JUDGMENT N. S. Gupta, J. (1.) THIS criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 4.3.1994, passed by Sri R. G. Shukla, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Kannauj, district Farrukhabad, convicting the accused-appellant Parshuram under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life. (2.) THE prosecution story briefly stated is as follows : THE complainant Vermadeen, who is since dead, was the unfortunate father of the deceased Ram Bilas (aged 13 years) and husband of deceased Maikinna (35) who were brutally killed by means of knife by his own nephew Parshuram, the accused-appellant before this Court, on the intervening night of 28/29.9.1991, at about 1.00 a.m. on the roof of his house situate in village Horapurva, hamlet of Mauja Bakhra, police station Thathia, district Farrukhabad, because of the greed for property. THE prosecution maintained that on the fateful night of the occurrence, the deceased Ram Bilas and Smt. Maikinna were sleeping on the roof of their house situate in village Horapurwa. THE accused-appellant on one hand and the complainant and deceased persons on the other hand were living in one and same house, the courtyard of which was partitioned by means of a wall. It was the last week of the month of September, which is known as the month of Kunwar in Hindi and during which month the shine of the moon probably remains at its highest peak. THE accused-appellant Parshuram wanted to grab the landed property of the complainant Vermadeen. THE deceased Ram Bilas was the only son of the complainant. On the intervening night of 28/29.9.1991, at about 1.00 a.m. the accused-appellant assaulted Ram Bilas and his mother Smt. Makinna by means of a knife and caused a number of incised wounds on their persons because of which Ram Bilas succumbed to his injuries right on the morning of 29.9.1991 at about 8.30 a.m. at Fatehgarh hospital, district Farrukhabad and Smt. Maikinna succumbed to her injuries after about three days on 2.10.1991 at about 9.15 a.m. at Fatehgarh Hospital, district Farrukhabad. THE prosecution claimed that Sri Gaya Prasad, P.W. 1 was the next door neighbour of the deceased and the accused-appellant, P.W. 2, Sobhran and P.W. 3, Ganga Charan were also their close neighbourers. THE prosecution claimed that Sri Gaya Prasad, P.W. 1 was the next door neighbour of the deceased and the accused-appellant, P.W. 2, Sobhran and P.W. 3, Ganga Charan were also their close neighbourers. Hearing the hues and cries of the injured persons, Gaya Prasad, P.W. 1 who was sleeping on the roof of his house saw the occurrence with his own eyes. P.W. 2, Sobhran and P.W. 3, Ganga Charan had also seen the occurrence. When on hearing noise, the neighbourers collected and challenged the accused-appellant, the accused-appellant jumped from the roof towards the east-south of his house and ran away hiding himself in the fields where Cherry crop was standing. THE villagers tried to chase and apprehend the accused-appellant upto a few paces, but the accused-appellant escaped. A written report Ex. Ka.-1 about this occurrence was lodged by Vermadeen at police station Thathiya on 29.9.1991, at about 3.30 a.m. The police station lay at a distance of about seven and half Kms. from the scene of occurrence. The complainant took his injured son and wife first to police station, where he lodged the aforesaid report. He was thereafter sent to Fatehgarh Hospital by means of a tractor, where Dr. S. B. Singh, P.W. 9 examined the injured Smt. Maikinna and found her position as under : Injuries of Smt. Maikinna : (1) Stabbed wound 3.0 cm. 2.0 cm. 5.0 cm. deep over Rt. hypochondrim, 3 cm. lateral to mid line, filled with semi-clotted blood. (2) Stabbed wound 1.0 cm. 0.5 cm. 2.0 cm. deep over Rt. side chest in mid axillary line in Vintercostal space. (3) An incised wound 4.0 cm. 1.0 cm. muscle deep over lateral aspect of Rt. knee. (4) An incised wound 3.0 cm. 1.0 cm. muscle deep 4.0 cm. below injury No. (3). (5) An incised wound 2.0 cm. 0.5 cm. muscle deep over left side back, 1.0 cm. lateral to mid dorsal line at level of inferior angle of scapula. Dr. S. B. Singh, kept injury Nos. 1 and 2 under observation and referred to them to surgeon. He found rest of the injuries simple and opined that they were all caused by means of sharp-edged pointed weapons. They were found fresh at the time of examination. lateral to mid dorsal line at level of inferior angle of scapula. Dr. S. B. Singh, kept injury Nos. 1 and 2 under observation and referred to them to surgeon. He found rest of the injuries simple and opined that they were all caused by means of sharp-edged pointed weapons. They were found fresh at the time of examination. He opined that these injuries could have been caused on the night of the occurrence at about 1.00 a.m. He stated that at the time of her medical examination, Smt. Maikinna was speaking. Dr. S. B. Singh (P.W. 9) stated that the condition of Ram Bilas (deceased) was quite serious. His treatment was immediately started. He was given life saving drugs, but succumbed to his injuries at about 8.30 a.m. (3.) ON the basis of the F.I.R., Ex. Ka.