http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

PETITIONER: BALDEV KRISHAN

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF HARYANA

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       28/01/1997

BENCH: FAIZAN UDDIN, S.P. KURDUKAR

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T S.P. KURDUKAR, J.      Smt. Pratibha  (since deceased)  was  the  daughter  of Kamal Goyal (PW 2) a resident of Sangrur. She was married to Ravi Kumar  (A-3) on  February 19,  1981. It was an arranged marriage. Kamal  Goyal comes  from a middle class family and is in service with limited source of income. At the proposal stage Kamal  Goyal alleged to have made it clear that having regard to  his means  the marriage would be a simple one. He claimed to  have spent  on marriage of pratibha an amount of Rs. 70,000/-.  ravi Kumar (A-3) and Narinder Kumar (A-4) who has been  acquitted are  the sons  of Baldev  Krishan (A-1). Sarla Devi  (S-2) is the wife of A-1. They are the residents of Jullundur  city, owning  a ground  floor and  one  stormy house. On  the ground  floor they  run business  in electric goods under  the name  of B.K.  Electrical Industry; whereas the first  floor is  used for their residence. It is a joint Hindu family.  Baldev Krishan  being a  businessman was then having comparatively a better financial position. 2.   Smt. pratibha  after her marriage came to Jullundur and resided with  her husband  and in  laws. In the last week of February, 1981,  Kamal Goyal came to Jullundur and took away Smt. Pratibha  to Sangrur. Pratibha told her father that her in-laws were  of a  very greedy  nature and were criticising her on dowry issue. On the following day on reaching Sangrur A-3 sent a telephonic message to Kamal Goyal that his mother was taken  ill and  Pratibha would  return  within  a  short period. Accordingly,  she was  brought  back  to  Jullundur. After about  two or  three months.  Pratibha again  came  to Sangrur and  told her  father that  all the  accused persons were taunting  her for  having brought  nothing in dowry and that the  clothes brought by her in dowry were mere rags and even other articles were not given worth to their use. It is alleged that  Pratibha used  to explain  to her in-laws that her father  came from  an ordinary  family and  whatever  he could give in dowry had been given and there was no point in criticising her  parents. It  is common  premise that  Rekha Rani (PW  1) who  happened to  be her  aunt was  residing at Jullundur and  as and  when Pratibha  met her  she  used  to convey as  to how  she was  illtreated by  the accused. Upon

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

hearing the  distressing remarks  made by  the accused,  the father used  to advise  Pratibha not  to take the remarks of her in-laws seriously and things would be settled down after passage of  time. Pratibha used to tell her parents that her husband (A-3)  and mother-in-law  (A-2) used to tease her on her squint.  It may be stated that Pratibha was blessed with a son  on December  24, 1981, at her parents’ house and this event was  celebrated by  her father  by inviting members of her i-laws  family and  spent about Rs. 7,000/- on customary gifts (Shushak).  It is then alleged by the prosecution that on June  2, 1981 which was a Nirjala Ekadasi day, Smt. Rekha Rani (PW  1) and  her husband Vijay Kumar (PW 5) went to the house of  the accused  for giving  her presents.  Rekha Rani wished Pratibha but, however, she was found to be depressed. At that  time A-2  told Rekha  Rani  that  she  should  have searched a  boy having  a  squint  as  a  better  match  for Pratibha having  a status commensurate with a girl. A-2 also taunted saying  that they  accepted the  proposal  as  Kamal Goyal was  a gentleman  but he had given rages in dowry. A-2 also alleged  to  have  remarked  that  Kamal  Goyal  was  a scoundrel and  would learn  a lesson when he would marry his other children. He must find out only scoundrels. Rekha Rani thereafter came  to an  adjoining courtyard  where  A-3  was sitting with  a view  to have  to talk to him and convey the remarks may by A-2. Sarla Devi (A-2) thereafter followed her whereupon A-3  told his  mother to keep quiet and should not talk nonsense. A-2 thereupon stated that she would set right Pratibha as  God has given her a lot of money. A-2 also then passed remarks  saying that  some other  proposals had  come for. A-3  offering dowry  of two  lakhs. After hearing these remarks of A-2 Rekha Rani returned to her room. 3.   It is  then alleged  by the prosecution that on June 5, 1982 Kamal  Goyal came to Jullundur for taking Smt. Pratibha to Amritsar  where his  mother-in-law was  ailing.  He  also intimated to  A-1 that  he would  be taking Smt. Pratibha on June 6,  1992 to  Sangrur as  the marriage  of  his  brother (Kamal Goyal’s  brother) was  to take place on June 20, 1982 at Delhi.  Accordingly on 5th June, 1992 Kamal Goyal came to the house  of Accused  whereupon A-1  and A-3  told him that Pratibha would  accompany him.  Kamal Goyal then went to the house of Rekha Rani who told him that Pratibha was not happy as the  members of  her in-laws  family were taunting her on various grounds including a squint in the eye. At about 3.00 p.m. Kamal Goyal went to the house of A-1 and he was told by A-1 and  A-3 that  Pratibha would  not accompany  him. Kamal Goyal wanted  to sort out the differences and, therefore, he along with A-1 and A-3 went to the drawing room on upstairs. A-2 and  Pratibha also  came there and it was found that the latter was  very much  disturbed. Pratibha  told her  father that all  the accused  were ill-treating her and calling her and  him   as  bastards.   Kamal  Goyal   according  to  the prosecution told  the accused that he belonged to a cultured family and requested not to abuse. Sarla (A-2) then told him that because  of this  matrimonial relation  and  of  meagre gifts of  a poor  quality their  status in  the society  was lowered down.  It is  alleged by  the prosecution  that  A-2 complained to  Kamal Goyal  that Pratibha  had no  desire to work in  the house  and was  a burden to the family. Accused persons then  told  Kamal  Goyal  that  Pratibha  would  not accompany him. 4.   Despite the  protest Kamal  Goyal requested the accused to send  Pratibha to  Sangrur with him at about 3.00 p.m. on the following day. Kamal Goyal accordingly went to the house of the  accused on  June 6, 1982. Pratibha was getting ready to accompany  him but after some time she came with tears in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

