7(seven) years had elapsed in the meantime, therefore, had the victim been alive it is the plaintiffs who could have known about his whereabouts and existence. But the learned Court also took a serious note of the submission of the learned counsel for the State respondents that whether the victim is dead or alive is a matter of evidence and police reports are lacking in the present case. In other words, a stand was taken by the respondents that it would be the burden of the plaintiffs to prove that the victim Prakash Singh Singhania is dead. Accordingly as the investigation by the police went on continuing for even more than 7(seven) years, the learned appellate court took a view that the evidence is insufficient to presume that the victim was dead and the plaintiffs have failed to prove the fact of the alleged death of the victim by any evidence. From a reading of the conclusion arrived at by the learned appellate court it is to be understood that the learned court proceeded in the premises that it is for the plaintiffs to prove through evidence that the victim concerned is dead and they having failed to prove that the victim is dead, the declaration sought for was denied.
