The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. However, when the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the afore-narrated circumstances, the court has to presume the existence of certain facts. Presumption of fact is an inference as to the existence of one fact from the existence of some other facts, unless the truth of such inference is disproved.

Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.:-

Heard Sri V.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Akhilesh Singh, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State.

2. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 7.9.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 6, Budaun in Sessions Trial No. 118 of 2011 convicting and sentencing the appellant to death with fine of Rs.25,000/- under Section 302 IPC, 7 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.7,000/- under Section 201 IPC and one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 506 IPC. Reference No.7 of 2012 under Section 366 Cr.P.C. has also been sent by the trial Court for confirmation of death sentence.

3. The prosecution story in brief is that on 31.7.2010 at about 8.30 A.M. a written report was submitted by informant Umesh Babu Sharma in which he stated that his younger brother i.e. the appellant had committed murder of his parents and burnt their dead-bodies with cow-dung and some inflammatory liquid in front of the main gate of the house where his parents were living with the appellant accused. The incident occurred at the house of the appellant accused at village Simariya, Thana-Mushajhag, District Budaun. The informant stated that at about 2:30 A.M.in the intervening night of 30/31.7.2010 his younger brother Naresh Chandra Sharma, the appellant called him from the mobile phone no. 9411220363 and threatened him with dire consequences. The appellant told him that he had committed the murder of his parents and had burnt their dead-bodies. The appellant also threatened him that he and his brothers would also meet the same fate. Motive of commission of crime stated in the FIR is that the father of the informant had sold some land and the appellant wanted money from his father. To get money, he murdered his father aged about 70 years and mother aged about 68 years. It was further stated that as soon as he got the information, he came to village Simariya along with his relatives and saw the burnt bodies (in charred state) of his parents lying in front of the main door of the house. On the basis of the written report, a case crime no. 732 of 2010 was registered against the appellant accused under Section 302 /201/506 IPC.

4. The prosecution examined the constable clerk Agnideo Trivedi as PW-5 who proved the written report given by the informant in his own hand writing. He proved that he penned the FIR (Exhibit Ka-4) and entries made in G.D. (Exhibit Ka-5). In his examination-in-chief he proved the inquest of the dead body of Brahma Devi (Ka-6) and inquest of the dead body of Ram Chandra Sharma (Exhibit Ka-7) and stated that the inquest report is in the hand writing of the then Investigating Officer SI Satyaveer Singh. He was a witness of the recovery of bloodstained earth and plain earth and one mud (Khaki) colour plastic jerrycan of 20 liter capacity. He stated that both the recovery memos were prepared in the handwriting of SI Satyaveer and proved his handwriting and signatures on the inquests (Exhibits Ka-6 and Ka-7), recovery memo of blood stained earth and plain earth (Exhibit Ka-8) and recovery memo of plastic jerrycan(Exhibit Ka-9). He also proved photolash of Brahma Devi(Exhibit Ka-10), photolash of Ram Chandra Sharma (Exhibit Ka-11), Namuna Mohar Ram Chandra Sharma (Exhibit Ka-12), Namuna Mohar Brahma Devi (Exhibit Ka-13), challan lash Ram Chandra Sharma (Exhibit Ka-14), challan lash Brahma Devi (Exhibit Ka-15), Report RI Ram Chandra (Exhibit Ka-16), Report CMO Ram Chandra (Exhibit Ka-17), Report CMO Brahma Devi (Exhibit Ka-18), Report RI Brahma Devi (Exhibit Ka-19). He also proved the site plan (Exhibit Ka-20) prepared by SO Devendra Singh after the investigation was handed over to him and the recovery memo of the murder weapon 'Takula' in the handwriting of SO Devendra Singh as Exhibit Ka-21. He also proved that the two additional maps were prepared by SO Devendra Singh in his own handwriting and bore his signatures (Exhibit Ka-2