-1, lodged by the complainant, Case Crime No. 178 of 1991, under Section 307, I.P.C. was registered at police station Thathiya, P.W. 6, Sri Charan Singh Tomer, who was then posted as Sub-Inspector of Police at police station Thathiya was present at the police station at the time of lodging F.I.R. He immediately recorded the statement of Beche Lal scriber of the F.I.R. (P.W. 5) and complainant Vermadeen right at the police station. He also recorded the statement of Ram Bilas and Smt. Maikinna and sent them for medical examination to P.H.C. Thathiya and then to the District Hospital, Fatehgarh, district Farrukhabad, where the deceased Ram Bilas and Smt. Maikinna succumbed to their injuries on 29.9.1991 and 2.10.1991 respectively. (4.) S.I. Sri Charan Singh Tomer, P.W. 6, inspected the scene of occurrence on the pointing out of Gaya Prasad, P.W. 1 and prepared site plan, Exh. Ka.-5. He recovered blood-stained and simple earth from the roof of the complainant and prepared recovery memos about the same. He recorded the statement of Sobhran, P.W. 2. After coming at the police station he came to know about the death of Ram Bilas. He, therefore, converted the case under Section 302, I.P.C. Subsequent investigation into the matter was conducted by S.I. Jai Singh, who submitted the charge-sheet against the accused-appellant. The case was committed to the Court of Session by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad on 4.2.1992. A charge under Section 302, I.P.C. was framed against the accused-appellant on 23.5.1992 by Sri Krishna Kumar, the then Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kannauj. The case was committed to the Court of Session by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad on 4.2.1992. A charge under Section 302, I.P.C. was framed against the accused-appellant on 23.5.1992 by Sri Krishna Kumar, the then Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kannauj. The accused-appellant pleaded 'not guilty' and claimed trial. He denied to have assaulted the deceased Ram Bilas and Smt. Maikinna and showed his ignorance as to how they were killed and had died. He stated that he was falsely implicated into this case due to enmity and partibandi. He did not adduce any oral evidence in his defence. However, an extract of Khatauni showing the mutation of name of the Ram Ratan, son of Vermadeen under orders of Land Revenue Inspector in place of Vermadeen was filed. (5.) THE prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 10 witnesses. Out of whom, P.W. 1 Gaya Prasad, P.W. 2 Sobhran, P.W. 3 Ganga Charan were the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. P.W. 4 Bechey Lal was the scriber of the F.I.R. Exh. Ka.-1. P.W. 5, Dr. R. P. Singh, was the Medical Officer of District Hospital, Fatehgarh district Farrukhabad, who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Smt. Maikinna and found her position as under on 2.10.1991 at 3.40 p.m. : Smt. Maikinna (deceased) : Her body was average built, eyes closed, mouth partly opened, abdomen slightly distended, dressing bandage over abdomen back Rt. upper arm Rt. knee. Needle prick mark outer side Rt. upper arm in cubital fossa, greenish discolouration over Rt. iliac fossa. R. M. were present over both the extremities. Ante-mortem injuries : (1) Surgical stitched wound 12 cm. along with 9 stitches and one rubber tube on Rt. side of abdomen, 9 cm. above umbilicus, obliquely placed. Stitch removed wound, injury beneath wound was a cut wound over internal abdominal wall, peritonium, omentum, small intestine and stomach at places. (2) Surgical stitched wound 2.5 cm. 1 stitch and rubber drain tube on Rt. side of abdomen 6 cm. above iliac crest. (3) Stitched wound 2 cm. along with 1 stitch, stitched removed, wound was muscle deep. (4) Stitched wound 4 cm. 2 cm. stitched over Rt. upper arm 7 cm. below