Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. We have heard Mr. Jitendra Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant and Learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The instant criminal appeal is preferred by above named sole appellant challenging his conviction and sentence dated 20.05.2017 and 22.05.2017, respectively, for the offence of murder of his own wife and brother-in-law passed by the Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVIII, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C.

Factual Matrix:-

3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 17/18.07.2013, in the night, informant namely Pankaj Kumar (P.W.-2) at about 12:30 am heard Halla of his mother namely Sulochana Devi (P.W.-1) and rushed towards her room. Meanwhile, he saw that own brother of the informant namely Om Prakash Prasad (present appellant) having blood-stained hammer in his hand was fleeing away from the room. The informant further saw that his sister-in-law Aarti Devi (wife of the appellant) and Shanker Sao (brother-in-law of the appellant) were lying under pool of blood sustaining severe injuries on head and other part of the body. The informant along with other family members and villagers brought the injured persons to R.I.M.S., Ranchi for treatment where Aarti Devi was declared dead by the Doctor and her brother Shanker Saw also died during course of treatment. It is alleged by the informant that there was certain dispute and differences between the deceased (wife) and the appellant (husband). Due to that reason, the appellant has committed murder of his wife and wife’s brother.

4. On the basis of above information, F.I.R. was registered for the offence under Section 307/302 of the IPC.

5. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the sole accused, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where S.T. No. 127 of 2014 was registered. The accused faced trial and has been held guilty and sentenced as stated above.

Submissions on behalf of appellant:-

6. Learned counsel for the appellant assailing the impugned judgment has submitted that appellant has been falsely implicated in this case only on the basis of suspicion out of grudge and ill-will. It is further submitted that altogether five witnesses were examined by the prosecution to substantiate the charge of murder against the appellant. Out of them, P.W.-1, Sulochana Devi happens to be mother of the appellant has categorically stated in her cross- examination that she had not seen the accused while assaulting the deceased persons. P.W.-2 Pankaj Kumar (informant), own brother of the appellant has also stated that he saw the appellant was fleeing away with blood-stained hammer in hand and has not seen the occurrence himself. P.W.-3 Rameshwar Sahu is the father of the appellant who has categorically admitted in his cross- examination that at the time of occurrence, the accused (appellant) was not of sound mind, due to that reason, the occurrence took place. P.W.-4, Ramdhari Singh is the Investigating Officer and not an eye witness of the occurrence. Similarly, P.W.-5, Dr. Ajit Kumar Choudhary has conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased persons who also admits that the age of the injured is not ascertainable. It is further contended that there is no direct allegation against the appellant that he has caused murder of the deceased persons. He was also not apprehended by any of the villagers at the time of occurrence. What type of inimical terms, the appellant had with his wife is also not proved? The appellant has been convicted only on the basis that on the frightful night, he was present with his wife, in the room and was seen fleeing away with a hammer. The alleged seized hammer was also not sent to F.S.L. for chemical examinations for ascertaining any presence of blood of the deceased persons, therefore, it cannot be connected with injuries caused to deceased persons by the said hammer.

                  The learned trial Court has committed serious error of law in overlooking from consideration the aforesaid glaring aspects of the case and arrived at wrong conclusion about guilt of the appellant, which is fit to be set aside, allowing this appeal.

Submissions on behalf of State:-

7. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has controverted the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and submitted that P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 are none but parents and brother of the appellant who have categorically stated that deceased was sleeping in the room with his husband and brother-in-law. P.W.-1 has specifically stated that she heard noise and went towards the room of her son (present appellant) and saw her daughter-in-law along with her brother were lying in injured condition under pool of blood and her son Om Prakash Prasad (appellant) was having a hammer which was blood- stained fleeing away. The testimony of P.W.-1 is also corroborated from the testimony of P.W.-2 who is the informant, own brother of the appellant. The Post-Mortem Report of the deceased also proves the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased persons caused by use of hammer. The wife of the appellant Aarti Devi had sustained diffused contusion of right side of skull and right temporal muscles. There was depressed fracture of 7cm x 4cm of tempro parietal bones. Similarly another deceased Shiv Shanker Sahu has also sustained injuries on head and diffused fracture and contusion were found on right temporal region and frontal bones which were opined to be caused by hard and blunt substance. There is no reason for mother, father and brother of the appellant to give false evidence implicating in a case of murder. It is also categorically proved that there was tense relationship between appellant and his wife. The occurrence was also committed in the dead of night. The appellant has brought nothing on record as to how and under what circumstances, his wife died and received murderous assault, while she was in custody of the accused. It is also not the case of defence that any other persons had entered in the house of the appellant and caused murder of the deceased persons and fled away. Therefore, the prosecution has proved its case, beyond all reasonable doubt and there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellant calling for any interference, in this appeal. This appeal has no merits and fits to be dismissed.