her eyes  and told  him that  she would  not accompany  him. Kamal Goyal found her very much frightened and perplexed and wanted to know from her the reasons therefor but she refused to say  anything at that time. Kamal Goyal then asked Baldev Krishan (A-1)  as to what was happening in the house and who had threatened  Pratibha whereupon  he told him not to worry and he would take every precaution and responsibility of her safe stay  in the  house. A-2  then told  Kamal  Goyal  that Pratibha would  come directly  to Delhi  on June 18, 1982 or she would  be sent  to Sangrur  either on 21th or 13th June, 1982. With  great disappointment  Kamal  Goyal  returned  to Sangrur and  since he  was  worried  about  Pratibha’s  well being, wrote  a letter Ex. PB to Vijay Kumar (PW 5) and sent another to  A-1 on  June 7,  1982. Smt. Janak, the mother of Pratibha also  wrote a  few lines  on Ex.  PB to  Smt. Rekha Rani. It  is  alleged  by  the  prosecution  that  relations between Pratibha  and members  of her in-laws family instead of improving  worsened and  ultimately on  June 8, 1992, she died of burn injuries in her matrimonial house. 5.   Coming to  the eventful  afternoon of  June 8,  1982 at about 6.30  p.m. Raj  Kumar (PW 4) happened to pass in front of the  shop of  A-1 and  saw many  persons gathered  there. People were  taking that  accused persons  had  burnt  their daughter-in-law on  account of  their greed  for  dowry.  He noticed that  the accused  persons were very much perturbed. He then  went to the house of Rekha Rani to inform her about the incident.  Rekha Rani  and Vijay Kumar reached the house of accused immediately. Pratibha had sustained burn injuries between 4.00  and 6.00  p.m. on  8th June,  1982. Dr.  R. N. Batra (DW  1) who had come to the house of A-1 at about 7.00 p.m. was  asked to inform Kamal Goyal on telephone about the death of  Pratibha. Kamal  Goyal on  receipt of  a telephone call from  Dr. R. N. Batra from the house of A-1 was shocked to hear  about his  daughter’s death.  Kamal Goyal wanted to talk to A-1 personally but doctor told him that he would not be able  to speak on telephone due to shock. Kamal Goyal and his wife left Sangrur for Jullundur and reached at the house of A-1 during mid night. 6.   In the  meantime A-1  asked Chanan Ram (DW 4) to go and lodge a report at the police station. However, at about 7.30 p.m. he  met ASI Hardip Singh near the Laxmi Cinema and told him about  the incident.  His statement  Ex. PH was recorded and the  crime came  to  be  registered  as  "death  due  to accidental burns."  ASI Hardip  Singh then reached the place of occurrence and started the investigation. An inquest Ex.P was held  on the dead body of Pratibha. He also prepared the Panchnama of  place of  occurrence. Gopal  Singh (PW  9) the Inspector, on  getting the  information about  the  incident reached the  house of  the accused  at about  10.30 p.m. and took over  the investigation.  He recorded  the statement of Rekha Rani  Ex. PA/1  and forwarded  the same  to the police station which  was formally  treated as  the FIR  Ex.  PA/2. During investigation he seized some of the articles lying in the kitchen.  In the  meantime, Kamal  Goyal along  with his wife reached  there. An  ambulance was arranged and the dead body of  Pratibha was sent to the Civil Hospital, Jullundur. Vijay Kumar  (PW 5),  Subhash Chander  and  two  constables, namely, Gurmit and Ghanshyam Dass accompanied the dead body. The post-mortem  examination  was  conducted  by  the  Board headed by Dr. B.S. Parmar (PW 3) along with Dr. Mandip Singh Sethi and  Dr. Surinder  Kaur. This was done at the instance of Harbans Lal, Advocate, an uncle of A-3. The statements of various persons  were  recorded  during  investigation.  The accused  came   to  be  arrested  on  June  9,  1982.  After completing the  investigation, a  charge-sheet was submitted

