrimonial house. The burn injuries were found which are postmortem injuries. Thus, it is quite clear that miscreants first committed the murder of the deceased by throttling and then he tried to burn her dead body after pouring kerosene oil in order to cause disappearance of evidence of murder case. Total absence of any explanation on the part of the accused what has happened with his wife and how she was subjected to throttling and, who sprinkled oil and who set fire on her dead body after her death indicates that this accused is author of the crime who is husband of the deceased. Total absence of any explanation on the part of the accused what has happened with his wife and how she was subjected to throttling and, who sprinkled oil and who set fire on her dead body after her death indicates that this accused is author of the crime who is husband of the deceased. In this view of the matter, there is little scope for doubt for the circumstances leading to the death of the deceased-Nitu Verma pointed towards culpability of the accused Pappu Verma in whose house she was found dead on account of homicidal violence supported with medical evidence and also strong motive for committing her murder. PW9 Prahalad Sharma has clearly stated in his evidence that he took investigation of the case on the direction of Officer-in-Charge of the P.S. The endorsement has been made by the Officer-in-charge of Sadar P.S. on the fardbeyan of the informant where he has made endorsement regarding institution of the case against the accused. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the I.O. started investigation without the order of Officer-in-Charge of the P.S. 19. On the basis of the aforesaid discussions of the facts, circumstances and evidence on the record, I am of the considered view that this accused is the author of the crime. I am of the view that prosecution has been succeeded to prove that this accused committed murder of his wife on the relevant day, time and place of occurrence and after committing her murder, he poured kerosene oil and put fire on her dead body with intention to screening himself from legal punishment and he caused disappearance of evidence of murder. The prosecution has been succeeded to prove the charges u/s 302/201 of the IPC against accused Pappu Verma @ Pappu Kumar Verma.” 8. Mr. The prosecution has been succeeded to prove the charges u/s 302/201 of the IPC against accused Pappu Verma @ Pappu Kumar Verma.” 8. Mr. J. S. Singh, the learned counsel for the appellant, submits that; (i) the circumstances which the learned trial Judge took note of in paragraph no.16 of the judgment are not conclusively proved; (ii) except the circumstance that wife of the appellant died in her matrimonial home, no other incriminating circumstance was proved by the prosecution; (iii) medical evidence is not conclusive and moreover in absence of FSL report on viscera it cannot be conclusively found that Nitu Verma suffered postmortem burn injury; (iv) there is no evidence on demand of dowry by the appellant atleast after compromise in Matrimonial Suit No.48 of 2005, and; (v) the prosecution could not establish motive for the crime and the chain of circumstances is not complete so as to hold the appellant guilty for murder. 9. In the trial, the prosecution tendered circumstantial evidence to prove the charge of murder against the appellant. The circumstantial evidence in the context of a crime may include such facts and surrounding factors which should point towards complicity of the accused in the crime. 10. As many as six witnesses turned hostile and did not support the prosecution in the Court – all are co-villagers of the appellant. PW1 who stated before the investigating officer that there were frequent fights between Pappu Verma and his wife denied in the Court that he made any statement to the police about murder of Nitu Verma. PW2 stated in the Court that he had only seen the dead body of Nitu Verma, whereas PW3 and PW4 have said that they had no knowledge about the occurrence and did not make any statement before the police. From cross-examination of PW5 by the prosecution, it appears that he gave statement before the police that on the day of the occurrence there was a fight between husband and wife. But, in the Court, he also did not own his previous statement and professed ignorance regarding murder of Nitu Verma. PW6 also followed the suit and deposed in the Court that he did not give any statement to the police. 11. These witnesses on whom the prosecution had built its case took a position in the Court to weaken the prosecution case. PW6 also followed the suit and deposed in the Court that he did not give any statement to the police. 