The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on circumstantial evidence to establish guilt, the burden on the accused to explain facts within his special knowledge, and the importance of a credible explanation to rebut the prosecution's case.

JUDGMENT :

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

Arjun Ravidas was seen in the evening of 15.01.2008 in the company of Kishori Sao, Ram Prasad Sao, Manoj Sao, Ajay Sao, Ranjit Sao and Kusum Devi in the house of Kishori Sao at village Ukharsal. Arjun Ravidas and Kalawati Devi were found dead next morning in the house of Kishori Sao. A blood-stained tangi, chhura (knife) and a plastic rope were found lying near the dead bodies. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Torri Ravidas which was recorded by B.Choudhary, officer in charge of Jamua police station, at about 10:30 AM on 16.01.2008 at village Ukharsal, Jamua PS Case No. 12 of 2008 was registered against the above-named persons for committing the offence under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The inquest reports were prepared and the dead bodies were sent for postmortem examination 16.01.2008. Dr. Kamleshwar Prasad who was posted at CAS, Sadar Hospital, Giridih conducted autopsy over the dead bodies of Arjun Ravidas and Kalawati Devi on the same day. He has observed antemortem injuries on their dead bodies and in his opinion death had occurred within 48 hours of postmortem examination. After the investigation a charge-sheet was laid against the accused and records of Ajay Sao and Ranjit Sao were separated as they were declared juvenile. A common charge under section 302 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code was framed on 27.08.2009 against Kishori Sao, Kusum Devi, Manoj Sao and Ram Prasad Sao. Subsequently, on 24.09.2012 a separate charge under section 498-A/149 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the accused.

2. In Sessions Trial No. 423 of 2008, the prosecution laid evidence through eighteen witnesses out of which PW2 Parmeshwar Ravidas is the brother-in-law, PW6 Torri Ravidas is the father, PW7 Dulari Devi is the wife and PW14 Gayatri Devi is the mother of Arjun Ravidas, and four witnesses – PW4 Arjun Sao is the uncle, PW5 Binod Kumar Sahu is the cousin, PW8 Santosh Kumar Sahu is the brother and PW10 Sakunwa Devi is the aunt of Kalawati Devi, who were examined by the prosecution to prove the charge of murder against the accused.

3. The learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-I, Giridih has held that the prosecution did not establish motive for the crime but lack of proof of motive did not weaken its case. Believing the testimony of the defence witnesses which was corroborated by the prosecution witnesses including PW10 Sakunwa Devi who was aunt of Kalawati Devi, the learned Trial Judge acquitted Kishori Sao, Kusum Devi and Manoj Sao on the ground that they were not residing with the appellant Ram Prasad Sao at village Ukharsal and there was no credible evidence that in the evening of 15.01.2008 they were present in the house at Ukharsal in the company of Arjun Ravidas. The prosecution witnesses admitted in the Court that Kishori Sao was a teacher in a Government School and his wife and sons, namely, Manoj Sao, Ajay Sao and Ranjit Sao were residing with him in a rented house at village Chotki Kharagrdiha for the last 6-7 years.

4. Ram Prasad Sao has been found guilty for committing murder of Arjun Ravidas and Kalawati Devi primarily for the reason that (i) Arjun Ravidas was seen alive last in his company, (ii) dead bodies of Arjun Ravidas and Kalawati were found inside the house occupied by him, and (iii) he has failed to offer any explanation how his wife died and two dead bodies were found in his house.

5. Mr. Anurag Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that an inference against the accused for committing murder cannot be drawn merely on the basis of the evidence that two dead bodies were found in his house. It is further submitted that the prosecution could not prove motive for the crime and almost on the same set of evidence three accused have been acquitted whereas the appellant has been convicted only on the basis of suspicion. The learned counsel for the appellant has referred to and relied on the judgments in “Navaneethakrishnan v.