- (1.)WE have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and propose to dispose of this appeal by the present order. This appeal arises out of judgment dated 7th April, 2008 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, whereby the High Court has upheld the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302/307/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was charged for murdering his wife, namely Rajan and two daughters Galshan and Rakhi on 09/01/97 at 11.00 a.m.. The prosecution story, as projected before the trial Court is that dseceased Rajan was married to the appellant Balli @ Balbir for the last about 11 years. PW -7 brother of the deceased went to the house of the accused at Palwal on 10.01.1997 with customary gift of eatables on the occasion of Sankrant, but found the house locked. He was told by the neighbour that the family had gone to their native Village Badaka. Rajesh went to Village Badaka and learnt that Rajan, Gulshan and Rakhi had been killed by Balli alongwith co -accused Gajraj, Jagdish, Nathi and Lakhmiari (who have since been acquitted by the trial Court.). Rajesh returned to his house and in the morning on 11.01.1997, he told his father Hardayal PW -6 about the occurrence. PW -6 Hardayal alongwith other respectables of the village Badka assured them that a Panchayat will be convened on 12.01.1997. PW -6 Hardayal returned to his village. He again went to Village Badka on 12.01.1997 and Panchayat met, but no decision was taken. FIR was lodged on 13.01.1997 at 3.20 P.M. On the complaint Ex. PE submitted by PW -6 Hardayal to PW -12 SI Savtanter Singh. He also mentioned in the complaint that his other daughter Jagan was married to brother of the appellant 10 years ago but she was also harassed and turned out of the matrimonial home about 10 days prior to the occurrence. The deceased was being harassed by demand of money.
(2.)TO prove the guilt of the appellant the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses. Apart from these included PW -14, surviving daughter of the appellant. In the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, he took the plea of alibi submitting that he was having four wheeler and was not present in the house at the time of occurrence. According to him, the deceased Rajan caught fire while preparing tea. The family members of the deceased were informed who also joined the cremation. The appellant produced one Kharag Singh as DW -1 in support of the defence version.
The trial court, on the appreciation of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the appellant was responsible for murder of the aforesaid three persons and convicted and sentenced the appellant accordingly.

(3.)THE appellant preferred an appeal against this conviction The case set up by the appellant was that there is no direct evidence of murder and the case of the prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidence which was not of conclusive nature and benefit of doubt should have been given to the appellant. His first submission was that the FIR was lodged four days after the incident. He also argued that the story of motive, namely, demand of Rs.50,000/ - by the appellant from the parents of his wife was not probable as the marriage took place 11 years before the incident. He also submitted that Pooja PW -14 had not supported the prosecution version and was not declared hostile either, the benefit of which should accrue to the appellant. The appellant also tried to find loopholes in the testimony of other witnesses. None of the aforesaid contentions of the appellant found favour with the High Court. The High Court found complete justification in the delay of four days in lodging the FIR. It also recorded that there was no indication of fabrication in the version mentioned in the FIR and therefore it was open to the Court to accept the said version in the FIR, which was duly substantiated by the evidence.