or when her post-mortem was conducted. It was only after the Panchayat had been held that her parents came forward with their statements. The hapless victim had spoken out her grievance and narrated the tragedy that had taken place with her in her dying declaration recorded on 20.02.2003. If the parents were already there and they have been narrated the incident by the deceased, there was no reason for the deceased to level allegations against the appellants. This shows that she had narrated the incident truly and in her full senses in dying declaration recorded on 20.02.2003. It was rather the subsequent dying declaration which was riddled with contradictions. Even in her second dying declaration, she stated that she had already made the statement regarding the incident. It is unfortunate that even the parents have sided with the appellants-accused may be due to their poverty, haplessness or some influence on them. In such circumstances, it could not be expected from anyone else to come forward to depose against the accused. The story of bursting of stove propounded by the appellants is not proved. No suggestion was given to PW8 ASI Lekh Ram, Investigating Officer that when he inspected the spot, the stove which had burst, was lying at the spot. Neither any such stove was found at the spot by the police or taken into possession. Even to Constable Sumit Kumar, who prepared the scaled site plan Ex.PG, no suggestion was given that the incident had taken place in the kitchen and a stove that had burst, was also lying there. Moreover, the bursting of the stove never leads to 100% burns. A person standing in front of the stove may get some burns due to its bursting and he/she gets enough time to run in order to save him/her. It is quite strange SACHIN MEHTA 2015.10.06 09:57that nobody in the family had come forward to save the deceased. The story I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH