The conviction under Section 302 IPC was upheld as the prosecution established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt through circumstantial evidence and witness testimonies, including the appellant's own admission.

JUDGMENT :

Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.

We have heard Mr. Jitendra Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant and Learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The instant criminal appeal is preferred by above named sole appellant challenging his conviction and sentence dated 20.05.2017 and 22.05.2017, respectively, for the offence of murder of his own wife and brother-in-law passed by the Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVIII, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C.

Factual Matrix:-

3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 17/18.07.2013, in the night, informant namely Pankaj Kumar (P.W.-2) at about 12:30 am heard Halla of his mother namely Sulochana Devi (P.W.-1) and rushed towards her room. Meanwhile, he saw that own brother of the informant namely Om Prakash Prasad (present appellant) having blood-stained hammer in his hand was fleeing away from the room. The informant further saw that his sister-in-law Aarti Devi (wife of the appellant) and Shanker Sao (brother-in-law of the appellant) were lying under pool of blood sustaining severe injuries on head and other part of the body. The informant along with other family members and villagers brought the injured persons to R.I.M.S., Ranchi for treatment where Aarti Devi was declared dead by the Doctor and her brother Shanker Saw also died during course of treatment. It is alleged by the informant that there was certain dispute and differences between the deceased (wife) and the appellant (husband). Due to that reason, the appellant has committed murder of his wife and wife’s brother.

4. On the basis of above information, F.I.R. was registered for the offence under Section 307 /302 of the IPC .

5. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the sole accused, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where S.T. No. 127 of 2014 was registered. The accused faced trial and has been held guilty and sentenced as stated above.

Submissions on behalf of appellant:-

6. Learned counsel for the appellant assailing the impugned judgment has submitted that appellant has been falsely implicated in this case only on the basis of suspicion out of grudge and ill-will. It is further submitted that altogether five witnesses were examined by the prosecution to substantiate the charge of murder against the appellant. Out of them, P.W.-1, Sulochana Devi happens to be mother of the appellant has categorically stated in her cross- examination that she had not seen the accused while assaulting the deceased persons. P.W.-2 Pankaj Kumar (informant), own brother of the appellant has also stated that he saw the appellant was fleeing away with blood-stained hammer in hand and has not seen the occurrence himself. P.W.-3 Rameshwar Sahu is the father of the appellant who has categorically admitted in his cross-examination that at the time of occurrence, the accused (appellant) was not of sound mind, due to that reason, the occurrence took place. P.W.-4, Ramdhari Singh is the Investigating Officer and not an eye witness of the occurrence. Similarly, P.W.-5, Dr. Ajit Kumar Choudhary has conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased persons who also admits that the age of the injured is not ascertainable. It is further contended that there is no direct allegation against the appellant that he has caused murder of the deceased persons. He was also not apprehended by any of the villagers at the time of occurrence. What type of inimical terms, the appellant