Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The cause of death was due to shock consequent to burn injuries sustained. The FSL officer, CW-1 has issued Ex.C1 and the FSL reports clearly depicts about the items seized at the spot, which reads as under:

OPINION
1. Density, UV-Spectrophotometric and TLC methods indicate that the sample found in article No.1 is kerosene with blue colour dye (Dialkyldiamino anthraquinone).
2. Thin Layer chromatography and UV-

Spectrophotometric methods have responded positive for the presence of kerosene residues in article Nos.3 to 6.

3. Thin Layer chromatography method has responded negative for the presence of kerosene residue in article No.2.

4. The match sticks found in article No.2 are live.

17. On meticulous examination of the entire oral and documentary evidence and also medical and scientific evidence on record clearly depicts that the accused and deceased were husband and wife and were living happily for more than 16 years as admitted by PW-10 who is none other than the son of the accused and deceased. All the witnesses, sisters and brothers of the deceased in un-equal terms specifically stated that there was a demand of dowry and the accused and deceased used to quarrel frequently and the sister of the deceased Rasoolbee who shifted the deceased to the hospital as alleged in Ex.P11, sister of the deceased has not been examined by the prosecution to prove that it was the accused who used to always demand for dowry and was assaulting the victim and poured kerosene and set her ablaze. The fact remains that as on the date of unfortunate incident, the accused was with the victim as stated in her dying declaration and also stated by the other prosecution witnesses. Very strangely, while admitting his presence in the house as per Ex.P14, voluntary statement, he has taken a alibi in Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure statement in question No.101 that he was not in the house, he went to mason work to Venkateshappa's house. Admittedly, the said Venkateshappa has not been examined. Thereby, once the prosecution discharges its burden, once the accused has taken a plea of alibi, the burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF HARYANA VS SHER SINGH & OTHERS reported in AIR 1981 SC 1021, at paragraph No.4 as under: