JUDGMENT :

Devendra Kachhawaha, J.

1. Both these criminal appeals have been filed on behalf of the accused-appellant Dayaram for assailing the Judgment dated 08.07.2015 and are thus being decided together by a common Judgment.

2. Initially, Criminal Appeal No. 172/2018 was forwarded by the accused-appellant from the Central Jail, Udaipur and was barred by 1071 days.

3. Vide order dated 29.09.2018, this Court appointed Mr. Anil Upadhyay, Advocate as Amicus Curiae to plead the appeal on behalf of the accused-appellant and assist the Court. Thereafter, vide order dated 13.11.2018, the delay of 1071 days condoned and the appeal was admitted for hearing and the record was called for. Vide order dated 19.02.2020, the application for Suspension of Sentences filed on behalf of the accused-appellant was rejected.

4. Another time barred appeal being, Criminal Appeal No. 230/2019 has been filed on behalf of the appellant by the learned counsel Mr. Pankaj Kumar Gupta under the provisions of Section 174(2) [Sic. 374(2)] Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment of conviction dated 08.07.2015 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Cases, Pratapgarh in Sessions Case No. 70/2013, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced as under:-

5. Vide order dated 18.11.2019, this Court has condoned the delay of 1440 days in filing the Criminal Appeal No. 230/2019 and the learned counsel Mr. Gupta appearing for the accused-appellant, was granted four weeks' time to remove the defects. Record was also summoned from the trial court. Thereafter, vide order dated 07.02.2020, this appeal was also admitted for hearing.

6. As per the office report dated 08.04.2020, record of trial court was received and tagged with the present appeals.

7. Brief facts of the case leading to these appeals are that, on 12.05.2012, Bheru Lal Kharol (PW-1), brother-in-law of the accused-appellant, lodged a written report (Ex. P/1) at Police Station Hathuniya, District Pratapgarh alleging that Rahul PW-3, the son of the accused-appellant came to his house and told that his father, Dayaram had murdered his grandmother, Smt. Gulab Bai. It was also mentioned in the report that the accused-appellant Dayaram had quarreled with Smt. Gulab Bai with regard to a property dispute.

8. On this report, Police registered a First Information Report (FIR) No. 56/2012 (Ex. P/10) against the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The accused-appellant was arrested on 13.05.2012 at about 1.15 p.m. vide arrest memo (Ex. P/12)

9. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed against the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC. As the offence was triable by Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh from where, it was transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge, Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Pratapgarh for trial, where charge was framed against the accused-appellant Dayaram under Section 302 IPC and the same was narrated & explained to the accused-appellant who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

10. The prosecution examined of 14 witnesses namely, Bheru Lal Kharol (PW-1), Jagdish (PW-2), Rahul (PW-3), Smt. Jasoda (PW-4), Badrilal Kumawat (PW-5), Tejsingh (PW-6), Madanlal (PW-7), Babulal (PW-8), Bagdiram (PW-9), Guddibai (PW-10), Kaniram (PW-11), Dr. O.P. Dayama (PW-12), Bhanwarsingh (PW-13) and Kamlashanker (PW-14).

11. In support of its case, the prosecution has exhibited 22 documents which are described as follows: Written Report (Ex. P/1), Memo of Panchayatnama of dead body (Ex. P/2), Memo of supurdgi of dead body (Ex. P/3), Memo of Site (Ex. P/4), Memo of recovery of rope (Ex. P/5), Police Statement of Badrilal (Ex. P/6),