New Delhi: A family member cannot be punished for the murder only on the ground that he came out without injury when the house was burned, without trying to save other members who lost their lives, the Supreme Court, said that it might arise suspicion of the member but not proof for confidence.
Making a woman who was punished by the court court, the verdict was enforced by Bombay HC, allegations of the murder of her husband’s first wife, a step son and his daughter, Judge Hemtta and when Bopanna said it was a natural human behavior to immediately go from the scene and save themselves when there was The accident and it could not be the only basis for coming to conclusive findings that he had burned his relatives.
“It takes a lot of courage or embezzled with compassion to rescue others and does not do it may be considered morally wrong, but it is impossible for a situation to hold someone guilty for serious crimes seriously murder unless other conditions show the Defendant leads to an irresistible conclusion to guilty, “Bench said.
In this case, a house was burning at midnight but the defendant left the house without injury but three other members lost their lives.
The accident occurred when her husband was outside the station and court court arrived at the conclusion that he had a strong motive to commit a crime because he wanted to get rid of his husband’s first family and was punished.
Canceling the trial and HC verdict, the APEX court said only because the applicant was not injured, it could not be the basis for the conclusion that he burned the house.
“But suspicion, no matter how strong it was, unable to take a place of proof.
Unfortunately, with the nature of observations made by the High Court, in the end that the prosecution has proven a reasonable doubt that has set the deceased and its children caught fire with sights to remove it from life His marriage, “Bench said.