Per Rajani Dubey J.

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.08.2019 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Fast Track Court, District Mahasamund (C.G.) in Session Case No.20/2017, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of IPC (two times) and sentenced to undergo life improvement with default stipulations.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant Meera Devi Gupta lodged a report before the Police Station Mahasamund alleging that on 12.11.2016, she had gone to her duty by leaving her daughter-in-law, grandson and the appellant in the house. At about 2:30 pm, the appellant called her and informed that he has come to Raipur along with wife and child and has forgotten to leave key, as such she should also come to Raipur, then she came to Raipur in her daughter’s home and tried to call the appellant, but he could not be contacted. When she returned to Mahasamund then saw that door is locked, upon which she went to her duty and when she returned back in the night, the lock was also closed, then with the help of her landlord, she broke the lock and went inside, where she saw the dead body of her daughter-in-law Anju Gupta and grandson Prateek Raj having blood stained and the accused was not there. Upon the report of the complainant, FIR was registered. After investigation police registered case against the accused and he was arrested and charge sheet was filed before the Magistrate concerned. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and material available on record, learned trial court convicted the accused/appellant, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and material available on record. There are material omissions and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. According to Ex-P/6, a letter was seized from the crime scene in which the accused mentioning financial difficulties holding himself responsible for committing murder of the deceased Anju Gupta and Prateek Gutpa. The screwdriver and pencil cutter used in the incident have not been seized from the accused. He further submits that Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

Reliance has been placed on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Raja Naykar vs State of Chhattisgarh , reported in (2024) 3 SCC 481 , Nandu Singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh), reported in 2022 Livelaw (SC) 229, SK Yusuf vs State of West Bengal reported in (2011) 4 SCC 331 , Satye Singh and another vs State of Uttarakhand , reported in (2022) 5 SCC 438 and Darshan Singh vs State of Punjab , reported in (2024) 3 SCC

164

4. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned Trial Court has minutely appreciated the evidence available on record and has rightly convicted the appellant. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

6. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges under Sections 302 & 302 of IPC (two times) against the appellant and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 of IPC (two times), as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment.

7. The first question for consideration is that whether the death of the deceased Anju Gupta and Prateek Raj Gupta was homicidal in nature or not?

8. S. S. Thakur (PW-14) stated that upo