Judgment :

1. These appeals by way of special leave arises out of the following facts:

1.1 Mukesh P.W., son of the deceased Tara Chand and Phoola Devi returned home at 7:30p.m. on 24th December, 2000 and found that his parents were lying dead in the verandah of the house. An FIR was, accordingly, lodged against unknown persons but on investigation the police found out that four persons had been involved in the murders, they being Juglal, the brother of the deceased Tara Chand, Satpal, Son in Law of Juglal, Surendra the appellant before us, and Rajesh, son of Surja Ram. The trial court, by its judgment dated 11th January, 2002, acquitted Juglal and Rajesh but convicted Satpal and Surendra under Section 302 on two counts and sentenced them to imprisonment for life under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code along with fine. The trial court observed that there were no eye witnesses to the murders and that the prosecution story depended for proof exclusively on circumstantial evidence. Five circumstances in all were, accordingly, determined; they being: (i) death of Tara Chand and Phoola Devi was homicidal; (ii) motive for the commission of the murder; (iii) that the two appellants had been seen near the place of occurrence at about the time when the murders had been committed; (iv) recovery of incriminating articles at the instance of the appellants; and (v) false explanation with regard to the alibi claimed by them.

1.2 The trial court found that the death of Tara Chand and Phoola Devi was admittedly homicidal. It was further found that the motive for the incident was also proved in the light of the evidence of PW 10 Mukesh who stated that his father and uncle Juglal, though real brothers, had very strained relations over trivial matters and that their disputes had also gone to court and that just a few days before the incident an unpleasant scene had been created at the time of the fixing of the electricity connection in the house of Juglal and an exchange of heated words had followed inter se the parties. The trial court, accordingly, relying on the evidence of Mukesh and three other persons Hari Singh, Goverdhan and Dharam Pal who were involved with the parties held that the motive for the murder had also been proved on record. The trial court then went to the last seen aspect that the appellants had been seen near the place of incident. The trial court relied on the evidence of PW - 10 Mukesh, PW - 4 Ram Chand and PW - 14, Bharat Singh who stated that they had seen the appellants along with the acquitted accused near the place of incident and that they had been identified by them. Mukesh P.W. and Ram Chand further stated that they had identified Satpal in the torch light and that he was the one primarily responsible for the murders. The trial court also found that the fourth circumstance with regard to the recoveries had been proved as the blood found on the recovered articles and the murdered weapons matched the blood group of the deceased Phoola Devi and Tara Chand. It was also found that the alibi tendered by the appellants could not be accepted and as a false explanation had been tendered this again was a circumstance against them.

1.3 The matter was thereafter taken in appeal. The High Court has affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Two appeals have been filed against the judgment of the High Court, one by Surendra being Criminal Appeal No. 641 of 2007 and the other by Satpal being SLP(Crl) No. 7324 of 2010. We grant leave in the above Special Leave Petition.

2. We have heard the learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants in both the appeals. We find that the death of the deceased was undoubtedly homicidal and the evidence of motive has also been proved on record. We have, however, serious doubt with regard to the last seen evidence and the recoveries of the incriminating articles at the instance of the appellants. In the background that the complainant party and the accused were very closely related the question o