This morning the court heard from the first defence witness, Stephen Andrew, a specialist fire investigator from the UK, who claimed evidence from the scene indicated Mr Prasad was lying on his back and unconscious at the time he was set on fire.
Giving evidence via video link, Mr Andrews said if Mr Prasad had been conscious "I would expect him to try to run away". There was no evidence of Mr Prasad attempting to flee, he said, such as a trail of fragments of clothing around the scene.
"A person who does not want to be set on fire runs for a while," he said. "They may slow down and eventually fall to the ground."
He added: "The vast majority of cases I have seen, people run around, they may try to tear off clothing, they bump into things, they leave a trail of fragments of clothing, and I'm afraid for the family in the courtroom, they leave a trail of body fragments - skin, hair, blood, those kind of things."
Mr Andrews also said he believed Mr Prasad was lying on his back with his arms up behind his head.
"The kind of position you expect him to be in if he was unconscious or dead, and had been dragged by his feet or by his feet and arms."
The Crown has previously alleged Mr Prasad was either standing, sitting or kneeling when he was set alight.
But Mr Andrews ruled that out, saying the evidence, such as the pooling of petrol around the body, indicated he was lying down, and saying there was no evidence he had been restrained.
Mr Andrews said he believed "a very large volume of petrol" had been used - as much as 15 litres.
"That amount of petrol is really a great amount to be pouring on someone," he said.
Such a large amount would likely create a "flash flame or fireball" when ignited, he said.
"If he had been restrained in some way so that petrol could be poured on him without him moving, someone would then need to be able to then back off to a safe distance in order to ignite the petrol without being engulfed in the ensuing fireball," he said.
This would likely have given Mr Prasad several seconds in which to try to run away if he was able, he said. The time frame could have been longer, he said, as it could possibly take one to two minutes to pour 15 litres of petrol.
While Mr Andrews would not provide an estimate for how long such a fire may have burned for, he said it was likely to be "several hours", and said that even after it had been extinguished by the Fire Service the ground remained "so hot" for hours afterwards it threatened to melt the boots of fire investigators.
Under cross-examination Mr Andrews remained firm in his belief that Mr Prasad had been on his back, saying two patches of ground which were relatively unscathed from fire, only proved his point rather than negated it.
"If Mr Prasad had been upright when he was set on fire and petrol poured over him, and we're dealing with up to 15 litres of petrol, I would expect those areas to have been burnt away in the initial fire before he even fell over," he said.
The Crown suggested if Mr Prasad had been lying down clothing would have been preserved around the buttocks and shoulder area under where he was lying.
But Mr Andrews said items of material which were recovered from the scene indicated they were to a degree. Fragments consistent with a light polyester t-shirt where found in the shoulder area, and a large scrap of unidentified material, the origin of which investigators were unsure of, was likely the remains of his underwear, Mr Andrews said.
Kumar's defence lawyer Ron Mansfield, in his opening address, said evidence that Mr Prasad was lying on his back was important because it indicated he was unconscious at the time.
"When someone is deeply unconscious they have all the outward appearance as if they were dead," he said.
This would be "really crucial in relation to whether this allegation of murder - the most serious allegation we have on our criminal cards - can be made out in this case on the objective assessment of the evidence."
For the two men to be found guilty of murder, the Crown must prove intent.
The trial, before Justice Geoffrey Venning and a jury of six women and six men, continues.
