JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J.

1. The instant criminal appeal filed by the appellants herein under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. challenging therein judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) dated 05.12.2013 in Sessions Trial No. 13/2013, whereby each of the appellants has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

Conviction Sentence

Under Section 302 of the IPC Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for one year

Under Section 201 of the IPC Rigorous imprisonment for two years

It is also directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently

2. The brief facts of the present case are that appellant No.1 - Virendra Kumar Uke is husband of the deceased and appellant No.2 Sarswati Bai is second wife of appellant No.1. At the time of incident, appellant No. 1 was residing on first floor of the house, whereas, deceased - Radhika Bai, first wife of appellant No.1 was residing along with her children in the ground floor of the same house. Dead body of the deceased was found in a room on first floor. On 01.10.2012 at about 08:05 pm, PW-2 – Taman Lal Bansod informed the police regarding death of the deceased on account of burn injuries. Consequently, merg intimation (Ex.-P/1) was registered. The Investigation Officer, H.N. Singh Rajput (PW-14) reached to the spot. Inquest of dead body was conducted vide Ex.-P/2 on 02.10.2012. Dead body of the deceased was in half burnt condition and the tongue was protruded. The broken bangles and other articles were seized vide Ex.-P/9. The dead body was sent for postmortem. PW-3 Dr. Umesh Shrivastava and Dr. R.R. Dhurve conducted postmortem and their report is Ex.-P/4. As per postmortem report, the extent of the burn injuries was 60-70%. The viscera and trachea of the deceased were preserved. No opinion regarding nature of the death was given by the Doctors in the postmortem report. On 03.10.2012 F.I.R. (Ex.-P/14) was registered against unknown person. During investigation, the appellants were taken into custody. The police recorded memorandum statement of appellant No.2 Sarswati Bai vide Ex.-P/8 and seized some jewelry and other articles of the deceased on her instance vide Ex.-P/5. The police recorded memorandum statement (Ex.-P/6) of appellant No.1 Virendra Kumar Uke and on his instance kerosene container was recovered and seized vide Ex.-P/7. After completion of the investigation, the appellants were charge-sheeted for offence punishable under Section 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon which was committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and disposal in accordance with law.

3. The learned trial Court framed charge for offence punishable under Section 302 in alternative Section 302/34 and 201 of the IPC against each of the appellants. The appellants abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses and exhibited 30 documents. The defence exhibited documents i.e. D1 to D5. Statement of the accused/appellants was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC wherein they denied the guilt.

4. The trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record convicted the present appellants as mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, the appellants have preferred the instant appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by the trial Court.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the appellants are innocent person and they have falsely been implicated in this case. The conviction of the appellants is based upon circumstantial evidence and its chain is not complete. Presumption under Section 106 of the Evidence Act cannot be applied against the present appellants as many persons were residing in the house. He would further subm