shoulder joint. On removal of stitch, wound was muscle deep. (5) Stitched wound 3 cm. along with one stitch on outer side of Rt. knee. above iliac crest. (3) Stitched wound 2 cm. along with 1 stitch, stitched removed, wound was muscle deep. (4) Stitched wound 4 cm. 2 cm. stitched over Rt. upper arm 7 cm. below shoulder joint. On removal of stitch, wound was muscle deep. (5) Stitched wound 3 cm. along with one stitch on outer side of Rt. knee. On removal of stitch, wound was muscle deep. (6) Stitched wound 2.5 cm. along with one stitch over back of Rt. leg on upper 1/3rd part on removal of stitch, wound was muscle deep. (7) Incised wound 2.5 cm. 3 cm. muscle deep over left side back, 6 cm. on left side at level of 6 vertebra. THE Doctor stated that the deceased had died due to shock and haemorrhage which resulted from the aforesaid injuries. He opined that the deceased should have died because of these injuries on 2.10.1991 at 9.15 a.m. (6.) DR. B. L. Katiyar, P.W. 7 was the another medical officer who conducted autopsy on the dead body of deceased Ram Bilas on 29.9.1991. He found the position of the deceased Ram Bilas as under : Ram Bilas (deceased) : The deceased was aged 13 years. He expired on 29.9.1991 at 8.30 a.m. The body was average built, eyes were closed, mouth was partly open, abdomen slightly distended, dry clotted blood was present at places of body. Rigor mortis was present on both the extremities. Ante-mortem injuries : (1) Incised wound 5 cm. 1 cm. muscle deep left side face, involving outer angle of left eye-brows, obliquely placed, margins clean cut, lower angle sharp. (2) Incised wound 3 cm. 0.5 cm. bone deep over left clavicle, 9 cm. medial top of left shoulder. (3) Stabbed wound 2.5 cm. 0.5 cm. cervical spine deep, Rt. side neck 4 cm. below angle of lower jaw, margins clean cut. (4) Stabbed wound 4 cm. 1.5 cm. abdominal cavity deep Rt. side abdomen 11 cm. above the unblicus, 11 O'clock position, margins clear cut, omentum coming out. (5) Incised wound 2.5 cm. 0.5 cm. muscle deep Rt. lateral side of chest, 13 cm. below Rt. exilla. (6) Stabbed wound 2.5 cm. 0.5 cm. abdomen cavity deep left lateral side abdomen, 4 cm. above the iliac crest. (7) Incised wound is numbers in an area of 18 cm. 10 cm., outer side left thigh measuring 6 cm. 0.3 cm. to 3 cm. 0.5 cm. muscle deep Rt. lateral side of chest, 13 cm. below Rt. exilla. (6) Stabbed wound 2.5 cm. 0.5 cm. abdomen cavity deep left lateral side abdomen, 4 cm. above the iliac crest. (7) Incised wound is numbers in an area of 18 cm. 10 cm., outer side left thigh measuring 6 cm. 0.3 cm. to 3 cm. 0.5 cm. muscle deep, margins clear cut in different directions. (8) Incised wound 3.5 cm. 0.5 cm. bone deep lower part left leg anterior side. (9) Incised wound 4.5 cm. 1 cm. muscle deep medial side Rt. thigh upper part. (10) Incised wound 3 cm. 0.5 cm. muscle deep back of left forearm middle part. (11) Incised wound 5 cm. 1 cm. muscle deep upper part of left buttock. (12) Stabbed wound 4 cm. 1 cm. abdomen cavity deep left side back 11 cm. above the iliac crest. DR. Katiyar, P.W. 7 opined that the deceased had died because of shock and haemorrhage as a result of the aforesaid injuries. DR. Katiyar stated that all the injuries found on the dead body of the deceased Ram Bilas could have been caused by means of knife about 7-8 hours prior to his death. He further stated that after sustaining the injuries the deceased could have been in a position to speak for about four hours and could have remained conscious till that time. He stated that the injury No. 4 proved fatal and was sufficient in ordinary course to cause death. P.W. 6, Charan Singh Tomer, was the Sub-Inspector of Police who took up the initial investigation of the case and recorded statement of the deceased Ram Bilas and Smt. Maikinna as also the complainant and inspected the spot and proved the site plan Exh. Ka.