8. We have gone through the impugned judgment in the light of rival contentions of the parties as projected by the respective counsels and also perused the record.

9. The only point for consideration in this appeal is that as to whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant suffers from any error of law, calling for any interference, in this appeal?

10. Before imparting our verdict on the above point, it is desirable to apprise with the evidences adduced in this case.

11. It appears that altogether five witnesses were examined by the prosecution in this case.

                  P.W.-1 Sulochana Devi is the mother of the appellant. She has stated that the incident is of 17th July, 2013, at night and the incident took place in the old house. I had gone to sleep. When I got up to go to the bathroom, I saw that blood was coming out of daughter-in-law Aarti’s mouth. When I went to the other room, I saw that blood was coming out of her brother Shankar’s mouth also. There I saw Om Prakash, my elder son standing with a hammer in his hand and Om Prakash started running away, so I woke up Pankaj and told him to call Lokesh. Bhaiya has killed Bhabhi and her brother. Lokesh and his wife came from the new house. People from the neighbourhood also gathered. Both the deceased were breathing, so they were taken to the hospital. Aarti Died immediately while her brother died in the Hospital during treatment. Then the Police arrived and conducted the paperwork. She also admits that her elder son Om Prakash murdered her wife and brother-in-law.

                  In her cross-examination, she has remained intact.

                  P.W.-2 Pankaj Kumar is the own brother of the appellant and informant in this case who has deposed that on 17th July, 2013 at about 12 to 12:30 am, my mother called out to me, crying and screaming. As soon as I left, my brother ran out of the house with a hammer. There, I saw my sister-in-law and her brother pooled in blood. I immediately called the people, my brother Lokesh and my uncle’s son. Everyone gathered. Then, I took them in injured condition to the Hospital. Blood was coming out from their mouths, foreheads and ears. Bhabhi died on the way to Hospital but her brother died in the Hospital during the course of treatment. I informed the Police. The police took my statement at home and at the police station also. I gave my statement at home. The police recorded it. I singed it and my cousin Sanjay, whom I recognize, also signed it which is marked as Exhibit-1 and Exhibit-1/1.

                  The accused himself murdered sister-in-law and her brother as he was the one who had the hammer in his hand. The police seized the items in my presence, prepared a seizure list, and obtained my signature as a witness marked as Exhibit-2. The police also questioned at the hospital. He took my signature as well as my brother Lokesh which I recognized and marked as Exhibit 3 and 3/1.

                  In his cross-examination, he has also remained intact and denied the suggestion of the prosecution.

                  P.W.-3 Rameshwar Sahu is the father of the accused who has deposed that the incident occurred ten year ago. My son had a fight with his wife. It was evening. People at home told me that his son and daughter-in-law had physical fight with each other. I heard Om Prakash had hit his wife on the forehead with a hammer. Om Prakash’s wife died. I do not know her name. No one else was assaulted except her.

                  In his cross-examination, he has stated that the son’s mental condition was not sound and later deteriorated. His mental condition was a factor that contributed to this incident. He has further deposed that no one witnesses the alleged murder committed by him. Based on the wound on his forehead, it is assuming that he has killed them.

                  P.W.-4, S.I., Ramdhari Singh, who was entrusted with investigation of this case by Mr. Anil Kumar, S.H.O., Jagarnathpur. On July 18,2013, He was posted as S.I. at Jagarnathpur Police Station. After taking charge of the investigation, he left for the place of occurrence and recorded restatement of Pankaj Kumar and further recorded the statement of Sulochana Devi and Mukesh Kumar and arrested Om Prakash Prasad at the place of occurrence.

