The credibility of a child witness, the burden on the accused to explain the circumstances of the crime, and the importance of the scene of occurrence in establishing guilt.

JUDGMENT

Mukta Gupta, J.

1. By these appeals, the appellants challenge the common impugned judgment of the learned Trial Court dated 22nd October, 2018 whereby the appellants were convicted for cruelty and murder of one Jyoti (deceased); and also the order on sentence dated 25th October, 2018 whereby all the three appellants were directed to undergo imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.2 lakhs each in default whereof simple imprisonment for six months for offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC") and were also directed to undergo simple imprisonment for three years along with fine of Rs.1 lakh each in default whereof simple imprisonment for four months of offence punishable under Section 498A/34 IPC. The appellants were acquitted for offence punishable under Section 306/34 IPC and no leave to appeal has been sought by the State challenging the said acquittal.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that the deceased was the wife of appellant Pawan Kumar who married each other on 21st February, 2003. Appellant Sushila and Pritam @ Sonu are the step mother and brother of appellant Pawan Kumar. Out of this wedlock, one daughter `S' (PW-15) and one son Harsh were born. It was the case of the prosecution that repeated demands of money were made by the appellants from father of deceased Ram Kishan (PW-4). Five days before the incident, appellant Pawan Kumar and Sushila demanded Rs.90,000/- from Ram Kishan and on 12th April, 2010, Ram Kishan (PW-4) was able to give only Rs.15,000/- with difficulty. On the morning of 14th April, 2010 at about 6.30 AM, Ram Kishan received a call from Pawan Kumar's chachi that the deceased was admitted at Safdarjung Hospital in burnt condition on which he along with his wife Parmeshwari (PW-8) rushed to the hospital where he was informed that the deceased had suffered 92-93% burns after which, Ram Kishan made a call to the police at number 100. On receipt of information, SI Joginder Singh (PW-20) reached Safdarjung Hospital where the deceased was declared unfit for statement. After recording the statement of Ram Kishan, he prepared the rukka (Ex.PW-4/A and 20/A) on which FIR No.110/2010 dated 14th April, 2010 under Sections 498A/306 IPC was registered at PS Sarita Vihar (Ex.PW-1/A). At about 12.30 PM the deceased died, and after the post-mortem examination, the body was handed over to Ram Kishan.

3. Dr. Sumit Tellewar conducted the post-mortem examination on the body of the deceased on 15th April, 2010 and vide the report (Ex.PW-19/A) opined:

"Antemortem external injuries

Burnt areas on the body: (Epidermal, dermal, deep) burn present on face, cheek, chest, abdomen, both upper limbs, buttocks, both lower limbs uptil ankles and upper back.

State of burn injuries: (Line of Redness, Erythema, Charring, Granulation tissue, purulent infection) Blackening present lines of redness present.

Approximate percentage of burn injuries: 95%

Other injuries: NIL

Internal Examination

Head: Scalp & Skull: NAD

Brain: Congested

Neck: Naso-Laryngo-Pharynx: NAD

Chest: Lungs: Congested

Trachea & Bronchi: NAD

Heart: NAD

Abdomen: Stomach: empty Mucosal Wall: NAD

Intestines, Liver, Spleen, Kidneys & Pancreas): Congested

Pelvis bladder: Empty Uterus: NAD

Rest of structures inside the body: NAD

Opinion: Death in this case is due to shock due to ante mortem flame burns.

The time since death is approximately: consistent with hospital records.

Specimens preserved: Scalp hair for analysis of inflammable substance."

4. Investigation in this case was initially carried out by Insp.Josepha (PW-17) and further investigation was carried out by Insp. Dinesh Chander, who passed away during the course of trial. Insp. Dinesh Chander had arrested the appellant Pawan from H.No.548, Chauhan Mohalla, Madanpur Khadar vide memo Ex.PW-6/A and had also recorded his disclosure statement (Ex.PW-6/C). Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed only against appellant Pawan Kumar. Accordingly, Pawan Kumar was ch