-5. (7.) P.W. 8, Sri Ahmad Ali was the S.I. of police posted at police station, Fatehgarh, district Farrukhabad on 2.10.1991. He prepared inquest report in respect of the dead body of the deceased Smt. Maikinna and sent the dead body along with the necessary papers for post-mortem examination to mortuary. He also proved the inquest report prepared by S.I. Yogesh Kumar in respect of the dead body of the deceased Ram Bilas. (8.) P.W. 9, Dr. S. B. Singh had examined the injuries of Smt. Maikinna on 29.9.1991 at about 7.20 a.m., and found the injuries, on her person as stated above. He also proved the inquest report prepared by S.I. Yogesh Kumar in respect of the dead body of the deceased Ram Bilas. (8.) P.W. 9, Dr. S. B. Singh had examined the injuries of Smt. Maikinna on 29.9.1991 at about 7.20 a.m., and found the injuries, on her person as stated above. P.W. 10 Ram Kumar was formal witness who proved chick report and G. D. report. (9.) AFTER needful trial into the matter, the accused-appellant was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. Hence this appeal. (10.) WE have heard Sri R. B. Trivedi, learned counsel for the accused-appellant and Sri K. P. Shukla, learned A. G. A. for State ; considered their submissions and have perused the records of the case. It was vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant that the deceased were done to death by some unknown bandits and that the accused-appellant has been falsely implicated into this case due to enmity and partibandi of the village. We are unable to accept the submissions made on behalf of the accused-appellant for the obvious reasons that the accused-appellant was admittedly his own kith and kin, viz., the nephew of the complainant Vermadeen, who unfortunately died before the commencement of the trial, but who definitely complained about the matter by filing the written report Exh. Ka.-1 at police station Thathiya and had set the machinery of law into motion. It was admitted by the accused-appellant in his examination under Section 313, Cr. P.C. in answer to question No. 1 that he was the nephew of the complainant Vermadeen and that deceased Ram Bilas was the only son of Vermadeen and that the deceased Smt. Maikainna was the wife of the complainant. That being so, it is not probable to believe that the complainant should have roped in his own nephew about the fatal assault which was made upon his son and wife in the fateful night of the occurrence. That being so, it is not probable to believe that the complainant should have roped in his own nephew about the fatal assault which was made upon his son and wife in the fateful night of the occurrence. (11.) THE fact that a number of injuries caused by means of a sharp-edged weapon like knife were found on the person of the deceased Ram Bilas, who was a young lad of 13 years of age and was the son of the complainant Vermadeen and that a number of incised wounds caused by means of a similar sharp-edged pointed weapon were found on the person of deceased Smt. Maikinna has been fully proved beyond any shadow of doubt by the medical evidence of Dr. S. B. Singh, P.W. 9, who examined the injuries of Smt. Maikinna and Dr. R. P. Singh, P.W. 5, who conducted post-mortem examination on the deceased Smt. Maikinna and Dr. B. L. Katiyar, P.W. 7 who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Ram Bilas. (12.) THREE eye-witnesses of the occurrence, viz., Gaya Prasad, P.W. 1, Sobhran, P.W. 2 and Ganga Charan, P.W. 3 were examined by the prosecution before the Court below who had given direct evidence before the Court below. It was stated by Gaya Prasad, P.W. 1 who was the next door neighbour of the accused-appellant and the complainant that on the night of the occurrence, he was sleeping on the roof of his house. He stated that the deceased Ram Bilas, son of Vermadeen and Smt. Maikinna, wife of Vermadeen were sleeping on the roof of the house of Vermadeen. The accused-appellant Parshuram was also sleeping on the roof. He was related as nephew of the complainant. Sri Gaya Prasad, P.W. 1 stated that at about 1.00 a.m. in the night, he heard the cries coming from the roof of Vermadeen. He got up and came over the roof of his house and saw the accused-appellant Parshuram was stabbing the deceased Smt. Maikinna and Ram Bilas by means of knife. He stated that both these deceased persons were crying. The accused-appellant caused a number of injuries on the person of these two deceased persons. Gaya Prasad further stated that there was sufficient light of the moon on the roof. He stated that both these deceased persons were crying. The accused-appellant caused a number of injuries on the person of these two deceased persons. Gaya Prasad further stated that there was sufficient light of the moon on the roof. He raised alarm and attracted Nawab Singh, Sobhran, P.W. 2 and Ganga Charan, P.W. 3 who came in front of the house of the complainant. They also challenged the accused-appellant. Hearing the noise of the villagers, accused-appellant Parshuram jumped over the roof of Chetram and ran away. Sobhran, P.W. 2, Ganga