JUDGMENT 1. - These are three connected appeals and are being disposed of by this single judgment. Regular appeal No. 523/94 was preferred by Smt. Anita Bhatia while appeal No. 499/94 was preferred by Raju @ Ashok @ Kalu from Jail. Shri Sandeep Mehta was appointed as amicus curiae on behalf of Raju @ Ashok @ Kalu. Appeal No. 168/95 was preferred by State to enhance the sentence of life imprisonment to capital punishment to both the accused perspns. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Sanjay Bhatia, brother of deceased Ravindra Bhatia, on 30.8.93 at 1.00 a.m. submitted report to the SHO, Kotwali, Sriganganagar stating that at about 12.15 a.m. a watchman rang the bell of his house. When he came out, he found that 2 to 4 employees of Pratap Kesri news paper were standing outside. The watchman told that some incident had taken place in the house of Ravindra Bhatia. Sanjay went towards the house of his brother and he found that his sister-in-law accused Smt. Anita was weeping and told that somebody had killed her husband. Then he went inside the house and found that the dead body of Ravindra Bhatia was lying in the kitchen. He also found that Ravindra Bhatia had quite a good number of wounds and blood was coming from them. It was also found that a rope was tied to his neck. FIR No. 346/93 under Section 302 Indian Penal Code was registered and investigation was started. 3. Site was inspected and site plan Ex. P/47 was prepared. It was found that the house, in which the family of Ravindra Bhatia was living, was half constructed. The size of the kitchen was 10x10 feet and the way to go to bathroom and latrine was through this kitchen. A broken earthen pitcher was lying in the kitchen and its water was spread. A chunni of black colour, a small towel and a red piece of cloth drenched with blood were also found in the kitchen. Blood was found on small steel tank, gas cylinder and plastic bottle which were lying in the kitchen. An HMT quartz watch was also lying. The kitchen had two windows which were closed. The kitchen had a door opening towards west in the bedroom. An earthen pitcher in broken condition was found near this gate. Blood was found on small steel tank, gas cylinder and plastic bottle which were lying in the kitchen. An HMT quartz watch was also lying. The kitchen had two windows which were closed. The kitchen had a door opening towards west in the bedroom. An earthen pitcher in broken condition was found near this gate. Kitchen had a wash-basin and some spots of blood were found on it. Curtains were hanging on the main door of kitchen as well as on windows. These curtains had some blood stains. The door in between the bed room and kitchen was open and the bedroom had a double bed. A pressure cooker containing cooked rice and a white pot containing chapatis as well as a steel utensil containing water were found present on the double bed. On a side stool spectacles of a child were placed. Two other spectacles were also lying in the bed room. A pair of chappals belonging to Ravindra Batia was lying in the bed room. It was apparent that the house was not ransacked. The son of the couple Udai used to sleep in the adjoining bed room. This bed room had a main door in the varandah. It was found that construction work was being carried on and a rope made of jute was being used in order to dry washed clothes. House of Jogendra Singh was situated on the eastern side and of Madanlal on the western side. House of Ravindra Batia was situated on the main road just opposite Public Park where he lived with his parents. 4. Post-mortem of Ravindra Bhatia was performed and as many as 20 injuries were found. Out of them, 15 are incised wounds on the different parts of the body. Injuries were caused to the heart and liver which resulted into shock and haemorrhage. Ravindra Batia had died instantaneously. 5. During the investigation, blood stained soil as well as control soil were seized and dry blood stains were taken from gas cylinder, small steel tank, bottle and from the main door. Curtains, towel, chunni and piece of cloth were seized. Blood stained clothes of deceased were seized vide Ex. P/61 and the rope which was stained with blood was seized vide Ex. P/62. It was found that immediately after the incident Smt. Anita Bhatia went to the office of Pratap Kesri newspaper where her husband was employed. Curtains, towel, chunni and piece of cloth were seized. Blood stained clothes of deceased were seized vide Ex. P/61 and the rope which was stained with blood was seized vide Ex. P/62. It was found that immediately after the incident Smt. Anita Bhatia went to the office of Pratap Kesri newspaper where her husband was employed. At that time it was found that her hands were tied with a rope and her mouth gagged with a chunni. It was Iqbal, an employee of Pratap Kesri, who untied the rope and the chunni was removed by Raju. It may also be pertinent to mention that Ravindra Bhatia and Smt. Anita were distant cousins and had love affair which culminated into their marriage. This marriage was performed without the consent of the parents of Ravindra Bhatia who had not accepted it. Smt. Anita had two children viz. Udai Bhatia and a toddler in lap. 6. The police after investigation came to the conclusion that the accused appellant Raju and Smt. Anita had illicit relations and they murdered Ravindra Bhatia. Both of them were arrested. Accused Raju was called with different names i.e. Ashok, Raju, Kalu and Shakir Khan. He belonged to village Shahpura of police station Sikandara District Aligarh (U.R). He made a disclosure statement before the police and a knife was recovered at his instance which had blood stains. On 11.9.93, on the basis of disclosure statement, a sharp edged gupti was recovered at the instance of accused Raju which was found blood stained. On 15.9.93, on the basis of disclosure statement, pant and shirt were recovered which were also blood stained. A pair of chappals was also recovered. Smt. Anita Bhatia also made a disclosure statement and at her instance, green salwar and green kurta were recovered. These were the clothes which she was wearing at the time of incident. It was found that there was a teeth bite on the left arm of Ravindra Bhatia, therefore, dental impressions of Raju and Anita were taken. During the investigation all the incriminating evidence was collected. Some colour photographs showing intimacy between accused and Anita Bhatia were seized from the shop of M/s Bharat Colour Studio, Kachari Road, Sriganganagar with their negatives. A register was also seized which showed that the snaps were taken on 25.8.93. 