By Court The sole appellant namely Arun Mahatha has been convicted for committing offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code by holding him guilty for committing the murder of his three minor children and thereby he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro at Chas by the impugned judgment dated 16th January 2001 in Sessions Trial No. 122 of 1997.

2. The appellant was charged for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing the murder of his two minor sons namely Sudarshan Mahtha and Jaidev Mahtha and a minor daughter Meena Kumari while they were sleeping by strangulating them to death in the night of 8/9-10-1996.

3. In his fardbeyan, Chandrashekhar Mahtha (P.W.2 ) alleged that he as well as two other brothers were living separately but in a common courtyard. About a month ago the wife of Arun Mahatha expired and hence in order to attend the funeral and shradh ceremony, the married daughter of Arun Mahatha namely Rekha Devi had come to her parents’ house on 8.10.1996 when the informant went to bed after taking his dinner. Similarly Arun Mahatha and his children also went to bed after taking their dinner. At about 2:45 A:M in the night Rekha Devi (P.W.3) woke up the informant from sleep and stated that her younger brothers namely Sudarshan and Jaidev as well as her younger sister namely Meena were not responding to her call and their bodies appeared to be cold. The informant went to the house of his brother and found that three children were lying dead and there were marks of throttling injuries on their necks. The elder brother namely Arun Mahatha (appellant) was not found in his house. In course of his search a letter was found in a room written in the handwriting of the appellant Arun Mahatha. The substance of the letter indicated that he had killed his three children. The said letter was handed over to the police by the informant.

4. The police took up the investigation and on completion thereof submitted charge sheet, on the basis of which cognisance was taken, thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where the charges were framed to which the appellant denied and then he was put on trial.

5. In order to establish the charge altogether ten witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution.

6. The appellant, who examined himself as DW-1, took specific defence that in the night of occurrence he was present in his house and deceased children were sleeping with him. At 1.20 A:M he woke up from sleep and then he saw a person going out of the court yard of his house and within ten second he saw two other person going out of the court yard. So, he raised hulla of ‘Chor –Chor’ and ran towards them. When he reached at the distance of ten steps away from his house near the school, one of the miscreants turned back and assaulted him with some substance on his head due to which he fell down. The unknown persons further assaulted him causing injuries on his hands, legs and face and he also suffered dislocation of his teeth by the said assault on hikm. The assailants thereafter took him and tied him up with his lungi, which he was wearing, to a tower and left him there. In the next morning the police came to the tower and rescued him and took him to the police station. He narrated the occurrence to the police officer but the police did not record his statement rather the police assaulted him at the police station and, thereafter, forwarded him to the court. He even tried to give his statement to the Magistrate when he was produced, but he was prevented by the police. He denied having killed his daughter and stated that his brothers were inimical to him.

7. The learned trial court on the basis of oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution convicted and sentenced the appellant as already indicated herein above.

8. Admittedly there is no eyewitness to the occurrence and the whole case is based on circums