Charan, P.W. 3 and Nawab Singh had also seen the accused-appellant killing the deceased, though they were standing on the ground. They chased the accused-appellant but could not succeed. Vermadeen, the complainant also, came on spot and he too had seen the accused-appellant assaulting the deceased persons by means of knife. Vermadeen had died before the commencement of the trial. He stated that he saw that Ram Bilas and Smt. Maikinna were profusely bleeding. The villagers took them to the police station. During the course of his cross-examination before the Court below, Gaya Prasad, P.W. 1 stated that the house of Nawab Singh was situate after two houses of the complainant. The house of Raj Kumar and Sobhran, P.W. 3 intervened in between. The house of Ganga Charan, P.W. 3 was after leaving one house from the house of Vermadeen. His house lay towards west of the house of the Vermadeen. He stated that Parshuram and Vermadeen resided in one and the same house, the courtyard of which was divided by means of a wall. There was a door towards the south in the house of the Vermadeen. While coming from the southern door into the house of the accused-appellant, there was another door and thereafter, there was a staircase which leads to the eastern roof. There were two rooms on the ground floor towards the north. There were two rooms over them towards the north. There was no staircase in the room situate on the first floor. There was no room towards the west of the courtyard. He stated that the deceased Ram Bilas and Smt. Maikinna were sleeping at the time of the occurrence on the roof of the eastern room. He has also stated that the roof of the said room was of about 7-8 feet. The roof of the room was a pucca one. There was no room towards the west of the courtyard. He stated that the deceased Ram Bilas and Smt. Maikinna were sleeping at the time of the occurrence on the roof of the eastern room. He has also stated that the roof of the said room was of about 7-8 feet. The roof of the room was a pucca one. The deceased persons were lying on the ground without sort of any bed, but they were having pillows under their heads. He stated that he did not see Ram Bilas and Smt. Maikinna eating food on the night of the occurrence. He went up with a brickbat in his hand and remained standing on his roof. While narrating the incident in his cross-examination before the Court below Gaya Prasad, P.W. 1 stated that first of all when he saw the accused-appellant, he found the accused-appellant assaulting the deceased persons by means of knife and maintained that the accused-appellant went on assaulting the deceased for about 2-3 minutes. Seeing the deceased he raised an alarm and remained standing on his roof. He threw away two brickbats towards Parshuram, the accused-appellant, while the accused-appellant was running away. These two brickbats fell on the hut of Chetram. Hearing his cries, the witnesses Nawab Singh, Sobhran, P.W. 2 and Ganga Charan P.W. 3 arrived at spot just after a minute. Besides these witnesses, other villagers had also arrived but he was unable to state their names. He stated that 20-25 persons of the village came who had surrounded the house of the complainant. The villagers came duly armed with lathis, danda, Farsa and Kanta, etc., but they could not apprehend the accused-appellant because the accused-appellant had entered into the nearby fields in which Cherry crop was standing and, thereafter, he ran away. He stated that the villagers had chased the accused-appellant when he was being chased by Nawab Singh, Sobhran, P.W. 2 and Ganga Charan, P.W. 3. He stated that the other villagers did not see the accused-appellant assaulting the deceased nor they had seen the accused-appellant running away. He stated that the witnesses viz., Nawab Singh, Sobhran, P.W. 2 and Ganga Charan, P.W. 3 had chased the accused-appellant upto the field of Jairam. (13.) SRI Gaya Prasad, P.W. 1 further stated that after running away of the accused-appellant the various other villagers came on the roof of the complainant. He stated that the witnesses viz., Nawab Singh, Sobhran, P.W. 2 and Ganga Charan, P.W. 3 had chased the accused-appellant upto the field of Jairam. (13.) SRI Gaya Prasad, P.W. 1 further stated that after running away of the accused-appellant the various other villagers came on the roof of the complainant. At that time both the deceased were lying injured on the roof of the complainant. They were lying down. He specifically maintained