11. These witnesses on whom the prosecution had built its case took a position in the Court to weaken the prosecution case. The sorry state of affairs with which we are faced with seems to have affected the criminal trials across the country. Many times a co-villager who on seeing gruesome murder of a wife in her matrimonial home comes forward and provides valuable information to the investigating officer but finally crumbles under the pressure from the accused or village community. 12. Therefore, the Court is required to see whether the remaining evidence is sufficient to hold the appellant guilty. Under section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Court may presume the existence of any fact which if it thinks was likely to have happened. Therefore, if an inference can be drawn from the materials on record that Nitu Verma was subjected to harassment and torture in her matrimonial home, the appellant can be held guilty for her death. Of course, before an inference in this regard is drawn the Court is required to approach the issue with the common course of natural event, human conduct and public and private business. 13. We would keep in mind that PW8 and PW10 are intimately related to the deceased and therefore while scrutinizing their testimony this has to be seen whether their evidence was motivated with any ill will. Keeping in mind that merely because Neetu Verma died in her matrimonial home the appellant cannot be held guilty for murder, we would examine the evidence of PW8 and PW10 tendered during the trial. 14. Keeping in mind that merely because Neetu Verma died in her matrimonial home the appellant cannot be held guilty for murder, we would examine the evidence of PW8 and PW10 tendered during the trial. 14. In the examination-in-chief, PW8 and PW10 have stated thus: PW8 : ¼1½ esjh cgu uhrq oekZ dk fookg vfHk;qDr iIiq oekZ ds lkFk 21@11@2002 bZ0 dks lEiUu gqvk Fkk ,oa esjh cgu vius llqjky ds fy, fonk gqbZ ysfdu ogk¡ ij mlds llqjky ds yksx vfHk;qDr iIiq oekZ] nsoj jktw oekZ] HkSlwj mes'k oekZ] llqj jke y[ku oekZ vkSj lkl yhyk nsoh ngst dh ek¡x dks ysdj mls cjkcj izrkfM+r djrs Fks o mls ekj&ihV Hkh fd;k djrs FksA esjh cgu uhrq ?kj vkus ij geyksxksa dks mDr ckrsa crk;hA geyksxksa us vius lkeFkZ ds vuqlkj lkjk lkeku nsdj uhrq dks fonk fd;k ysfdu fQj Hkh mlds llqjky ds mDr yksx mls ekj&ihV djuk o izrkfM+r djuk tkjh j[ksA blds ckcr geyksxksa us dqVqEc U;k;ky; esa Hkh ,d eqdnek fd;k Fkk ysfdu ml eqdnesa esa lqyg gks xbZ FkhA ¼2½ 28@08@2010 bZ0 dks fnu esa djhc 12-30 cts esjh cgu ds nsoj jktq oekZ }kjk eq>s Qksu ij ;g lwpuk nh xbZ fd esjh cgu ty xbZ gS vkSj bl lwpuk ij eSa viuh cgu ds llqjky x;k ,oa viuh cgu ds 'ko dks mlds dejs esa iM+k gqvk ns[kkA esjh cgu tyh gqbZ Fkh ysfdu ckn esa geyksxksa dks ;g lwpuk feyh fd esjh cgu dh gR;k xyk ?kksaV dj dj nh xbZ FkhA ¼3½ ?kVuk ds ckcr iqfyl us esjk QnZC;ku vfHk;qDr iIiq oekZ ds ?kj ij vafdr fd;k Fkk vkSj esjk QnZC;ku i&#2338dj lquk fn;k Fkk rFkk lgh ikdj eSaus vius bl QnZC;ku ij viuk ;g gLrk{kj cuk;k FkkA QnZC;ku ij lk{kh ds gLrk{kj dks izn'kZ&2 vafdr fd;k English translation: (1) The marriage of my sister Nitu Verma was solemnised with the accused Pappu Verma on 21st November 2002. My sister went to her matrimonial home but there her husband Pappu Verma, younger brother-in-law Lalu Verma, elder brother-in-law Umesh Verma, father-in-law Ramlakhan Verma and mother-in-law Lila Devi started harassing her in connection to demand of dowry and sometimes committed marpit with her. When my sister Nitu Verma came home she informed about the same. My sister went to her matrimonial home but there her husband Pappu Verma, younger brother-in-law Lalu Verma, elder brother-in-law Umesh Verma, father-in-law Ramlakhan Verma and mother-in-law Lila Devi started harassing her in connection to demand of dowry and sometimes committed marpit with her. When my sister Nitu Verma came home she informed about the same. We sent her (Nitu) to her matrimonial home and gave many articles as per out capacity but the above mentioned accused continued to harass and commit marpit with her. We filed a case in the family Court in this regard but the said case was compromised. (2) Raju Verma who is the brother-in-law of my sister called me around 12:30 PM on 28th August 2010 and informed that my sister has died due to burn injury. On this information, I went to the matrimonial home of my sister where I found her dead body lying in her room. The body of my sister was burnt but later on we got informed that my sister was throttled to death. (3) Regarding the incident, the police recorded my fardbeyan at the house of accused Pappu Verma. My fardbeyan was read over to me and having found that correctly recorded I put my signature over the fardbeyan. The signature of the witness on the fardbeyan is marked as Exhibit-2. PW10: uhrw oekZ esjh csVh FkhA 21 uoEcj 2002 dks csVh dh 'kknh iIiw oekZ ds lkFk fd;k FkkA 'kknh ds ckn yM+dh vius llqjky xbZA llqjky esa mls ges'kk izrkfM+r fd;k tkrk jgkA lkl] 'olqj] HkSalqj] xksfruh izrkfM+r djrs FksA ngst dks ysdj izrkfM+r djrs FksA ekjihV djrs FksA ngst esa 20]000@& chl gtkj rks dHkh 10]000@& ek¡xrs FksA eSa yM+dh ds llqjky x;kA yM+dk okyk