                  He has further deposed that a blood-stained wooden cane, a hammer and a blood-stained pillow cover were recovered. After preparing a seizure list, the blood-stained hammer and pillow cover were seized. This seizure list is in my handwriting and signature which is marked as Exhibit 2/1 and Exhibit 2/2. A copy of the seizure list was given to the accused and his signature was also taken.

                  The confession of the accused Om Prakash was recorded. He admitted his guilt and voluntarily signed the confession. On the basis of the confessional statement of the accused, a blood-stained hammer was seized from the bush.

                  He inspected the site of the incident. The site of this incident is the house of the appellant in Uttar Hatia, located about 4 km south-east of the police station, whose main door is towards the south. After entering inside, there is a courtyard and a pucca room. After entering the room, there is a way to go to the road through the lane from the back. There are three rooms next to the kitchen, in the adjacent room of which the deceased Shanker was sleeping. His wife Aarti Devi was sleeping in the adjacent room. Colony road is located to the south of the incident site. The house of the appellant is on the north direction followed by Upar Hatia Muhalla. In the west, there is a house of one of the neighbourhood Manoj Sahu and in the east, there are well and cowshed. Next to that, there is house of Krishna Prasad’s House.

                  A map of the incident was prepared and seized items were exhibited and the arrested accused was brought to the police station and forwarded to the Court for judicial Custody.

                  He further deposed that on 19th July, 2013, he again visited the place of occurrence and recorded the statement of Sulochana Devi. He also recorded statement from Rameshwar Sahu and Suresh Prasad. A report was received from the Station-in-Charge. An application was received from the deceased’s mother, Budul Devi. Despite being informed, Budul Devi did not appear for her statement.

                  He further stated that on 18th July, 2013, the statement of informant Pankaj Kumar was received and the inquest report of Aarti Devi and Shanker Kumar were received. Pankaj Kumar’s statement was taken again. On 5th August, 2013, Aarti Devi’s post mortem report was received at the police station which was handed over to me. On August 28, 2013, the post-mortem report of Shiv Shanker was received from the Hospital. After the investigation was completed, a charge sheet was filed against Om Prakash Prasad under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

                  He declined from being cross-examined in this case.

                  P.W.-5. Dr. Ajeet Kumar Choudhari. On 19.07.2013, he was posted as Professor and Head in the Dept. of FMT, RIMS and Dr. Jyotina Kumari has worked under him for three years and at present she is posted in the department of Gyana as Jr. Resident.

                  He deposed that on 19.07.2013 at 14:45 hours, she conducted P.M. examination under my supervision over the dead body of Sankar Kumar @ Shiv Shankar Sahu, S/o Ram Charan Sahu, R/o Vill. Nehalu, P.S. Bero, Dist. Ranchi, male, aged 19 years, the body was brought and identified by Hawaldar Devendra Choudhary from RIMS and found the following:-

                  Lacerated stitched wound:- (i) 5 cm x 1 cm x bone deep with 4 stitches on right side of fore head (ii) 2cm x 2cm with stitch on right external auditory meatus (iii) 2cm x 2cm with 2 stitches on front of right tragus. (iv) 3cm x 1cm with 2 stitches above upper lip.

                  Lacerated wound no. (ii), (iii) & (iv) were self tissue deep. Lacerated wound 1/2cm x 1/2cm x bone deep over right temporal region.

                  Internal:- (i) 3cm x 2cm x bone deep on right frontal bone. (ii) Moriaca fracture of right temporo parietal region (iii) diffused contusion of right temporo parietal and frontal bone and both temporaries muscles.

                  There was presence of sub dural blood and blood clots both sides of brain.

                  Opinion:- (i) Above noted injuries were ante mortem and caused by hard and blunt substance. (ii) death was due to above noted injuries. (iii) Time since death was between 3 to 12 hours from the time of conduction of P.M. examination.

                  3. This P.M. report is in hand writing and signature of Dr. Jhotina Kumari and counter signed by me. Marked as Ext.-4.

                  4. He further deposed that on 18.07.2013, Dr. Kaushal Kishore was posted as Junior Resident and I was HoD in the Dept. of FMT, RIMS. On that day at 13:15 hours, Dr. Kaushal Kishore, under my supervision, conducted PM examination over the dead body of Arti Devi, W/o Om Prakash, R/o Vill. Uper Hatiya, P.S. Jagarnathpur, Dist. Ranchi, female aged about 27 years, body was brought and identified by Hawaldar Devendra Choudhari and found the following injuries:-

                  Lacerated wound (i) 4cm x 1cm x bone deep on right temporal region soft tissue on right occipital region. (ii) 5cm x 2cm x bone deep on right parietal region. (iii) 3cm x 1cm x soft tissue on right occipital region.

