The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of clear evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases of criminal conspiracy.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, J.

1. Since both the above criminal appeals have arisen out of one and same judgment dated 19-2-2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Baikunthpur in Sessions Trial No. 70/2014 and since common question of fact and law is involved in both the appeals, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. These two criminal appeals have been preferred by the accused/appellants under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. against the impugned judgment convicting them for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120B of the IPC and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years on both counts.

3. Appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 920/2015 namely, Mahendra Rajwade (A-1) and appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 340/2015 namely, Dhansai @ Giri (A-2) have assailed their conviction for offences under Sections 302 and 120B of the IPC by way of these appeals.

4. The two appellants were charged by the trial Court for offences under Sections 302, 201, 506 Part-II and 120B read with Section 34 of the IPC and by the impugned judgment, they have been convicted only for offences under Sections 302 and 120B of the IPC and for rest of the offences including that of Sections 201 and 506 Part-II read with Section 34 of the IPC, they have been acquitted.

5. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 27-3-2014 at about late night (11.30 p.m.) Mahendra Rajwade (A-1) and Dhansai @ Giri (A-2) strangulated the wife of Mahendra Rajwade (A-1) namely, Namita Rajwade with help of a nylon rope which was witnessed by his daughter Kum. Sneha Rajwade (PW-1), thereafter, she has informed the same to her maternal grand-father and maternal grandmother and also to her aunt (mausi) and thereafter, the wheels of investigation started running. It is the further case of the prosecution that on 27-3-2014, appellant Mahendra Rajwade along with his wife after taking dinner had gone for sleep and in the late night, Kum. Sneha Rajwade (PW-1) heard the cry of her mother Namita Rajwade, then she went inside the room of her mother as the door was open on which she saw that with help of a nylon rope, the two appellants (A-1 and A-2) were stretching the rope tightened on the neck of her mother Namita Rajwade, whereupon she requested them from not doing the illegal act against which her father threatened her and asked her to go outside, thereafter, she went outside of her mother’s room. In the morning, she saw that her mother's dead body was found hanging in the first floor then she informed the incident to her maternal grand-father and maternal grand-mother and also to her aunt (mausi). Kum. Sneha Rajwade (PW-1) got registered the first information report vide Ex.P-1. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-2 and thereafter, inquest was conducted vide Ex.P-4 and the dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination. Postmortem was conducted vide Ex.P-10 by Dr. Yogendra Chauhan (PW-6) and cause of death was reported to be asphyxia due to strangulation and nature of death was homicidal. Memorandum statement of accused Mahendra Rajwade was recorded vide Ex.P-14 pursuant to which broken bangles and ear tops of the deceased were recovered from his possession vide Ex.P-15 and same was proved by Hitesh Kumar Rajwade (PW-8). Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. Thereafter, after usual investigation, the appellants were charge-sheeted for offences under Sections 302, 201, 506 Part-II and 120B read with Section 34 of the IPC.

6. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses and brought on record 27 documents Exs.P-1 to P-27. The defence has examined none, but exhibited one document Ex.D-1 i.e. the statement of Kum. Sneha Rajwade (PW-1) recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.

7. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence, con