ugha ekukA iapk;r djok;h] ogk¡ Hkh ugha ekusA Family Court esa dsl fd;k rFkk lqyg gks x;kA fQj yM+dh dks dqN fnu Bhd j[kkA fQj ekjihV 'kq: dj fn;kA 28 vxLr 2010 dks esjh yM+dh dks xyk nckdj gR;k dj fn;k x;kA llqjky okys yksx gR;k dj fn;sA ogk¡ ds yksx Qksu fd;kA csVk ogk¡ x;k rks cgu dks tyk fn;k gSA vfHk;qDrx.k ?kVukLFky ls Qjkj FksA eSa lnj vLirky esa csVh dk yk'k ns[kkA vkt U;k;ky; esa vfHk;qDr iIiq oekZ gkftj gSA English translation: 1. Nitu Verma was my daughter. On 21st November 2002, my daughter was married with Pappu Verma. After the marriage my daughter went to her matrimonial home. Nitu Verma was my daughter. On 21st November 2002, my daughter was married with Pappu Verma. After the marriage my daughter went to her matrimonial home. She was always harassed in her matrimonial home. Her mother-in-law, father-in-law, elder brother-in-law and sister-in-law were harassing her. They were harassing her in connection to demand of dowry. They would commit marpit with her. They were demanding Rs. 20,000/- and sometimes Rs. 10,000/- for dowry. I had gone to the matrimonial home of my daughter. (But) they did not heed to my request. (Then) I arranged a panchayati, but there also they did not agree. A case was lodged in the family Court and that was compromised. Thereafter they treated my daughter properly for sometime but they again started marpit. On 28th August 2010, my daughter was killed by strangulation. The murder was committed by the persons in her matrimonial home. The people from the locality gave telephonic information. My son went there and found that his sister was set on fire. The accused persons had fled away from the place of occurrence. I saw the dead body of my daughter at Sadar Hospital. Accused Pappu Verma is today present in the Court. 15. PW8 who is the brother of the deceased gave evidence in the Court that the marriage of his sister was solemnized with Pappu Verma on 21st November 2002. His sister told him about her harassment at the hands of her husband and other family members in connection to demand of dowry. Constrained, a case was instituted in the Family Court which, however, ended in compromise between the parties. On 28th August 2010 around 12:30 PM he received a telephonic information from Raju Verma, brother of the appellant, that Nitu Verma had caught fire. He further stated that he got information that his sister was strangulated to death. In the cross-examination, PW8 claimed that his sister told him about demand of dowry whenever he visited her matrimonial home. He, however, admitted that he did not make any complaint to the police in this regard nor did he inform any respectable person of the locality. He also admitted that the compromise in the Family Court was not under any pressure but in the same breathe he said that the accused gave assurance that they would not repeat such mistakes in the future. 16. He also admitted that the compromise in the Family Court was not under any pressure but in the same breathe he said that the accused gave assurance that they would not repeat such mistakes in the future. 16. The evidence of PW8 is not strictly of a substantive kind. It is hearsay to the extent PW8 says that his sister told him about demand of dowry. It is fundamental in law that a fact is not proved on the basis of hearsay evidence, except under the exceptions in the Indian Evidence Act. Nitu Verma is dead and therefore truthfulness of her statement about demand of dowry made before PW8 cannot be tested by cross-examination, but, this piece of evidence can be used by the prosecution to show that such statement was made before PW8. In “Subramaniam v. Public Prosecutor” (1956) 1 WLR 965, the Privy Council held that the evidence that a statement was made by a person to a witness who is not himself called as a witness is hearsay and inadmissible when the object is to establish the truth of what is contained in the statement but it is not hearsay and is admissible when it is proposed to establish by such evidence, not the truth of the statement but the fact that it was made. 17. PW10 who is the mother of the deceased deposed in the Court that her daughter was tortured in her matrimonial home and sometimes the accused would also commit marpit with her. She has further stated that she tried to reason with the accused and arranged a panchayati in village Sirka Khirgaon but the accused did not relent. She further stated that after compromise in the Family Court her daughter was looked after properly but after some time the accused again started marpit with her. In the cross-examination, PW10 reiterated that about 5-6 months after the marriage the accused started harassing her daughter. According to her, she lodged a complaint at the Sadar police station and then the matter was referred to the Family Court. She admitted in the cross-examination that there was amicable settlement of the Court case, and that her daughter gave birth to a son after the compromise. 