The conviction for murder was upheld due to sufficient evidence including consistent witness testimonies and a clear motive, despite the appellant's claims of innocence.

JUDGMENT

Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.

Heard Sri Chandra Shekhar Pandey, learned Amicus for the appellant, Sri Rajdeep Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the entire record.

2. Under challenge in this jail appeal is the impugned judgment and order dated 11.01.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sitapur in Sessions Trial No.806 of 2010 titled as State v. Chandra Pal and another arising out of Case Crime No.72 of 2010, under Sections 302 /34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (1), Police Station Sandana, District Sitapur whereby the appellant, Chandra Pal has been convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.20,000/- for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, he has further been directed to undergo three years' additional imprisonment.

[1 hereinafter referred to as "I.P.C."]

3. The case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that the first informant, Ramdayal and his daughter Ram Devi aged about 35 years were living in house of their in-law's which is situated in village Dhanvarpara district Sitapur. On 14-03-2010 at about 6:00 P.M, the first informant received an information that her daughter died in her in-law's house. Upon getting this information, the first informant went to her daughter's house where he found that her daughter's dead-body was lying on the ground under a thatch. When the first informant inspected the place of occurrence, he found that her daughter had been brutally beaten to death and hanged, but, it was shown by her in-laws as an incident of suicide. According to the first informant, her daughter was beaten to death and hanged by the appellant, her husband, Chandrapal and her brother-in-law, Jagdish.

4. The inquest proceeding started on 14.03.2010 at 11:00 P.M. and got concluded on 15.03.2010 at 9:30 P.M. The inquest report has been duly proved by P.W.-9, Inspector, Swabhav Varma as Ext. Ka.2.

5. On the basis of aforesaid written report, Ex. Ka-1 submitted by the first informant, Ram Dayal, the first information report, Ext. Ka-15 came to be lodged against the appellant and one other co-accused, Jagdish under Section 302 I.P.C.

6. According to the Post-Mortem report of the deceased, Ex. Ka-6 which has been proved by P.W.-5, Dr. A.K Aarya, the cause of death of the deceased is reported to be asphyxia as a result of strangulation.

7. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He visited the place of occurrence and prepared a site plan thereof Ext. Ka-9.

8. Upon conclusion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge sheet, Ext. Ka- 7 against the present accused/ appellant, Chandra Pal and one other co-accused, Jagdish.

9. Charge for the offence under Section 302 /34 I.P.C. was framed against the present accused/ appellant and one other co-accused, Jagdish, who denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

10. In order to bring home guilt of the appellant, the prosecution has examined Ram Dayal, complainant as PW-1, Pankaj as PW-2, Jai Ram as PW-3, Head Moharrir, Ramesh Kumar Sonkar as PW-4, Dr. A. K. Aarya as PW-5, Shyam Lal as P.W.-6, Investigating Officer, Jitendra Mohan Saroj as PW-7, Satish Kumar, first Investigating Officer as PW-8 and Inspector, Swabhav Varma as PW-9.

11. The appellant, in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., has stated the prosecution story to be false. He has also stated to have been falsely implicated in this case and he claimed to be innocent.

12. No evidence in defence was adduced by the accused/ appellant before the learned trial court.

13. The learned trial court, after appreciating the evidence available on reco