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

against four accused persons for an offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC. 7.   The accused  denied the  allegations  levelled  against them and they pleaded that they are innocent. They denied to have demanded  any dowry  or meted  out any ill-treatment to Pratibha. They  also denied  to have taunted Pratibha on her squint in  the eye. According to the accused she was treated very well  in their  house and  there used to be no quarrels with  her.   The  burn  injuries  on  Pratibha  were  either accidental or  suicidal and  not homicidal. A-1, A-3 and A-4 pleaded that  they were  in the shop (ground floor) and busy with their  customers and  they first time came to know when A-4 went  upstairs at  about 6.00  p.m. who  reported  of  a burning smell coming from their residential block. When they went upstairs  they found Pratibha lying in the kitchen with burn injuries.  The defence  of A-2,  Sarla Devi  was one of alibi. According  to her  she had done to her sister’s house at 4.00  p.m.  as  she  had  returned  home  after  her  eye operation. She came to know about the incident on her way to her house.  She denied  that she  ever ill-treated  her  and claimed that she is innocent and be acquitted. 8.   The  prosecution   case  entirely   rested   upon   the circumstantial   evidence    and   it   relied   upon   five circumstances, namely, (1) motive; (2) place and time of the incident; (3)  presence of  all the four accused at the time of occurrence; (4) conduct of the accused persons who gave a false explanation  that deceased died due to accidental burn injuries; and (5) medical evidence. 9.   In order  to prove  motive the  prosecution relied upon the evidence  of Rekha  Rani (PW  1), Kamal Goyal (PW 2) and Vijay Kumar  (PW  5).  In  addition  to  this  evidence  the prosecution  also   relied  upon   the  evidence  of  formal witnesses including  the police  officers  who  investigated into the  crime. The  accessed in their defence examined six witnesses including Dr. R.N. Batra (DW 1) and Chanan Ram (DW 4). 10.  On careful  scrutiny of  the oral  evidence  and  other materials on  record the  trial court  by its  judgment  and order dated  October 16,  1982 held that the prosecution had proved all  the circumstances  which had  established beyond reasonable doubt that A-1, A-2, and A-3 were responsible for committing the  murder  of  Pratibha.  Having  held  so  the learned trial judge convicted A-1, A-2 and A-3 under Section 302/34 IPC  and sentenced  each one  of them  to suffer life imprisonment and  to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of payment of  fine to  undergo further  RI for  two years. The learned trial  judge, however, gave the benefit of doubt and acquitted Narinder Singh (A-4). 11.  The appellants-convicts being aggrieved by the judgment and order  of conviction passed by the trial court preferred criminal appeal  to the  Punjab  &  Haryana  High  Court  at Chandigarh. The  Division Bench  of the  High Court  by  its judgment and order dated April 30, 1993 after reappraisal of the evidence  on record  dismissed the  appeal and confirmed their conviction  and sentence.  It is against this order of conviction and  sentence, the  three appellants on obtaining Special Leave  filed three  separate Criminal  Appeals  i.e. Criminal Appeal  No. 45  of 1984  is filed by Baldev Krishan (A-1), Criminal Appeal No. 143/84 is filed by Sarla Devi (A- 2) and Criminal Appeal No. 144/84 is filed by Ravi Kumar. 12.  During the  course of  arguments we are informed by the learned counsel  for the appellants that Baldev Krishan died on 5-2-1993, resultantly his appeal stands abated. 13.  We have  carefully gone  through the  judgments of  the learned courts  below and  the evidence  on record. Mr. U.R.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

