M. K. Mukherjee, J. - (1.) Mukund alias Kundu Mishra and Deva alias Dev Kumar, the appellants before us, were put up for trial before the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, to answer charges under Sections 449, 394/397 and 302/34, IPC. The charges were based on the allegations that in the night intervening January 17 and 18, 1994 they trespassed into the residential house of Anuj Prasad Dubey, committed murders of his wife and their two children and looted their ornaments, other valuable articles and cash. On conclusion of the trial the learned Judge found them guilty of all the above charges and accordingly convicted them. For the conviction under Section 302/34, IPC both of them were sentenced to death and, for the other convictions, to different terms of rigorous imprisonment. Against their convictions and sentences they preferred individual appeals which were heard by the High Court along with the reference made by the learned Judge under Section 366, Cr.P.C. In disposing of them by a common judgment the High Court dismissed their appeals and confirmed the death sentences. Hence these appeals by special leave.
(2.) The case of the prosecution, briefly stated, is as under: (a) Anuj Prasad Dubey along with his wife Sarita Dubey, daughter Jyoti (aged about 6 years) and son Deepak (aged about 4 years) used to reside at Panchwati Colony in the town of Bilaspur. However, at the material time Anuj Prasad Dubey (P.W.9) was in Bombay in connection with his business. Sohan Lal Dixit (P.W. 1), Kumari Shredhdha Dixit (P.W. 6), Dr. Awadhesh Kumar Singh (P.W. 7), and Smt. Shailja Singh (P.W. 8) were, amongst others, neighbours of Anuj Prasad. The appellant Mukund happens to be the son-in-law of one Santosh Dubey, a cousin of Anuj Prasad and he was also a resident of the same town. In view of the above relationship, Mukund used to visit the house of Anuj Prasad even when he was out of station in connection with his business. (b) About 7 or 8 months prior to the incident with which we are concerned in these appeals Mukund had taken a loan of Rs. 10,000/- from Anuj Prasad assuring repayment thereof within a week. On his failure to keep the promise Anuj Prasad approached Santosh Dubey and he repaid the loan afterr about three months. Three months letar Mukund demanded another sum of Rs. 10,000/- from Santosh Dubey but as he declined to pay, Mukund started pestering Anuj Prasad. Mukund used to tell Anuj Prasad that either he should accommodate him or persuade Santosh Dubey to do so. (c) In the evening of January 17, 1994 Shailja went to the house of Dubeys and after having a cup of tea there when she left, Sarita, as was her wont, locked up her compound gate. (d) On the following day, that is January 18, 1994, at about 12 noon Shailja called one bangle seller to purchase some bangles. Expecting that Sarita might also be interested in purchasing bangles, she sent a girl to call her. The girl came back and reported that Sarita could not be found in the drawing room or in the court-yard. Shailja then went to the house of Sarita and entering her bed room found her lying dead on the floor with hands and legs tied with a coir strip and the two children lying dead on the bed. She further found household articles lying scattered all around the room and the steel almirah open. Immediately thereupon Shailja came out of the house screaming and called the neighbours including Dr. Awadhesh Singh who rushed to the spot. Dr. Singh then sent a message to Anuj Prasad at Bombay and thereafter went to Sarkanda Police Station and lodged an information. (e) On that information (Ext. P/26) Shri R.K. Roy, Station Incharge registered a case and took up investigation. He went to the house of Dubeys along with other police officers, a photographer and a scientist of Forensic Science Laboratory (F.S.L.) department. After holding inquest upon the three dead bodies found there he sent them for post mortem examination. He seized a number of articles from the spot including broken pieces of bangles and mangalsutras, one button and one plastic ornament box with Ajay Kumar Shah printed thereon as the owner of the shop which sold it. (f) In the night that followed both the appellants were arrested and interrogated. Pursuant to the statement made by Mukund the Investigating Officer recovered and seized some gold and silver ornaments and a knife from his house. Besides he seized a woollen sweater from his house of which two buttons were found missing. Thereafter the house of the other appellant Deva was searched and some currency notes were recovered. Pursuant to his statement, one polythene bag containing some silver and gold articles ornaments and a ladys wrist watch were recovered from beneath some earth in the house. He also produced a dagger (bhujali) and some clothes which were all blood stained. Since both the appellants were found to have some injuries on their persons they were thereafter sent for medical examination. (g) In course of investigation identification proceedings in respect of the articles recovered from the house of the appellants were conducted by Shri M.L. Sisodia, (P.W. 16) Executive Magistrate and those articles were identified to be those of Sarita. (h) On receipt of the report of F.S.L. and completion of investigation the police submitted charge-sheet against the appellants.
(3.) The appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against them and contended that they had been falsely implicated.;