BHARAT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision against an order dated 10-6-1981 passed by Sri R. C. Verma, Session Judge Rae Bareli.

(2.) THE admitted pedigree of the family is as follows :- <IMG>JUDGEMENT_160_ACRR_1983Image1.jpg</IMG>

(3.) DELAY does not necessarily spell unveracity nor discrepancies necessarily demolish testimony which does not suffer from any material infirmity. The husband and father-in-law of Sukhrana were there. It was being asserted to be a case of accidental fire and inspite of all that they did not care to take her for medical examination. So there was no question of lodging of report by these persons. When the news was received by the brother of Sukhrana, he came to this village on the next day and Ram Lakhan (PW 2) and Sant Lal, the brother of Sukhrana, took her for medical examination and a report was lodged by Sukhrana on the next day. So the delay stands explained. However, at the most,, the prosecution evidence should be scrutinised carefully.