Lalit and  Shri R.C.  Kohli, Sr.  counsel appearing  for the appellants  assailed   the  impugned   judgment  on  various grounds. They  urged that  the  courts  below  have  totally misread the  evidence of  Rekha Rani (PW 1), Kamal Goyal (PW 2) and  Ravi Kumar  (PW 5)  and strenuously  urged that  the evidence of  these three  witnesses did  not make  a mention that at  any point  of time  any  of  the  appellant/accused demanded dowry or any other articles of gift. The expression of poor  quality of  gifts or of meagre value assuming to be true would  not and  could not  amount to a demand of dowry. The evidence  of these  witnesses in  that behalf is nothing but their  figment of imagination or at best inferential one and, therefore,  finding  of  ill-treatment  based  on  each evidence is unsustainable. They then urged that Pratibha had no physical  disability much less any squint and, therefore, there was  no question  of teasing  her on  that score. They urged that there was no evidence worth the name on record to hold that  any of  the  appellants/accused  meted  out  ill- treatment to Pratibha at any time. They therefore, submitted that the  finding of  the courts  below as regards motive to cause death is patently illegal and cannot be sustained. 14.  After careful  scrutiny of  the evidence of these three witnesses and  other materials  on record,  we are satisfied that the  contentions raised  by the learned counsel for the appellants are  totally unsustainable. Rekha Rani (PW 1) and Kamal Goyal  (PW 2)  testified several  instances where  the appellants taunted  Pratibha by  saying that  A-3 had better proposals who  were prepared  to give  dowry of  rupees  two lakhs but  they  had  accepted  her  proposal.  The  witness further stated  that Pratibha  always used  to complain that members of her in-laws family often made humiliating remarks as regards  the poor  quality of gifts of merger value given at the  time of  marriage. In  the facts  of this  case such remarks in our opinion undoubtedly connected with harassment on account of insufficient dowry. There are ways and ways to express the  demand of  dowry. One adopted by the appellants could be  said to  be a  sophisticated one without using the word "dowry". Rekha Rani in her evidence had referred to the incident in  detail when  she and  her husband  on 2nd June, 1982 went  to give  presents to  Pratibha on Nirjala Kkadshi festival. From her evidence there is no manner of doubt that the appellants had given most humiliating treatment not only to Pratibha  but also  to Rekha  Rani. A-2  had gone  to the extent of  calling the  parents of  Pratibha as bastards and telling her that they should have found out a suitable match for their  daughter  having  a  squint.  The  fact  of  ill- treatment meted  out to Pratibha also finds support from the evidence of  Kamal Goyal (PW 2) on two occasions when he had visited the  house of  A-1 when  Pratibha was  found totally perplexed and  depressed and  was unable  to speak  out  her painful feelings.  As and  when Pratibha went to Sangrur and particularly when  she had gone at the time of her delivery, she told  her parents how she was treated by the appellants. The letters  Exs. PB/1  and PB/2,  on record  do suggest and express concern  over the  well being of Pratibha at her in- laws house  and those two letters were written to Rekha Rani (PW 1) and Vijay Kumar (PW 5). 15.  Mr. Lalit contended that the evidence of Rekha Rani (PW 1), Kamal  Goyal (PW  2) and Vijay Kumar (PW 5) did not even remotely suggest  that A-3  had given  any ill-treatment  to Pratibha. The  evidence on record is totally vague and could not be the basis of present conviction. We are not impressed by this  argument because Kamal Goyal (PW 2) in his evidence has stated  that Pratibha  on several occasions had told him that the appellants were giving ill-treatment to her because

