Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. Mr. Basu further said that the autopsy surgeon did not opine that the death of the victims were homicidal and he clearly deposed that the injuries sustained by the victims could also be accidental or suicidal and thereby neutralising the conclusiveness in the initial opinion. So, as per submission of the learned Advocate that the medical expert stated about the possibility of accidental or self inflicted burns and this creates a reasonable doubt which must be held in favour of the accused persons. It is said by the learned Advocate that mere presence of kerosene and a barrel does not prove mensrea of criminal intent of the accused person, when no forensic evidence (like burn patterns, accelerant traces on cloths or matches/lighters) have been produced to establish deliberate dousing or ignition. It is further contended by the learned Advocate that although there was allegation of dowry 2025:CHC-AS:1657-DB demand from the father of the deceased second wife of the appellant but no complaint/diary was lodged before the appropriate authority. So, as per submission of the learned Advocate that the possibility of catching accidental fire by the deceased persons or committing suicide by them cannot be ruled out.