                  Internal-There was diffused contusion of right side of skull and right temporalis muscles. There was depressed fracture of 6cm x 4 cm on right temporal bone. Another depressed fracture of 7cm x 4 cm of tempro parietal bones. There was contusion of brain and presence of sub dural blood and blood clots on both sides of brain.

                  Opinion:- (i) above noted injuries were ante mortem in nature (ii) Caused by hard and blunt substance (iii) Death was due to above head injury.

                  (iv) Time since death between 6 to 18 hours from the time of P.M. examination.

                  5. This P.M. report was written by Dr. Kaushal Kishore, signed by him and counter signed by me, marked as Exhibit -4/1.

12. Apart from the oral testimony of witnesses, following documentary evidences were also adduced: -

                  i. Exhibit-1 Signature of P.W.-2 Pankaj Kumar over fardveyan dated 18.07.2013.

                  ii. Exhibit-1/1 Sinature of Sanjay Kumar over fardveyan dated 18.07.2013.

                  iii. Exhibit-2 Signature of P.W.-2 Pankaj Kumar over seizure list dated 18.07.2013.

                  iv. Exhibit-2/1 Signature of Randhir Singh over seizure list dated 18.07.2013.

                  v. Exhibit-2/2 Seizure list dated 18.07.2013 relating to recovery of Hammer etc.

                  vi. Exhibit-3 Signature of Pankaj Kumar over fardveyan recorded at RIMS

                  vii. Exhibit-3/1 Signature of Lokesh Kumar over fardbeyan recorded at RIMS.

                  viii. Exhibit 4, 4/1 Post Mortem Report of Shanker Kumar and Aarti Devi

13. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence.

14. The appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has admitted that on the date of occurrence, in the night, at the relevant time, he was in his house along with his wife and brother-in-law. He has also admitted that he had tense relationship with his wife. He has also answered the question that his mother and brother had seen him with blood-stained hammer, just after the occurrence and fleeing away from the place of occurrence, wherein also, he admits that he gave a hammer blow, on the head of his wife due to which, she died. He also admits that on the basis of confessional statement recorded by the police, blood-stained hammer was recovered from the bush identified by him.

15. We have given anxious consideration to the overall aspects of the case and the evidence available on record, it appears that prosecution has been able to prove the tense relationship between the deceased (wife) and her husband (present appellant). It is also proved that at the frightful night, present appellant assaulted by hammer both to his wife and brother-in-law and immediately seen by his mother (P.W.-1) and brother (P.W.-2). The villagers were also informed and deceased were brought to Hospital for treatment but both died. The injury sustained by the injured persons also appears to be caused by hammer. It is also established by the prosecution that on the basis of confessional statement of accused (appellant), blood-stained hammer was recovered from bush, on identification by the present appellant, which was also seized and seizure list was exhibited as Exhibit- 2/2 in the presence of witnesses.

16. Apart from clinching evidence of the prosecution, witnesses who are none else but the mother, father and brother of the appellant himself against whom nothing has been brought on record to indicate that they have falsely implicated their own son escaping the real culprit. The appellant has also admitted his guilt in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that also appears to be true and voluntary, which does not amount the confession but simply admission of the circumstances, under which, the murderous assault was given to the deceased persons.

17. From discussion of oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, we find that the prosecution has conclusively proved the guilt of the appellant, for the offence of murder of his own wife and brother-in-law beyond all reasonable doubt. The learned trial Court has very wisely and aptly considered the overall aspects of the case and the evidence available on record and arrived at right conclusion, while convicting the appellant for the offence of murder. There appears no serious error of law in concluding about the guilt of the appellant by the learned trial Court.

18. In view of the above discussions and reasons, we do not find any merits in this appeal, which stands dismissed.

19. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of, accordingly.

20. Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted to the court concerned for information and needful.