IMPORTANT POINT
A concurrent finding of fact cannot be reopened in an appeal by special leave unless it is shown by error apparent on that record that substantial and grave injustice has been done.

JUDGMENT

S. Ratoanl Pandiao, J. - This appeal under special leave is directed against the judgment passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur disposing Criminal Reference No. 1 of 1977 submitted by the learned Sessions Judge, Raipur under Section 366 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code for confirmation of the sentence of death awarded by him in Session Trial No. 5 of 1977 and the Criminal Appeal No. 307 of 1977 preferred by the appellant, Ashok Kumar Chatterjee challenging the correctness and legality of the judgment made by the Trial Court convicting him under Sections 302 and 201. IPC and sentencing to death and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years respectively.

2. The facts of the case briefly stated are as follows:

The deceased Ravindra, who was 19 years of age at the time of occurrence in 1976 was the son of Pritosh Kumar Chatterjee who was employed in Bhatapara as Laboratory Assistant in Government Multi-Purpose Higher Secondary School. He hailed from West Bengal. The appellant, aged about 22 years, is a cousin of Pritosh.

Pritosh was living with his wife (PW-2), his only daughter, aged about 15 years namely Supriya @ Bina and the appellant in Bhatapara in the house of P.W. 11. The deceased who was a student in Raipur College had come to Bhatapara during the summer vacation.

Though the motive for the appellant to murder Ravindra, as put forth now by the prosecution, is that there was a quarrel between Ravindra and the appellant on some money matters the real motive seems to be a story of shameful intrigue as disclosed from the evidence of P.W. 2, the wife of Pritosh. According to P.W. 2 her husband Pritosh was a man of very bad and indecent character and he was living in a private hell of his own satisfying his lust with his own daughter, Supriya. In the cross-examination also PW-2 affirms that her husband had illicit relations with Supriya. On account of this abnormal sexual and obnoxious behaviour of Pritosh there used to be frequent quarrels between P.W. 2 and her husband. It further transpires from the evidence that the appellant who was none other than the cousin brother or Pritosh, was also making overtures to Supriya and this was resented by the deceased Ravindra who was in the prime of his youth.

During that summer vacation, PW-2 along with her daughter Supriya had been to her village Gangoria, leaving her husband, the appellant and the deceased at Bhatapara. Sometimes later, Pritosh also came to the village where PW-2 and her daughter Supriya were staying. After the arrival of Pritosh, PW-2 left the village taking her daughter with her to Bhadda by travelling in a bus. But even before she reached Bhadria she sent her daughter back to Gangoria from Barasal, probably a place in the mid-way between Gangoria and Bhadria. In Gangoria, PW-2's mother and brother were living.

Pritosh came to Bhadria from Bhatapara. By that time Supriya also came there, PW-2 took a strong objection to the conduct of her husband coming to Bhadria and had a quarrel with him. Then she sent Supriya back to Gangoria on the very next day of the arrival of her husband. Thereafter PW-2 and her husband went to the village Mongram where the appellant also joined with them. It may be stated that the appellant's parents and brothers were residing at Mongram. At Mongram. PW-2 made enquiries with the appellant about her son Ravindra to which the appellant replied that Ravindra had gone to Bombay in search of some employment. Leaving the appellant and Pritosh at Mongram PW-2 went Gangoria. After some days P.W. 2 with her mother came to Bhatapara and asked her husband and the appellant about her son Ravindra to which both of them replied that Ravindra had gone in search of a job somewhere. PW-2 asked them to make a search of her son and if they railed to do so, she would herself make a search by handing over a photo of her son to the Police.

3. Be that as it may, it appears from the evidence that the deceased was last seen with the