deceased. The whole incident appears to us to be incredible and unbelievable. We find it difficult that the accused would stand like a moot statue permitting accused no. 1 to pour kerosene from a stove and accused no. 2 to set him ablaze by striking a matchstick. According to us, the deceased could have overpowered the accused at any point of time. Further, the postmortem report shows that the deceased had sustained burn injuries from head to the waist. It would take some effort on behalf of accused no. 1 to pour kerosene from a stove on the head of the deceased and we find it difficult to believe that the deceased would just stand there and not realized the implication of what was being done by the accused. Further, when the accused had gone to the Police Station, he did not immediately disclosed to the Police who was present in the Police Station that the accused had set him ablaze. In fact, the evidence of the prosecution is to the effect that only a requisition was given for his medical treatment. Nothing prevented the deceased from even uttering one sentence that the accused set him ablaze. It is obvious to us therefore that the accused poured kerosene on himself, set himself ablaze, attempted to commit suicide and named the accused as perpetrators of the crime. The Police had recorded the statement of DW 1 Salim, yet the prosecution choose not to examined him. None of the independent witnesses who had gathered immediately at the scene of the offence supported