18. The evidence of PW10 that she had gone to the matrimonial home of her daughter is not challenged by the defence. She admitted in the cross-examination that there was amicable settlement of the Court case, and that her daughter gave birth to a son after the compromise. 18. The evidence of PW10 that she had gone to the matrimonial home of her daughter is not challenged by the defence. She admitted in the cross-examination that she did not remember name of the villagers who participated in the panchayati but this statement cannot be stretched too far to hold that she is not a truthful witness. As regards demand of dowry, her evidence provides a firm foundation for the prosecution to prove that Nitu Verma was put to harassment and torture in connection to demand of dowry. The minor matrimonial differences between husband and wife would not amount to harassment and torture of a married woman but the magnitude of harassment of Nitu Verma was such that a complaint was lodged with the police and she instituted Matrimonial Suit No.48 of 2005 for divorce. In this context, we need to keep in mind that at the time of institution of divorce suit a daughter was born out of the wedlock and normally a married woman would not move the Court for divorce in such a situation. A son was born after Matrimonial Suit No.48 of 2005 ended in compromise and it may be said that the relation between husband and wife had improved but PW10 has tendered evidence that everything was not well in the matrimonial house of her daughter, and that sometime after the compromise the accused again committed various acts of harassment and torture upon her daughter. 19. PW11 who was Village Ward Commissioner is not an eyewitness. He is also a hearsay witness who came in the Court and made few statements which were intended to help the accused. His statement that the neighbours broke open the door of the room and tried to save Nitu Verma is in the realm of hearsay. He is not a witness to this fact nor did he reveal name of the neighbours who told him about breaking open of the door. Because the dead body was severely burnt, his statement that doors of the room were broken open to save Nitu Verma does not lend support to the defence set up by the appellant that his wife committed suicide. 20. Mr. Because the dead body was severely burnt, his statement that doors of the room were broken open to save Nitu Verma does not lend support to the defence set up by the appellant that his wife committed suicide. 20. Mr. J.S. Singh, the learned counsel for the appellant, would contend that the prosecution did not take permission of the Court to cross-examine PW11 who was not even declared hostile and therefore his evidence would bind the prosecution. A witness who does not support the prosecution in the Court is labeled as a hostile witness. Generally, the prosecution makes a request to the Court to declare such a witness hostile and seeks permission of the Court to cross-examine him. But on account of a mistake of the Public Prosecutor and on the basis of some stray statement made by a witness whole of the prosecution case cannot be disbelieved. On the issue whether there was any quarrel between husband and wife, PW11 would remain a hearsay witness. This is also relevant to bear in mind that the evidence of PW11 that he never heard of any quarrel between husband and wife has come in the cross-examination by the defence. 21. We further find that PW11 made a statement in the Court that on the day of occurrence Pappu Verma was not at home. When he was examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant has also said that he was not at home. But the stand taken by the appellant which PW11 seems to support is not reflected in the cross-examination of the other prosecution witnesses. During the trial, no other independent evidence was produced by the appellant to provide a semblance of truthfulness in his stand, and we do not find any material on record which would probabilize the defence set up by him. We also need to keep in mind that as many as six co-villagers of the appellant did not support the prosecution in the Court and extended a helping hand to him by denying everything which they had said before the police. 22. Generally, in a case based on circumstantial evidence the prosecution is required to lead some evidence regarding motive for the crime. It is said that motive is known to the assailant and the others may speculate only [refer, “Subedar Tewari v. State of U.P.” 1989 Supp (1) SCC 91]. 22. Generally, in a case based on circumstantial evidence the prosecution is required to lead some evidence regarding motive for the crime. It is said that motive is known to the assailant and the others may speculate only [refer, “Subedar Tewari v. State of U.P.” 1989 Supp (1) SCC 91]. But the evidence laid by the prosecution through PW8 and PW10 provides a hint about motive for the crime. 