The court affirmed that when a murder occurs in the defendant's premises, the burden of proof shifts to them to explain the circumstances, which in this case confirmed guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Conviction for murder - Appellant convicted for the murder of two minor children found dead in his rented room; sentenced to life imprisonment and fine - Evidence establishes homicide with asphyxia and ligature strangulation as cause of death; admissions regarding motive and threats further corroborated by witness testimonies. (Paras 1-9)

(B) Burden of proof - When bodies are found in the accused's premises, the burden shifts to the accused to explain their presence. (Para 6 (iv))

(C) Witness credibility - Minor discrepancies in testimonies do not undermine the consistency of the core events described. (Para 6 (iii))

(D) Last seen evidence - Consistent witness testimonies establish the appellant's last known interactions with the victims. (Para 6 (vii))

Table of Content
1. defendant's claim of false implication due to rent dispute. (Para 3)
2. prosecution relies on forensic evidence linking appellant to the crime. (Para 4)
3. evidence establishes the appellant's guilt in homicide. (Para 5 , 6)
4. verdict confirms conviction and dismissal of appeal. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)

JUDGMENT

Anish Dayal, J. This appeal has been filed by the appellant assailing the judgment and order dated 29th May, 2018 convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and order on sentence dated 02nd June, 2018 sentencing the appellant for life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- (simple imprisonment for six months in default of payment of fine) for the offence under Section 302 IPC.

The Incident:

2. On 29th August, 2011 dead bodies of two minor children were found on the second floor of the House No.H-1/393, H-1 Block, Jahangirpuri, Delhi where the appellant was staying as a tenant of the father of PW-1, the complainant. On the basis of DD No.23A, SI Brij Bhushan (PW-20) and Constable Satbir (PW-6) reached the place of incident and discovered that the two children had already been taken to BJRM Hospital by their father where they were declared as brought dead. Pursuant thereto, PW-1 Smt. Phool Kumari, mother of the two children recorded her statement that when she returned home that day at around noon and not being able to find her children, pursuant to a frenetic search, she went upstairs and found the appellant tenant leaving after locking his room. A bit later at around 2:00 p.m. PW-18, daughter Anjali, peeped into the room of the appellant and noticed the feet of the children beneath the cot. PW-5, the husband of PW-1, broke the lock and discovered the bodies of the two children with marks on their neck. On the basis of the statement and the MLC, FIR No.265/2011 was registered at PS Jahangirpuri. Pursuant to an investigation and Section 82 Cr.P.C. notice against the absconding appellant, he was arrested from Bihar on 19th November, 2011 and after taking transit remand, brought to Delhi. On conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed and charges under Section 302 IPC were framed against the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined 21 witnesses, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and no evidence was led in defence by the appellant.

Submissions by the Appellant:

3. In support of the appeal, the counsel for the appellant contended that there were various contradictions in the statements given by PW-5 (Raja Ram) and PW-18 (Anjali). As per the case of the prosecution, the lock of the appellant's room was opened after breaking it with the help of a grinding stone "silbatta" but it was not seized by the police officials. It was also contended that even though the broken lock was seized from the spot on 29th August, 2011, it was not shown in the "naksha mokka" whereas later, it was shown in the scaled site plan. Moreover, no chance prints were taken from the spot and no call location charts, showing the presence of the appellant at that time in that place, were exhibited. The appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. clearly stated that he was innocent and he was being falsely implicated by PW-1, PW-5 and PW-18 over a dispute on rent and that he was apprehended and arrested and kept in wrongful confinement at his native village in Bihar by the police. Counsel for the appellant further contended that the house where the incident had taken place was a densely populated area and no witness was presented by the prosecution who saw the incident or the breaking of the lock of the door by the father of the deceased. Even the allegation of motive that the father of the deceased had refused to give Rs.500/- to the appellant on his asking would not be credible since the owner of the house in which the appellant was living on rent was father of PW-1.

Submissions by the Prosecution:

4. The le