Conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt; unreliable eyewitness testimony and contradictory statements warrant acquittal.

1. These criminal appeals have been preferred from the jail by the appellants / convicts Minni alias Meena and Balram against the judgment and order dated 19.06.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5 / Special Judge, Gangsters Act, Lucknow in Sessions Trial No.79 of 2010 arising out of Crime No.349 of 2009, under S.302/34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (in short IPC ), Police Station Mall, District Lucknow, whereby the convicts / appellants have been held guilty under S.302/34 of I.P.C. and sentenced for life imprisonment coupled with a fine of Rs.25,000/- each and in default of payment of fine further imprisonment of six months.

2. The facts in short, necessary for disposal of these appeals are as under: -
(i) A First Information Report (in short F.I.R.) was registered at Case Crime No.349 of 2009, at Police Station Mall, District Lucknow on the basis of written report presented by Siyapati. It was stated in the written report that on 17.10.2009 at about 7:00 p.m. he went to meet her father Lallu and mother Lalain in the village Badkhorwa. As soon as she entered through door she saw that her younger sister Minni and her husband Balram assaulted and killed her parents with a trowel (khurpi) and they ran away from the house as soon as they saw her. She raised alarm and some people of the village came there, and they also saw Minni and Balram running. Her younger sister Minni and her husband Balram killed her parents for money and property. The dead bodies were lying at the spot.
(ii) After investigation chargesheet was submitted in the Court against the appellants / convicts under S.302/34 of I.P.C. The concerned Magistrate after taking cognizance on the chargesheet committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial which was registered as Sessions Trial No.79 of 2010. The learned Sessions Judge transferred the case for trial to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5 / Special Judge, Gangsters Act, Lucknow. The Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow framed charge under S.302/34 of IPC . The appellants / convicts denied the crime and claimed to be tried.
(iii) The prosecution examined following witnesses to prove its case: -
(a) P.W. 1 Siyapati the complainant.
(b) P.W. 2 Pohkar husband of Siyapati the complainant.
(c) P.W. 3 Dr. P.K. Dwivedi, who conducted postmortem examination on the cadavers of both the deceased.
(d) P.W. 4, Sub Inspector Avadhu Prasad Azad who conducted the inquests of both the deceased on the direction of Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned.
(e) P.W. 5, Suraj Bhan Singh Head - Moharrir who registered FIR and prepared Chick FIR Exhibit Ka - 13 and Kayami Nakal Report Exhibit Ka - 14.
(f) P.W. 6, Sub Inspector Gauri Shankar Pal, Investigating Officer of the case.
(iv) Apart from above oral evidences following documentary evidences were also proved and exhibited as Exhibit Ka - 1 to Ka - 25: -
(1) Exhibit Ka - 1, written report.
(2) Exhibit Ka - 2, inquest report of deceased Lallu.
(3) Exhibit Ka - 3 inquest report of deceased Lalain.
(4) Exhibit Ka - 4 wrongly mentioned due to clerical error as written in the judgment.
(5) Exhibit Ka - 5 postmortem report of deceased Lallu.
(6) Exhibit Ka - 6 postmortem report of deceased Lalain.
(7) Exhibit Ka - 7 Chalan 'Nash' of deceased (Lallu).
(8) Exhibit Ka - 8 Photo 'Nash' of deceased Lallu.
(9) Exhibit Ka - 9 specimen seal related to deceased Lallu.
(10) Exhibit Ka - 10 Chalan 'Nash' of deceased (Lalain)
(11) Exhibit Ka - 11 Photo 'Nash' of deceased Lalain.
(12) Exhibit Ka - 12 specimen seal related to deceased Lalain.
(13) Exhibit Ka - 13 Chick FIR.
(14) Exhibit Ka - 14 Nakal report.
(15) Exhibit Ka - 15 Site Plan.
(16) Exhibit Ka - 16 recovery memo of c