that he had seen the accused-appellant while the accused-appellant was assaulting the deceased persons and while the deceased persons were standing. He was unable to state as to when Smt. Maikinna and Ram Bilas came over the roof, but he had very much seen these deceased persons sleeping over the roof. He did not go on the roof of the complainant where the deceased persons were lying injured and maintained that the witnesses like Nawab Singh had brought down the injured persons. When they were brought down, the injured persons were unconscious. He maintained that at about 3.30 a.m. the deceased were taken in a tractor to Thathiya police station which lay at a distance of about four miles from his village. He was informed about the death of Ram Bilas in Fatehgarh Hospital by one Bhikam Singh of the village. He stated that Sub-Inspector of police had come at about 7.00 a.m. in the village and had recorded his statement as also the statement of Sobhran, P.W. 2. Sub-Inspector of Police had seen the roof of the deceased and had taken blood-stained earth. He emphatically denied the suggestion of the defence on the point that he was telling a lie because of partibandi and enmity and further the suggestion of the defence on the point that some unknown bandits had killed the deceased persons during the night under the cover of darkness. (14.) P.W. 2, Sobhran was another neighbour of the deceased and the accused-appellant who arrived at the scene of occurrence along with Nawab Singh and Ganga Charan, (P.W. 3) and saw the accused-appellant jumping over the hut of Chest Ram and running away from a distance of about 15 paces. He stated to have chased the accused-appellant to some distance but could not succeed in apprehending him and maintained that he had seen the deceased Smt. Maikinna and Ram Bilas lying unconscious in an injured state of affairs. He stated to have chased the accused-appellant to some distance but could not succeed in apprehending him and maintained that he had seen the deceased Smt. Maikinna and Ram Bilas lying unconscious in an injured state of affairs. He with the help of other villagers brought them down and thereafter the villagers took them to police station Thathiya. He maintained that the night of occurrence was moonlit night. It was the month of Kunwar and that he had seen while standing on the ground the accused-appellant assaulting the deceased. Similarly, P.W. 3, Ganga Charan who was another neighbour of the accused-appellant and the complainant fully supported the prosecution version and maintained that hearing the noise of the deceased he got up and saw the accused-appellant assaulting the deceased persons by means of knife. He stated that Nawab Singh and Sobhran also came there. He stated that he saw the accused-appellant jumping over the hut of Chetram and thereafter, he ran away. (15.) IT would thus be seen from the ocular evidence of these three eye-witnesses that the occurrence had taken place at about 1.00 a.m. in the night and that they all who were the close neighbourers of the deceased and the accused-appellant had seen the accused-appellant assaulting both the deceased persons by means of knife in the moonlit night. (16.) THE circumstances that soon after the occurrence, the complainant and the villagers took the injured persons to the police station where the complainant Vermadeen who was the unfortunate father of the deceased Ram Bilas and the husband of the deceased Smt. Maikinna and who could not survive till the commencement of the trial and had probably died because of the shock of his only son and wife, promptly went to the police station and lodged a written report about the occurrence Exh. Ka. 1 and further from the police station Thathiya he took the injured to Fatehgarh hospital where Ram Bilas succumbed to his injuries right on the date of the occurrence at about 8.30 a.m. and Smt. Maikinna succumbed to her injuries on 2.10.1991 fully go to suggest that the accused-appellant was responsible for assaulting the two deceased persons. The medical evidence of the three doctors as stated above leaves no room to doubt that both the deceased persons had died because of the injuries caused to them by sharp-edged weapons. The medical evidence of the three doctors as stated above leaves no room to doubt that both the deceased persons had died because of the injuries caused to them by sharp-edged weapons. (17.) THE circumstances that Ram Bilas was the only son of the deceased and that the