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

of insufficient  dowry and also squint in her eye. We see no reason to  discard the  statement of  Kamal  Goyal  in  this behalf. 16.  Mr. Lalit then urged that the prosecution had failed to lead any  evidence as regards the physical ill-treatment and the reason  being  obvious  that  there  was  no  such  ill- treatment. The  physical ill-treatment  is one of the facets of ill-treatment  and it  is true  that  there  is  no  such evidence but  there is sufficient evidence on record to hold that  appellants   did  cause   a  mental  ill-treatment  to Pratibha. The  courts below  have very carefully scrutinized the evidence  in this behalf and in our opinion the findings as  regards   motive   and   ill-treatment   call   for   no interference. 17.  It was  then urged  by Mr.  Lalit that the courts below have totally  over looked the fact that Pratibha on December 24. 1981  was blessed  with a  son. This fact indicated that the relations  between Pratibha  and A-3 were quite cordial. He emphasised  that the  newly born son was hardly less than six months old at the time of incident and, therefore, it is difficult to  believe that  the appellants  would  think  of committing the  murder  of  Pratibha.  We  are  not  at  all impressed by this argument but on the contrary this argument would go  against the  appellants. It  would be difficult to believe that  having regard  to the ordinary course of human conduct and  in particular  of mother,  she would  commit  a suicide and leave the child at the mercy of her in-laws. The contention as  regards accidental  death would be examined a little later. 18.  The second  circumstance relied upon by the prosecution was the  place and time of the incident. There is no dispute that Pratibha  died due  to burn injuries in her matrimonial house. Her  in-laws family  was then consisted of A-1 to A-3 and the acquitted accused (A-4). The evidence on record does not show  that any  other person  was staying  in the house. Admittedly, the  dead body  of Pratibha  was  found  in  the kitchen. The time of incident was between 4.00 p.m. and 6.00 p.m. It  is in  these circumstances a reasonable explanation was expected from the accused as to under what circumstances Pratibha sustained  the burn  injuries. A-3 in his statement recorded under  Section 313  Cr. P.C. had stated that he was busy in  his shop between 4.00 p.m. and 6.00 p.m. and he did not know  as to what happened on the first floor. A-2 in her statement recorded  under Section 313 Cr.P.C. had been taken up a plea of alibi which we have found not acceptable. After careful scrutiny  of the  prosecution evidence on record and the statements  of the  appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. we have  no hesitation  in accepting  the  findings  of  the courts below  that Pratibha  sustained burn  injuries in her matrimonial home  which was a convenient place and opportune time for  the accused to commit the offence in question. The prosecution, therefore, has proved this circumstance also. 19.  The  next   circumstance,  namely,   conduct   of   the appellants (accused)  who gave  false explanation  that  the deceased died  due to  accidental burn  injuries is again an important circumstance  against the accused. Chandan Ram (DW 4) was  asked to  and lodge a report that Pratibha sustained accidental burn  injuries. This was done only with a view to misguide the  investigating agency  and to  take a plea that the incident  was communicated to the police at the earliest opportunity without  there being  any time  to  concoct  the same. Having  held the guilt of the appellants proved in the present case,  we are of the opinion that the conduct of the appellants in giving false information about accidental burn injuries sustained  by  Pratibha  is  a  circumstance  which

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

prosecution has rightly pressed into service and held proved by the courts below. 20.  It was  then urged on behalf of the appellants that the prosecution has  failed to  prove that the death of Pratibha was a  homicidal. In  support of this argument, it was urged that A-3  was in  the shop premises on the ground floor when the incident  took place. A-2 had gone to her sister’s house to enquire  about her  health as  she had  returned from the hospital after her eye operation. In the absence of positive and  credible   evidence  to   prove  the  presence  of  the appellants at  the time  of occurrence on the first floor of the house,  it would be unsafe to convict them under Section 302/34 IPC. In order to prove that at the time of occurrence A-3 was  in the  shop premises, the defence led the evidence of Surjit  Singh (DW 2), Dina Nath (DW 3) and Chanan Ram (DW 4). All  these witnesses  tried to support the defence story by stating  that when  they visited the shop of A-3 for some work between 4 and 6 p.m., at the time A-3 was found dealing with the customers. The evidence of these three witnesses is nothing but  a tailored  made to suit the defence and in our opinion the  courts below  have  rightly  disbelieved  their evidence. Ramesh  Kumar Mittal  (DW 5)  testified  that  his mother was  operated upon  her eye on 3rd June, 1982 and she had returned  to Jullundur  on June 8, 1982. A-2 had come to his house to enquire about her mother at about 4.30 p.m. and left at  about  6.00  p.m.  This  evidence  again  does  not persuade us  to accept it as credible one and in our opinion the courts  below have  committed no  error in rejecting his evidence. 21.  It was  then contended on behalf of the appellants that there is no mention in the Panchnama that any kerosene smell was coming from the clothes of Pratibha or from her body. As against this  Dr. B.S.Parmar  (PW 3)  who conducted the post mortem  examination  had  noted  that  the  clothes  of  the deceased were  drenched in  kerosene and  the small piece of cloth was  found tightly  held between  the teeth inside the mouth  of   dead  body   of  Pratibha.  Relying  upon  these discrepancies  it   was  urged  that  the  evidence  of  Dr. B.S.Parmar (PW  3) was totally inconsistent with the inquest Panchnama and  the prosecution  has created a false evidence that the  clothes were  drenched in  kerosene to  show  that kerosene was  used for  burning her.  It was  also urged  on behalf of  the appellants  that in  the inquest panchnama it was mentioned  that the  clothes of Pratibha were completely burnt yet  a new saree was found to have been wrapped around her body.  This clearly  indicated an attempt on the part of the prosecution  to create  a  false  evidence  against  the appellants. We  have gone  through the evidence of witnesses in this  behalf,  the  inquest  panchnama  and  the  medical evidence very  carefully and we are satisfied that there was no attempt  whatsoever on  the part  of the  prosecution  to create any  false evidence.  It is  no doubt  true that  the clothes of  Pratibha were completely burnt and some parts of the burnt  clothes were  sticking to  her body.  In order to cover the  body it  appears that  the body was wrapped up in the available saree. All that we could say about the inquest panchnama is  that the  police officer  was not  careful  in doing his  job. Dr.  B.S.Parmar (PW  3) had  no axe to grind against the  appellants and  we, therefore, prefer to accept his evidence  to hold  that the  clothes  of  Pratibha  were smelling kerosene. 22.  It was  then urged on behalf of the appellants that the medical evidence of Dr. B.S.Parmar (PW 3) did not prove that Pratibha met  with a  homicidal death.  It was further urged that the  burn  injuries  sustained  by  Pratibha  could  be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8  