23. In “State of H.P. v. Jeet Singh” (1999) 4 SCC 370 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: “33. No doubt it is a sound principle to remember that every criminal act was done with a motive but its corollary is not that no criminal offence would have been committed if the prosecution has failed to prove the precise motive of the accused to commit it. When the prosecution succeeded in showing the possibility of some ire for the accused towards the victim, the inability to further put on record the manner in which such ire would have swelled up in the mind of the offender to such a degree as to impel him to commit the offence cannot be construed as a fatal weakness of the prosecution. It is almost an impossibility for the prosecution to unravel the full dimension of the mental disposition of an offender towards the person whom he offended.” 24. Mr. J.S. Singh, the learned counsel for the appellant, pressed hard upon the Court to accept that the medical evidence is not conclusive. 25. On 28th August 2010, the medical team conducted the postmortem examination over the dead body of Nitu Verma at Sadar Hospital, Hazaribag. As PW7, Dr. Subhash Prasad has rendered an opinion that Nitu Verma suffered postmortem burn injuries and the cause of her death was asphyxia due to throttling. The observations of PW7 in the postmortem report prima facie show that Nitu Verma suffered a homicidal death. 26. The following observations are recorded in the postmortem report of Nitu Verma; “External Examination Smell of kerosene oil, Hair burnt. For neck burnt up to epidermal layer of skin. Both eyes were congested. Tongue protruded. Both arms front and back burnt. Forearms of both sides spared from any burn injury. Burnt clothes attached to the body. Peeling of cuticles layer of skin. Over burnt area. Back burnt above to buttock chest burnt upto umbilicus. Front of thigh both side burnt. For neck burnt up to epidermal layer of skin. Both eyes were congested. Tongue protruded. Both arms front and back burnt. Forearms of both sides spared from any burn injury. Burnt clothes attached to the body. Peeling of cuticles layer of skin. Over burnt area. Back burnt above to buttock chest burnt upto umbilicus. Front of thigh both side burnt. Back of thigh and back at leg spared. Internal Examination On opening neck haemarrhage in muscle Trachea congested, Larynx congested. Haemotoma on both side of Trachea. Thyroid Cartilage fractured. On opening Chest- Both Lungs are intact and congested. Liver, Spleen and both Kidneys are intact and congested. Heart- right chamber blood clot. Left chamber empty. Stomach Wall normal and contained mucoid fluid 2 Ounce. Bladder empty. Uterous normal. No blebs. No hyperemia over burnt area. Line of redness absent. No soot repiratory track from nose to Trachea. Burn is postmortem in nature. A parts of Lung, Heart, Spleen, Liver and one Kidney, and Stomach with its contents are preserved in saturated saline solution for chemical examination. Time elapsed since death – 6 hours to 36 hours. In my opinion cause of death is asphyxia due to throttling. However viscera will be sent for chemical examination if asked by I.O.” 27. The learned counsel for the appellant refers to Modi on “Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology”, 26th Edition, to challenge the findings recorded by PW7 that Nitu Verma suffered homicidal death and that the burn injuries were caused after her death. The learned counsel submits that death due to asphyxia may occur on account of several reasons such as shock due to reflex cardiac arrest which may be so sudden that carbon particles may not be found in Trachea. The learned counsel would refer to cross-examination of PW7 to fortify his submission that the doctor himself admitted that asphyxia may be caused due to several reasons. It is further submitted that line of redness may not be found in a person of weak constitution who died due to burns. 28. Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, the learned APP, has also produced extracts from Parekh & Parmar on “Principle & Practice of Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology” to show that the opinion of the doctor that Nitu Verma suffered postmortem burn injury is well reasoned and supported by medical jurisprudence. 28. Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, the learned APP, has also produced extracts from Parekh & Parmar on “Principle & Practice of Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology” to show that the opinion of the doctor that Nitu Verma suffered postmortem burn injury is well reasoned and supported by medical jurisprudence. The learned APP would submit that the Court may infer harassment of Nitu Verma in connection to demand of dowry from attending circumstances in the case and merely because a neighbour came in rescue of the appellant the whole prosecution case cannot be disbelieved. 