accused-appellant was the real nephew of the deceased and was having greed and lust for graffing the property of the complainant by killing his only son and wife of the deceased strengthen our belief that the accused-appellant alone was responsible for committing the double homicide amounting to murder in question. (18.) MR. Trivedi, learned counsel for the accused-appellant vehemently argued before this Court that the Investigating Officer did not find the broken chappar on which the accused-appellant is said to have jumped. He stated that if it was a fact that the accused-appellant had jumped over the chappar of Chetram and ran away, the chappar of Chetram must have been broken. We are unable to agree. The chappar in the village are usually built with bamboo. They are strong enough to sustain any storm, what to say of sustaining the weight of an individual aged about 22 years like the accused-appellant. Thus the argument built up by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant cannot be appreciated. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the accused- appellant that there was a wall in between the roof of the deceased and Gaya Prasad, P.W. 1, and, therefore, this witness could not have the opportunity of seeing the occurrence with his own eyes. We are unable to agree for the reason that according to the site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer, the height of that wall was of sixteen bricks that is at the most 3-4 feet and a man like P.W. 1 Gaya Prasad while standing on his roof could easily overlook the affairs going on the adjoining roof of his house. (19.) THE circumstances that no blood was found on the pillow or bed is of no avail, for the reason that according to the eye-witness account of Gaya Prasad, P.W. 1, the next door neighbour of the accused-appellant and the complainant, the deceased persons were lying on the roof without bed, or cover. (19.) THE circumstances that no blood was found on the pillow or bed is of no avail, for the reason that according to the eye-witness account of Gaya Prasad, P.W. 1, the next door neighbour of the accused-appellant and the complainant, the deceased persons were lying on the roof without bed, or cover. (20.) IT was rightly observed by the learned trial court in his impugned judgment that on the night of occurrence, the moon had started rising at about 20.49 hours. The occurrence of this case and happened at about 1.00 a.m. by which time sufficient light of the moon must have been there, which could have enabled the next door neighbour witness like Gaya Prasad and other neighbours like Sobhran, P.W. 2 and Ganga Charan, P.W. 3 to have seen the occurrence and to have correctly recognised the real assailant who was not stranger, but the real nephew of the accused-appellant. Thus, after carefully examining the ocular evidence of three witnesses of fact, viz., Gaya Prasad, P.W. 1, Sobhran, P.W. 2 and Ganga Charan, P.W. 3, in the light of the medical evidence of three doctors, viz., Dr. R. P. Singh, P.W. 5, Dr. B. L. Katiyar, P.W. 7 and Dr. S. B. Singh, P.W. 9 and further scrutinising the fact and circumstances of the case, we find no error in the approach of the learned trial court below and reach to an irresistible conclusion that the greed for property actuated the accused-appellant to commit ghastly murder of the deceased persons. We thus uphold the finding of fact recorded by the Court below. (21.) COMING on the point of sentence, we find, that although it was a case of double murder, yet the case does not come within the purview of the rarest of the rare cases and, therefore, death sentence was not warranted and life imprisonment inflicted by the Court below upon the accused-appellant was the appropriate sentence. (22.) IN the result, we find that the appeal has got no force, it is hereby dismissed. It is directed that the accused-appellant if since released on bail shall be taken into custody forthwith and his bail stand cancelled, if in jail he shall serve out the sentence according to law. (22.) IN the result, we find that the appeal has got no force, it is hereby dismissed. It is directed that the accused-appellant if since released on bail shall be taken into custody forthwith and his bail stand cancelled, if in jail he shall serve out the sentence according to law. Let a copy of this judgment, along with the record of the case be sent to the Court below for needful compliance and report to this Court within a period of six months.