1. These two criminal appeals have been filed by the accused-appellants Smt. Pushpa and Anandi Lal challenging judgment and order dated 15.09.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.) No. 1, Ajmer (for short "the trial court") whereby they have been convicted for offence under Sections 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default whereof to further undergo three months additional rigorous imprisonment and for offence under Section 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default whereof to further undergo one month's additional rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Brief facts of the case giving rise to these appeals are that on 17.03.2008, complainant Ghanshyam Singh alias Pappu (PW-3) submitted a written report (Exhibit P-7) at Police Station Ramganj, Ajmer alleging that he is residing in Deepdarshan Colony since last six years, one Om Prakash was residing in front of his house with his family, who used to do the work of mason. On 14.03.2008 at 7.30 a.m. he saw Om Prakash going to his work. Om Prakash is also known as Pappu Kana and Pappu Mistri. On the last night, children of nearby vicinity told him that Pappu Kana has been killed and buried in his house by his wife. When he enquired from Maya, daughter of Om Prakash, she told him that her mother had killed and buried her father in the morning of day before yesterday. On the basis of aforesaid report, FIR No. 32/2008 was registered for offences under Sections 302 and 201, IPC read with Section 34 IPC and investigation commenced. Upon completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet against Smt. Pushpa and Anandi Lal before the concerned court. The case was committed to the Court of Session, Ajmer wherefrom it was transferred to the Court of Additional Session Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Ajmer. The trial court framed charges against the accused-appellants for offences under Sections 302-302/34 and 201-201/34, IPC. The accused-appellants denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in support of its case produced as many as 17 witnesses and exhibited 29 documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused-appellants were recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. wherein the accused-appellants pleaded not guilty and that they have been falsely implicated in the case. However, the defence produced only two witnesses and did not produce any document. The trial court vide impugned judgment dated 15.09.2009 convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants in the manner as indicated hereinabove. Hence, this appeal.

2. Mr. Lakhan Singh Tomar, learned counsel for the appellant Smt. Pushpa argued that it was a blind murder case and the police failed to nab the real culprits and the accused-appellants have been falsely implicated in the case. When the police could not solve the blind murder, they implicated wife of the deceased and the contractor under whose control and supervision the deceased used to work as mason. Ghanshyam alias Pappu (PW-3) in the written report alleged that he lastly saw the deceased Om Prakash in the morning at around 7.30 on 14.03.2016 and thereafter, he was not seen. In the night of previous day, i.e. on 16.03.2008, children of the colony were heard talking that appellant Smt. Pushpa has buried the dead body of her husband Om Prakash after committing his murder in her house. When the informant enquired from Maya (PW-9) daughter of the appellant Smt. Pushpa, she confirmed the same. When investigating officer, Shakoor Mohammad (PW-16) was asked whether he tried to find out any other children to whom Maya (PW-9) told so, he could not give any explanation and admitted that apart from children of the deceased, nobody told him so. This makes version of Ghanshyam Singh alias Pappu (PW-3) doubtful.

3. Learned counsel argued that while written report (Exhibit P-7) was submitted at 4.30 p.m. on 17.03.2008, if the chalked FIR