29. The learned APP refers to the judgment in “State of U.P. v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal” (1992) 3 SCC 300 to support the finding recorded by the postmortem doctor that the dead body of Nitu Verma was set on fire. 30. The cause of death due to asphyxia has been described by Modi thus; “Death is usually due to asphyxia (anoxic hypoxia), but it may be due to other causes, namely, cerebral ischaemia or venous congestion, asphyxia and venous congestion combined, or shock due to reflex cardiac arrest (it accounts for at least half the deaths from manual strangulation). Very rarely, the cervical vertebrae may be fractured. Probably, one or more causes may operate during strangulation. A pale face would indicate a rapid death from reflex cardiac arrest, while a cyanosed face with petechiae would suggest a delayed death.” 31. About presence of line of redness, the learned writer has written as under: “In the case of a burn caused during life, a line of redness involving the whole true skin is formed around the injured part. It is a permanent line, persisting even after death, but redness or erythema, which is found beyond this line of redness due to distension of the capillaries, is transient, disappears under pressure during life and fades after death. The line of redness, being a vital function, separates living from dead tissue, and is often present in burns caused during life, though it takes some time to appear. It is, however, possible that it may be absent (in the case of a person of a very weak constitution who dies immediately from shock due to burns.)” 32. It is stated that redness occurs immediately after a burn while vesication may take an hour to form. It is, however, possible that it may be absent (in the case of a person of a very weak constitution who dies immediately from shock due to burns.)” 32. It is stated that redness occurs immediately after a burn while vesication may take an hour to form. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on the remark in the “Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology” by Modi, that line of redness may be absent where the victim dies immediately from shock due to burns and carbon particles may not be found in the respiratory track of the victim, does not establish that Nitu Verma died accidental death. The defence set up by the appellant is that his wife committed suicide in a room which was broken open by the neighbours. As noticed above, the learned trial Judge disbelieved this stand of the accused and we also do not see any reason to differ with the learned trial Judge. The cross-examination of PW7 would, however, indicate that in the trial the appellant set up a defence of accidental death which also is not supported by any other independent evidence. 33. Modi has written that in case of death by burn injuries, line of redness, vesication and reparative processes are the main features to differentiate between antemortem and postmortem burns. 34. According to Modi, the following are the main features to differentiate between antemortem and postmortem burns: “(a) Evidence of Vital Reactions – Line of Redness - In the case of a burn caused during life, a line of redness involving the whole true skin is formed around the injured part. It is a permanent line, persisting even after death, but redness or erythema, which is found beyond this line of redness due to distension of the capillaries, is transient, disappears under pressure during life and fades after death. The line of redness, being a vital function, separates living from dead tissues, and is often present in burns caused during life, though it takes some time to appear. It is, however, possible that it may be absent (in the case of a person of a very weak constitution who dies immediately from shock due to burns). The line of redness, being a vital function, separates living from dead tissues, and is often present in burns caused during life, though it takes some time to appear. It is, however, possible that it may be absent (in the case of a person of a very weak constitution who dies immediately from shock due to burns). (b) Vesication – Vesication caused by a burn during life contains a serous fluid consisting of albumen, chlorides, and often a few polymorph nuclear white blood cells and has a red inflamed base with raised papillae. The skin surrounding it is of bright red or copper colour. This is known as true as compared with false vesication which is produced after death. False vesication contains air only but may contain a very small quantity of serum comprising traces of albumen and chloride. Again, its base is hard, dry, horny and yellow instead of being red and inflamed. (c) Reparative Processes – Reparative processes, such as signs of inflammation, formation of granulation tissue pus and sloughs, will indicate that the burns were caused during life. Burns caused after death show no vital reaction and have a dull white appearance with the opening of the skin glands coloured grey. The internal organs are roasted and emit a peculiar offensive odour.” 