Judgment

DUA, J.: - In this appeal by special leave the appellant Matru alias Girish Chandra challenges his conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34, I. P. C., and under Section 382, 1. P. C. For the former offence he was sentenced to imprisonment for life and for the latter to rigorous imprisonment for four years. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. The appellant, along with Mohar Singh and Saheb Singh were committed to the Court of Sessions for trial for offences under Sections 302/34, I. P. C. for the murder of Smt. Omwati, wife of Ram Chander (P W. 1) and of their three year old son Sua Lal and under Section 382, I. P C for committing theft of cash, ornaments and other things from the house of the deceased. The offences were alleged to have been committed on May 29, 1964 between 10 and 11 a m. in the township of Shamsabad.

3. The appellant and the deceased were admittedly next door neighbours in Mohalla Chaukhanda at the relevant time. Ram Chandra had two sons, the elder one Ramji being six years old. On the day of occurrence at about 9 a. m., Ram Chandra left his house for his shop about three furlongs away, leaving behind in the house his wife and two sons. About an hour later Omwati sent the elder son to the shop with some food for his father. A few minutes later Ram Chandra sent to his house some vegetables through his servant. After sometime his servant returned to the shop and informed Ram Chandra that his wife was lying in the house in pool of blood. After calling his nephew to look after the shop Ram Chandra immediately went to his house and found his wife lying dead in the courtyard near the well whereas his 3 year old son Sua Lal was lying dead in a room close to the courtyard. The box inside the room also appeared to have been opened and its contents pilfered. Some gold and silver ornaments which his deceased wife was wearing that morning were found missing. Information of the occurrence was lodged at the police station Shamsabad at about 12.40 in the afternoon. But as he did not suspect anyone he merely stated the circumstances in which he came to know of the occurrence and found his wife and child dead in the house. It was stated in the report that Rs. 200/- in cash and three ornaments including a ring had been taken away by the miscreants. Matru, appellant, who was the next door neighbour came to Ram Chandra s house before the first information report was lodged and remained with him till the report was made to the police. The investigating officer found blood at both the places where the two dead bodies were lying. The blood-stained and unstained earth was collected and sealed. Next morning it appears Chhotey Lal (P. W. 2) and Nathu Lal (P. W. 10) went to see Ram Chandra between 6 and 7 a. m. Chhotey Lal informed him that he (Chhotey Lal) had seen Matru and two unknown persons entering Ram Chandra s house at about 10 or 10.30 a m., on the previous day and Nathu Lal gave him the information that at about 11 a m. on the day of the occurrence he had seen Matru and two other persons coming out of his house. These witnesses at that time did not attach any importance to the three persons entering and after some time coming out of Ram Chandra s house. However, later when they learnt about the double murder in Ram Chandra s house between 10 and 11 a. m. they thought that they should tell Ram Chandra what they had seen on the morning of May 29 at about the time of the occurrence.

4. It is said that about six months prior to the occurrence relations between Omwati and the wife of Matru, appellant, had become strained. One of Matru s daughters was married and the other was of marriageable age but both were living with their parents. Omwati suspected that some people used frequently to visit Matru s house without any cogent reason and also gave currency to this fact. Matru s wife naturally resented this. About six months prior to the occurrence an 1052 incident is stated to have taken place whi