7. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor, while supporting the judgment of the trial Court, would argue that the accused used to harass and ill-treat the deceased by consuming liquor and on suspecting her chastity since some time prior to the incident. On the date of offence also, he beat his tender aged son on the misconception that he was not born to him and when questioned by the deceased, he beat her also and dragged her to the house and bolted the doors from inside and set her fire. The entire episode would show, learned Public Prosecutor argued, the accused had animosity against the deceased to kill her. While admitting that there were no direct eyewitnesses to the incident, he argued, nevertheless the evidence of neighbours i.e. P.Ws.2 and 5, who on hearing shouts of the deceased rushed and rescued her, is no less important, because the presence of the accused at the spot was confirmed by them. Therefore, their evidence is relevant under the principle of ‘ res gestae’. The learned Public Prosecutor further argued, by virtue of their evidence, the Accused owed a responsibility to explain how the deceased was caught in fire and also that he was not responsible for burn injuries of the deceased. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued, the accused totally failed to answer these crucial aspects. On the other hand, the deceased had, in her two dying declarations, consistently, stated that it was the accused, who set her on fire. Having regard to the fact that the Accused was harassing her in a drunken state by suspecting her
