SANJIV KHANNA, J.

1. The present appeal leaves a sense of disquiet and concern for we perceive there was an attempt to withhold exculpatory evidence and hide discontinuity in the prosecution version. The triteness was latent in the written records in the form of the police case diary, and is enmeshed in some of the answers given by the author, i.e., the Investigating Officer ASI Manchand. Unfortunately, this concavity and latency could not be decripted at the first stage.

2. We would accept the prosecution case that the deceased Raju had died an unnatural death as a result of burn injuries as is clear from the MLC, marked Exhibit PW-10/A, recorded at the Jai Prakash Narayan Hospital on 14th April, 1997 at 1.30 P.M. The post-mortem report by Dr A.P. Singh, dated 19th April, 1997, marked Exhibit PW-11/A, records that Raju had died four days after admission on 18th April, 1997 at 7.20 A.M. The cause of death was septicaemia consequent upon infected burn injuries. The injuries were ante-mortem in nature, and inflicted about 4 days back. Injury Nos. 1 & 2 were caused by a blunt object, and Injury No.3 was caused by burns due to fire. Scalp hair were duly sealed and sent for FS