(13) Mrs. Jaiswal has argued that the appellant had also received burn injuries because he was trying to extinguish the fire, therefore, it cannot be said that he had put the deceased on fire in the above manner. In absence of any other evidence to this effect, only on accounf of receiving superficial burn injuries in the hands as above, it cannot be said that the appellant had not put the deceased on fire. There may be many reasons for receiving above injuries and merely presence of above injuries on the forearms of the appellant does not prove him innocence. A person may try to extinguish the fire even after putting his wife on fire, if later on he becomes guilty conscious, depressed and his sense of humor prevails over the ill-will which has already resulted into such heinous act. The above circumstance cannot be said to be conclusive for the claim that the appellant had not put the deceased on fire. It is capable of being explained in many ways. The defence witness, Punitram (DW-1), has deposed tha^ the appellant had extinguished the fire. However, he admitted that when he reached to the house of the deceased, by that time a crowd had gathered there. The crowd will never wait for the appellant to come and would certainly attempt to extinguish the fire. Since the appellant had sustained burn injuries, therefore, his version that the