accidental and  none of  the appellants  was responsible for these injuries. To find an answer to this contention we have very carefully  perused the  evidence of  Dr. B.S.Parmar and the post  mortem  examination  report.  Dr.  Parmar  in  his evidence has  stated that  Pratibha had  sustained 100% burn injuries and her body and clothes were smelling kerosene. He further stated  that a small piece of cloth was found in the mouth of  Pratibha being  held tightly between the teeth and small  portion  thereof  could  be  seen  from  outside.  He admitted that  he did  not open  the jaw  as it  was  closed tightly. Dr. Parmar stated that cause of death was 100% burn injuries. Learned  Counsel for  the  appellants  urged  that there is  serious lacuna in the medical evidence inasmuch as they did  not take  out the cloth piece from the mouth which could have  been a decisive factor to know whether there was any kerosene  residue  on  the  cloth  or  it  was  smelling kerosene. Having  not done  so  the  inference  of  kerosene having been  used to  cause  the  burn  injuries  cannot  be sustained. This  submission  again  did  not  appeal  to  us because the  other part  of evidence  of Dr.  Parmar clearly indicated otherwise.  Moreover, the  fact that  a  piece  of cloth was  found in  the mouth militates against the accused and completely  rules out the possibility of accidental burn injuries. The  courts below  in  our  opinion  have  rightly concluded that  Pratibha met  with a homicidal death and the appellants were responsible for the same. 23.  It  was   then  contended   that  the  appellants  were convicted with the aid of Section 34 IPC for the substantive offence of  murder alongwith  A-4 but  he was  acquitted. In view  of   acquittal  of  A-4  it  was  contended  that  the conviction of  the appellants with the aid of Section 34 IPC is bad.  In support  of this  submission our  attention  was drawn to  the reported  decisions of  this Court  in Pohalya Motya Valvi  Vs. State  of Maharashtra  (AIR 1979  SC 1949). Shidagouda Ningappa  Ghandavar Vs.  State of  Karnataka (AIR 1981  SC   764).  Sharad  Birdhichand  Sarda  Vs.  State  of Maharashtra (AIR  1984 SC  1622), Laxman  Naik Vs.  State of Orissa (AIR 1995 SC 1387) and Suresh Chandra Bahri etc. etc. Vs. State  of Bihar etc. etc. (AIR 1995 Supp (1) SCC 80). We have carefully  gone through  these  judgments  and  in  our opinion all  these decisions  are clearly distinguishable on facts.  The  ratio  laid  down  in  these  decision  has  no application to the facts of the present case. 24.  In the  result we find no substance in both the appeals and they  are accordingly  dismissed. The appellants who are on bail shall surrender to their bail bonds to serve out the remainder of their sentences.