(1.) This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 10/10/2011 passed by learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.), in S.T.No.25/2011 whereby and whereunder the appellant/accused has been held guilty of commission of offences under Ss. 302 IPC as also 25 (1) A read with Sec. 27 of Arms Act & sentenced to undergo rigorous life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000.00 and R.I. for three years with fine of Rs.1,000.00 plus default stipulation respectively.
(2.) The prosecution story, as unfolded from the impugned judgment and the record of the case before this Court, is that morgue intimations in Ex.P/20 and P/21 were given in the police station on 2/10/2010 at 6.15 AM by one Pramod upon which it was recorded in the police station that Hafiz Ahmad and his wife Tabassum have been murdered in their house and the appellant, son of the deceased, confessed before Mr. Pramod that he (appellant) committed murder of his father and step mother. An FIR in Ex.P/22 was registered in the police station under Crime No.416/10. After the police reached at the place of occurrence, inquest over the dead body of deceased Hafiz Ahmad and Tabassum was prepared vide Ex.P/4 and P/5 respectively and seizure of various articles found on the floor was also effected in the presence of the witnesses. The two dead bodies were sent for postmortem examination which was conducted by Dr. S.K. Bang (PW/7) who prepared postmortem reports in Ex.P/10 and Ex.P/12 of deceased Tabassum and Hafiz Ahmad respectively. Later on, the appellant as a suspect was apprehended and his memorandum statement was recorded in Ex.P/28 in the presence of witnesses and it is said that on the basis of said memorandum, three weapons namely sword, sword-stick and knife were seized from under the cot which was lying in the room where the dead bodies were found. Upon conclusion of usual investigation, the prosecution filed charge sheet before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate, who in turn, committed the case for trial to the Sessions Court. On the basis of material contained in the charge sheet, learned trial Court framed charges of double murder against the appellant alleging that the appellant murdered his father Hafiz Ahmad and his step mother Tabassum by using dangerous weapon like sword, sword-stick and knife. Appellant abjured guilt and was, therefore, put to trial. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. The appellant was also examined under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. in respect of incriminating evidence and circumstances appearing against him in the evidence led by the prosecution. Appellant denied having committed the offence and pleaded innocence. Solitary defence witness Manish Kshatri (DW/1) was also examined to substantiate defence version.
(3.) The learned trial Court, however, relying upon the evidence led by the prosecution, disbelieved the defence version and held the appellant guilty for commission of offence and sentenced as described above. Conviction of the appellant was based on circumstantial evidence.