Point of Law:
Very high standard of proof required in criminal cases minimises the risk of a wrongful conviction. It means that someone whom, on the evidence, the fact-finder believes is “probably” guilty or “likely” to be guilty will be acquitted, since these judgments of probability necessarily admit that the fact-finder is not “sure.” It is generally accepted that some at least of these acquittals will be of persons who are in fact guilty of the offences charged, and who would be convicted if the standard of proof were the lower civil standard of the balance of probabilities. Such acquittals are the price paid for the safeguard provided by the “beyond reasonable doubt” standard against wrongful conviction.

JUDGMENT :

VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAV, J.

1. Since the Sessions Trial based on circumstantial evidences only, was culminated into conviction of the sole accused for the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and accordingly death sentence is awarded to him, therefore this Capital Sentence No. 1 of 2017 is before us for confirmation of the sentence. The reference is admitted vide order of a Division bench of this Court dated 02.03.2017. Simultaneously a Jail Appeal on behalf of the convict detained in District Jail Faizabad sent by Jail Superintendent, is also pending before this Court Bearing No. 358 of 2017.

2. The Court of third Additional Sessions Judge, Ambedkar Nagar tried the Sessions Trial No. 213 of 2013 under Section 302 IPC, arisen from the case Crime No. 61 of 2013, registered in Police Station, Kotwali Tanda, District Ambedkar Nagar, against the sole accused Ram Gopal Saini arraigning him for the murder of his mother, wife and a son of tender age approximately 4 years. The trial ended with the conviction and sentence of Death punishment under Section 302 IPC vide judgment and order dated 15.02.2017.

3. Sri. Nagendra Mohan, Advocate has put his appearance for and on behalf of the accused appellant. Learned Government Advocate, Sri. Vimal Prakash assisted by Sri. Pankaj Kumar Tewari, A.G.A. represents the 'State' to contest the appeal and defend the reference case of confirmation of Death sentence awarded to the accused appellant. The Session Judge of Ambedkar Nagar District Judgeship has already sent with reference the entire record of trial Court under Section 366 of CH. XXVIII of Criminal Procedure Code 1973 for perusal. Since both, the criminal appeal and the capital sentence reference would have common questions of law and fact to be decided, therefore we think it necessary to hear and decide them simultaneously through a common judgment.

(1) Facts of the case:

4. Before we proceed further with the pleas for and against the impugned judgment and sentence of capital punishment or the Death Penalty, it would be relevant to have a brief introduction of the facts involved in the case. The facts as emerged out from perusal of the materials and evidences on record are that one ‘Sunil Mali’ son of the sister of the accused appellant approached the Police Station at 06:45 A.M. on 19.04.2013 to inform that his maternal grand mother Kama Devi (mother of appellant), sister in law Kanchan (wife of appellant) and their son Dhairya are lying dead on the floor in the house of the appellant situated at Mohalla Hayatganj, P.S. Kotwali Tanda, District Ambedkar Nagar, in the absence of appellant as he went to attend a feast on the occasion of house warming (Grih Pravesh) of his sister's house in Delhi. On this information Police of Tanda Kotwali Police Station reached at the place of incident at 07:30 A.M. instantly started inquest proceeding in the presence of Tehsildar and made necessary inquiries and seizure of materials from the spot. The inquest witnesses reported to had not given any opinion as to cause of death as there was no obvious and external mark of injury on the dead bodies. However, the dead bodies were lying on the different places of the house on floor with vomits etc. In the presence of relatives, neighbours and police officers on duty the inquest of all the three dead bodies was completed by 09:45 A.M. and body was sent for postmortem. In postmortem house ‘viscera’ of the dead bodies was extracted and sent to Forensic Science Lab for examination. The report of FSL was received on 23.11.2013 disclosing the use of a pesticide named Aluminum Phosphate (ALP) in the incident. It is notable here that the proceeding of inquiry on spot and that of the inquest and thereafter the postmortem of the dead bodies all were done without lodging first information report (FIR) though Sunil Mali had informed the incid