Judgment :

Vikramajit Sen, J.

1. The endeavour in these Appeals is to set aside the impugned Judgment dated 22nd November, 2011 of the Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court which had concluded that the facts of the case have brought to light the commission of the rarest of rare offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code warranting the passing of the death sentence. The impugned Judgment also upholds the sentence in the context of the facts which we shall presently detail under Section 201 of the IPC. The Appeals attempt to dislodge concurrent findings of facts as well as of the sentence passed by both the Courts below.

2. The case of the prosecution is to be found in fardbeyan recorded by Sunil Munda on 14.12.2008. It narrates that the deceased Pushpa Devi along with her two children, Deepika Kumari then aged 8 years and Sudarshan Munda then aged 6 years were living at village Kutmu on the death of her husband late Dilip Kumar Munda, who died while in the service of the Indian Army. Pushpa and her children were initially living as tenants in the house of Sukru Oraon (PW4). It appears that Pushpa had entrusted the construction of a house on a plot in her ownership to Alber Oraon (the Convict); they developed intimacy in the course of construction of the house and the Convict started living with the deceased masquerading as her husband. The prosecution's case is that the Informant as well as his Aunt had been visiting Pushpa frequently, and on one such visit the Informant learnt from the neighbourhood that in the recent past only the Convict had been seen in the said house. When they visited the house of Pushpa no cogent information on the absence of the three deceased was forthcoming from the Convict, as he stated variously that Pushpa and her children had gone to her parents house and/or that she was visiting her maternal grandmother. Because of these evasive and inconsistent replies the Informant reported the matter to the police. In the course of investigation the highly decomposed bodies of a woman and two children were discovered and exhumed from the soak-pit next to the toilet of the home of Pushpa and this exercise had been conducted under the supervision of the Executive Magistrate. Further enquires from the neighbourhood have revealed that the Convict and Pushpa were not on cordial relations since the Convict wanted the land and house to be transferred by Pushpa to his name.

3. On the basis of this fardbeyan, the Convict was Chargesheeted under Section 302/34 and 201/34 of the IPC. Twelve witnesses were examined by the prosecution; it is alleged that the Convict had confessed his guilt and, thereafter, lead to the recovery of incriminating documents. Dr. Binay Kumar, the autopsy Surgeon (PW-12), has deposed that there were ante mortem injuries on each of the three dead bodies, which had been caused by a hard and blunt substance. The "hard and blunt substance" has not been found and it is not controverted that the entire case of the prosecution is predicated on circumstantial evidence.

4. So far as the defence of the Convict is concerned, the contention is that the chain of circumstantial evidence remains incomplete; that the prosecution has failed to collect evidence directly implicating the Convict; that Pushpa was not on cordial terms with her in-laws subsequent to the death of her husband, and that she had left her matrimonial home in those circumstances; that there was, therefore, a strong possibility that her in-laws had committed the heinous crimes in order to grab the property. It has also been emphasized that no witness has deposed that the Convict was seen concealing the dead bodies; and importantly the object/implement of the fatal assault has not been found.

5. The Sessions Judge has opined on the basis of the post mortem examination and the manner in which the dead bodies had been buried in the soak-pit that the death was homicidal. He has noted that the Convict was already in custody in connec