The evidence, including eyewitness testimony, corroborating evidence, and forensic evidence, was sufficient to prove the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT

Munishwar Nath Bhandari, J. - This appeal has been filed against the order dated 24.9.2013, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Jhunjhunu, convicting the appellants for offence under sections 450, 302, 376(2)(g), 376(2)(d), 392, 397, 342, 316 and 323 IPC while acquitting them for the offence under section 307 IPC. They have been sentenced for each offence separately and, therein, life imprisonment has been inflicted for offence under sections 302, 376(2)(g) and 376(2)(d) IPC. For other offences, different punishments have been inflicted.

FACTS OF THE CASE -

2. On 11.6.2011, an FIR was lodged by complainant Pawan Kumar son of Devkaran stating that at around 4.00 PM two persons visited my in-laws house and caused murder of mother- in-law- Ramjeevani. The information about the incident was given to him by one Sandeep Kumar on telephone. He went to the spot and found mother-in-law in the pool of blood. His sister-in-law was tied in other room.

3. The police registered FIR for offence under section 302 IPC and initiated the investigation. After investigation, they found the appellants involved in the crime not only for offence under section 302/34 IPC but for offence under sections 376(2)(g), 450, 342, 307, 392 and 397 IPC hence charge sheet was filed. The court below then heard the matter for framing of charges and framed it for the offence under sections 450, 302, 376(2)(g), 392, 397, 307 and 342 IPC vide order dated 29.2.2012. The charge was then added vide order dated 3.4.2012 for offence under section 376(2)(d) and 316 IPC.

4. The prosecution produced 22 witnesses and 85 documents to prove the case. The statement of the accused appellants was recorded under section 313 CrPC. The trial court framed five issues for adjudication and finding proof of the charges for all the offences other than for offence under section 307 IPC, convicted and sentenced both the accused appellants.

ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANTS -

5. It is stated by learned counsel for accused appellants that appellants have been falsely implicated in the case. The aforesaid would come out from the statement of PW-l-Kumari Ravina. She admitted that names of the accused were disclosed to her by others. She was asked to name the accused and, accordingly, made the statement against them. It is stated to be nothing but planted story to prove prosecution case otherwise nobody had seen the accused causing the offence. On the aforesaid ground itself, appellants deserve to be acquitted of the offence.

6. Further reference of statement of PW-20-Prahlad Rai Jangid has been given. The said witness, in his cross examination, admitted his signatures on the documents as written by the police. He further admitted that the signatures were given by him on the papers as and when required. Learned trial court yet relied his statement to convict the appellants for the offence.

7. It is also stated that no motive or intention has come so as to consider it to be a case of culpable homicide amounting to murder. The knife, said to have been used in the crime, was not brought by the accused but it was available in the kitchen. The recovery of which is doubtful. In any case, appellants had no motive or intention to cause offence, rather, as per statement of PW-1-Kumari Ravina, they were entertained by the deceased by offering tea and PW-1 went to get cigarette for them.

8. The facts aforesaid are enough to show that no motive or intention could be brought by the prosecution to treat it to be case of offence under section 302 IPC.

9. It is further stated that no evidence could be led by the prosecution to prove the case under section 376(2)(g) and 376(2) (d) IPC. The offence has been held proved on probabilities thus conviction for offence under sections 376(2)(g) and 376(2)(d) IPC is also illegal. The prayer is thus to acquit the appellants with acceptance of the appeal.

ARGUMENTS OF THE SIDE OPPOSITE-

10. Learned PP has opposed the appeal. He submits that prosecution coul