Anil Kumar, J.—

1. The appellants have challenged their conviction in Sessions Case No.466 of 2006, titled as State v. Vinay Kumar & Anr., arising from the FIR No.528 of 2002, under Sections 302/449/376/411/ Indian Penal Code, PS Rohini convicting the appellant Vinay Kumar under Sections 120-B, 449/120-B, 376, 302/120-B of the Indian Penal Code and appellant Munish Kumar under sections 120-B, 449/120-B and 302/120-B of the IPC by judgment dated 7th September, 2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. The appellant Vinay Kumar was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for two months for offence under Section 120-B IPC; rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs.2000/- and in default rigorous imprisonment for two more months for offence under Section 449/120-B of IPC and imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.2000/- and in default further rigorous imprisonment of two months for offence under Section 376 IPC and imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.2000/- and in default rigorous imprisonment for two months for offence under Section 302/120-B of IPC. Appellant Munish Kumar was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs.2000/- and in default rigorous imprisonment for two more months for offence under Section 120-B IPC; rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs.2000/- and in default rigorous imprisonment for two more months for offence under Section 449/120-B IPC and imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.2000/- and in default rigorous imprisonment for two months for offence under Section 302-120-B of IPC. The Sessions Court also ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently and the period of detention during investigation and trial be set off as provided under Section 428 of Criminal Procedure Code.

2. Both the accused have preferred separate appeals against the judgment of the learned Trial Court, however since the facts as well as the evidence in both the matters is the same and interconnected, the appeals are disposed of by a common judgment.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 19th August, 2002 Neelam Kler w/o Late Sohan Lal, who was employed in the State Bank of Patiala, Karala Branch had come back to her house, H. No. 19, Pocket no. F-24, Sector 3, Rohini, after work at about 5:15 p.m. and she had found her home to be in complete disarray. Her two children, the son named Bharat and the daughter named Sarika also resided with her in the same house. Seeing her house in shambles, she called out for her children, however they did not respond. When she went to the bedroom on the first floor she found the dead bodies of both her children lying on the double bed. Thereafter, Neelam Kler ran downstairs and approached the halwai and told him to call the police. She then came back to the house, cried a lot hysterically and ultimately became unconscious.

4. As per the prosecution, the police received information regarding a double murder at H. No. 19, Pocket no. F-24, Sector 3, Rohini vide DD No. 23. The information was sent through Ct. Kishan to SI Ombir Singh who along with Ct. Krishan and Ct. Suresh reached the spot. In the meantime the SHO and Addl. SHO Hira Lal, also reached the spot and found that on the first floor, the dead bodies of Bharat and Sarika were lying on the bed. The goods in the house were lying scattered and the almirah was lying open. A television set was also found lying on the top most stair of the first floor. Thereafter, a rukka was given to Ct Kishan and an FIR No. 528/02 u/s 449/302 IPC was registered. The crime team was called for and on investigation 9-10 iron rods of the iron jaal on the top portion of the courtyard were found to be cut and bent downwards.

5. During investigation the scene was photographed. Photographs are Ex PW16/1 to 13. Finger prints were lifted as Ex PW18/A. A dog squad was called and the site plan was prepared. T