Hon’ble Vinod Prasad, J.—Appellant Dharmendra was tried, convicted and sentenced by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Ghaziabad by it’s impugned judgment and order dated 25.1.2006 passed in S.T. No. 318 of 2004, connected with S.T.163 of 2004,both appellated as State v. Dharmendra, for offences under Sections 302 I.P.C. and 25 Arms Act relating to Crime Nos. 221 of 2003, P.S. Simbhawali (subsequently,Crime No. 318 of 2004, P.S. Babugarh) and Crime No. 222 of 2003 respectively. For the charge of murder life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default thereof to under go six months further imprisonment is the implanted sentence whereas for offence under the Arm’s Act, sentence is one year R.I. with fine of Rs. 1000/-, the default sentence being fifteen days additional imprisonment. Called in questioned in this appeal is the legality and sustainability of aforesaid convictions and sentences by the sole appellant.

2. Genesis of the incident was embedded in a written report, Ext. Ka 22, alleged to have been scribed and lodged by the appellant on 18.11.2003 at 8.30 p.m., according to which, textually, appellant is a resident of Bagh Rana Loni, Moradabad and had an infatuated love affair with one Pooja Pandit, a student of class tenth, resident of behind Naurang Talkies, Ghaziabad. Geeta, appellant’s wife and his one year old infant daughter Rakhi @ Kokal were an impediment in his cupid relationship and hankered nuptial knot with Pooja. To do away with the obstacles, the appellant, in orchestration of his chalked out murderous plan started from his house at 1.30 p.m. on 18.11.2003 in a Maruti Car DL 2 CJ 6302of his uncle for his in-laws house alongwith his wife and daughter and then at 6 p.m, after crossing Kuchaser Chaupala, near Nagar Farm House parked it at a lonely place and then fired at Geeta from his country made pistol but she, however, survived the pistol shot and consequently appellant throttled her and Rakhi @ Kokal to death. Pushing their corpses in the car appellant drove to village Shikhera where he parked it on the pavement. To save the skin from wrath of law appellant shot at his buttock to fabricate a mendacious defence theory, threw the country made pistol in nearby field and then shriekingly rushed to nearby Balaji hotel where he narrated his hokum to the disbelief of persons present there. Thereafter appellant developed remorseful penancial psyche and divulged the real incident, whereupon he was advised to contact the police by the persons present at the spot. Outcome of such an advise was scribbling of text of Ext. ka 22 by the appellant himself, who then came to the police station Simbhawali, at a distance of 5 kms, and lodged it there because he had committed a sinful crime.

3. Clerk Constable Nityanand Sharma, PW 8, registered alleged appellant’s FIR at 8.30 p.m., as crime number 221 of 03, under Section 302 IPC, prepared Chik FIR and GD entry, Ext. Ka-23 and Ext. ka 24, in the presence of S.O. Simbhawali L.R. Verma,PW 10, who immediately commenced the investigation, copied the FIR and G.D., recorded 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Constable Nityanand Sharma and then came to the murder spot , where parental relatives of the deceased Geeta and many villagers were already present. PW 10 dispatched Rakhi @ Kokal for medical treatment to Madhu Nursing Home, Hapur through S.I. R.K. Motala, where she was declared dead. Arranging lights, I.O. got the inquest on the dead body of Geeta conducted through S.I. Ram Swaroop,PW6, who has proved the inquest Memo Ext. Ka 2 and other relevant papers prepared at that time Ext. ka 13 to Ext. ka 16.Inquest memo was also signed by her father Mangu Singh (PW1). Same witness PW 6 had also conducted inquest on the corpse of Rakhi @ Kokal in Madhu Nursing Home and had proved her inquest memo Ext. ka 3 and other relevant papers Ext. Ka 9 to Ext. Ka 12. I.O. had seized ornaments, which were kept in a bag and those which were worn by the deceased Geeta alongwi