35. Parekh writes that the following may be distinction between antemortem and postmortem injury: “1. Ante-mortem burn injuries are characterized by the presence of burnt carbon particles (soot) in the trachea which is absent in the case of post-mortem burn injuries. 2. Carbody Haemoglobin is present in the heart blood in antemortem burning which is absent in case of post-mortem burning. 3. Ante-mortem burns are usually red owing to the tendency of the system to such blood towards the injured parts for repairs, which is distinctly different from post-mortem burns which are hard and yellowish in colour.” 36. The burn injuries are classified in different categories depending on the cause of burn such as due to dry heat, moist heat (scalds), chemicals or radiation. Modi writes that Dupuytren classified burns into six degrees – depending on nature of the severity. The modern classification, however, prefers classification of burns into three categories by grouping the six degrees of burns. The “Epidermal burns” combines first degree and second degree burns. Modi writes that Dupuytren classified burns into six degrees – depending on nature of the severity. The modern classification, however, prefers classification of burns into three categories by grouping the six degrees of burns. The “Epidermal burns” combines first degree and second degree burns. Modi writes that if burns are caused by flame, the skin would be blackened and the hair singed at the seat of lesion found in second degree burns. The burns produced by flame may or may not produce blisters but singeing of the hair, eye-brows and blackening of the skin are almost always found if the victim has suffered burn injuries from flames of the fire. No such sign was observed by PW7, which could have provided an indication of accidental death of Nitu Verma. 37. Lyon's in his book “Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology” writes that soot particles are produced as a result of incomplete combustion. Presence of soot particles signifies that at least one breath was taken before the person died. One notable exception to ante mortem burn death is a case of flash burns in which the soot particles may not reach the respiratory track. 38. HWV COX in “Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology” writes that the most important sign in the burns inflicted before or after death is presence or absence of a vital reaction at the margin of the burns. Where a part of the body is burnt during life, there will almost inevitably be a zone of hyperaemia at the edge of the burnt area. 39. The death of Nitu Verma was not caused due to burns is established from observations of the doctor who did not find hyperaemia over the burnt areas; the line of redness was present and there was no trace of soot particles in the respiratory track. 40. In medical jurisprudence, strangulation is defined as compression of the neck by force other than hanging. Strangulation can occur in two ways: (i) strangulation by ligature, or (ii) strangulation by pressure on the neck through fingers. If fingers were used marks of pressure by the thumb and finger tips are usually found on either side of the wind pipe – it is called throttling. Some of the characteristic features of death by strangulation are that Larynx cartilage and Tracheal rings are found fractured. It is also common that there would be injury to Carotid arteries and muscles of the neck. Some of the characteristic features of death by strangulation are that Larynx cartilage and Tracheal rings are found fractured. It is also common that there would be injury to Carotid arteries and muscles of the neck. 41. The findings recorded in the postmortem report that: (i) there was neck muscle hemorrhage (ii) hematoma was present on both sides of the Trachea, and (iii) Thyroid cartilage was fractured – clearly establish violence around the neck of Nitu Verma. Some of the characteristic features of throttling cannot be found in the present case because of postmortem burns on the dead body. 42. In “Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal”, a similar issue as is involved in the present case – whether the cause of death was strangulation or burning – was involved. There were extensive burns over the dead body except the back portion; symptom of vomiting was not found and there was absence of blisters on the dead body. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that that was a case of homicidal death by strangulation. 43. In the present case, both arms of Nitu Verma were found burnt but there was no burn injury around her forearms and the back portion of both thighs and legs. The areas of burns over the dead body of Nitu Verma as observed by the postmortem doctor clearly show that after committing her murder her dead body was set on fire in lying condition.