Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

bride burning

(Querist) 31 May 2008 This query is : Resolved 
death by fire. pouring k.oil in wick stove.doctor deposed vg stated caught fire accidentally in the process.% of burn not mentioned.accident or homicide?proof?
Prakash Yedhula (Expert) 02 June 2008
You need to give the details in full. A judgment cannot be passed on the face of the particulars given by you. It is seen that there is no direct eye witness to the occurrence. Hence everything depends on circumstantial evidence. If there are discrepancies in the various statements and evidence, it would lead in acquittal.
A Truthseeker (Querist) 03 June 2008
Yes it is a case of circumstantial evidence.There is no direct evidence.The defence case is that the vg got burnt by bursting of stove.
The case is for argument.Evidence was recorded by my predecessor. Accd. gets benefit of doubt. But the following questios loom large. A stove (pump)usually bursts. A wick Janata cooker!!(Mat Exhibit-1).
The occurrence took place at the bed room at 11pm. why no body tried to rescue?
There is oral corroborated evidence of torture.
The defence is banking on doctor's evidence.
Rajesh Kumar (Expert) 11 June 2008
I have heard that in criminal cases accused gets the benefit of doubt.
A Truthseeker (Querist) 25 June 2008
serious
A Truthseeker (Querist) 11 January 2009
doctor's evidence is vital but as per the Apex Court doctor must be examined thoroughly. the instant case hinges on the defence, both the doctors recorded deceased stating accidental burn.
PALNITKAR V.V. (Expert) 18 February 2009
If the deceased is stating that it is accidental burn and there is no strong and enough evidence to convict the accused then he has to be acquitted. Besides, when two view are possible one in favour of accused has to be accpeted. merely because it was conventional Wick Stove does not mean that the flames wont burst at all! The fuel tank may not burst but the flames may.
A Truthseeker (Querist) 08 April 2009
Mr. palnitkar
the benefit of doubt must go in favour of the accd. always, no doubt about it. but is it not undoubted that a wick stove can never burst let alone scientific possibilty but when the Material Exhibit,the wick stove has prouced before the Court intact!
A Truthseeker (Querist) 08 April 2009
how flames may burst? it may flare up at worst causing superficial charring but no doubt can not cause such burns as to result in death.
A Truthseeker (Querist) 08 April 2009
another peculiarity of the case! victim succumbed after about 16 hrs. of sustaining injury. number of family members met her during this interval. victim stated to none of them her cause of burns except the two doctors who are elusive to Courts repeated process!
A V Vishal (Expert) 30 April 2009
No other views?



You need to be the querist or approved LAWyersclub expert to take part in this query .


Click here to login now



Similar Resolved Queries :





Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query