7. During the investigation all the incriminating evidence was collected. Some colour photographs showing intimacy between accused and Anita Bhatia were seized from the shop of M/s Bharat Colour Studio, Kachari Road, Sriganganagar with their negatives. A register was also seized which showed that the snaps were taken on 25.8.93. 7. After investigation, challan was presented before the concerned Magistrate who committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar which came for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 Sriganganagar. 8. Learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges under Section 120-B and 302 or 302/34 Indian Penal Code against both the accused persons. The prosecution examined as may as 17 witnesses in support of its case. Then accused appellants were examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code They did not produce any witness in defence. Learned Additional Sessions Judge heard both the parties and by his judgment dated 17.9.94 convicted appellant Raju for offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo R.I. for six months. He convicted Smt. Anita under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code and sentenced her to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo six' months R.I. Both of the accused appellants were acquitted of the charge of Section 120-B Indian Penal Code. It is against this conviction and sentence that appellants Anita Bhatia and Raju have come in appeal while state has filed an appeal for enhancing the sentence. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the accused persons as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. 10. Learned counsel for the accused persons submitted that the case has been cooked up against Smt. Anita Bhatia and Raju because the marriage of Ravindra Bhatia and Smt. Anita took place against the wishes of the parents of Ravindra. It has been contended that the parents of Ravindra Bhatia did not want to part with the property and give a share to Smt. Anita, therefore, she has been roped in this case. Learned counsel for the accused persons submitted that accused Raju and Smt. Anita had much difference in their age and both of them could not have illicit relations as Raju came in contact with the family of Smt. Anita and Ravindra when he was an adoloscent. Learned counsel for the accused persons submitted that accused Raju and Smt. Anita had much difference in their age and both of them could not have illicit relations as Raju came in contact with the family of Smt. Anita and Ravindra when he was an adoloscent. They also contended that the photographs which have been produced by the prosecution were taken per force after the case was registered by the police. They have also contended that it is alleged that there was tooth bite on the body of Ravindra Bhatia but the dental impressions taken during the investigation are of no help to the prosecution. They have contended that the recoveries are false and Gupti had no blood stains. It has been contended that Ravindra Bhatia used to do some illegal business and had bad relations with his colleagues of the business and it were they who attacked in the darkness of the night and killed Ravindra Bhatia. They have also contended that the incident is unnatural and the accused persons should be acquitted. Learned counsel for the accused persons have assailed the evidence of the only eye witness PW-4 Udai Bhatia who was about six years of age at the time of incident and is the son of Ravindra and Anita. It has been contended that though the incident took place during the night of 30th August and 31st August, 1993, statement of Udai Bhatia was recorded by the police on 1.10.93 i.e. almost after about a month of the incident and the delay is not explained. He was available on the fateful night and was not examined under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code Hence he is an unreliable witness. They have submitted that the witness is a child witness and has been influenced by his grand mother as he has been living with her ever since the occurrence took place. 11. On the other hand, the learned PP has supported the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. It has been contended by him that none-else except the accused persons could have committed the crime as both of them were inside the house and did not make any hue and cry if some outlaws or bandits had come to attack on Ravindra Bhatia. He has contended that it is they who have to explain as their presence is proved beyond doubt in the house on that fateful night. He has contended that it is they who have to explain as their presence is proved beyond doubt in the house on that fateful night. It has been submitted that Ravindra Bhatia, though married Anita against wishes of his parents, had a suspicious eye on his wife and Raju. He used to visit his house in the night. It appears that when he saw Anita and Raju together in the house in his absence, he objected and then both the accused persons committed murder of Ravindra Bhatia. He has contended that Smt. Anita Bhatia tried to show that a fake encounter had taken place and she was also injured. Instead going to the parents of Ravindra Bhatia, she went to the press with her hands tied with a rope and her mouth tied with chunni which she had got done from Raju. She was very clever in doing so but could be trapped in the net woven by her. It has been submitted by the learned RR that there is no evidence to the effect that Ravindra Bhatia had enmity with any one so the question of this murder by someone else does not arise. He has also submitted that the house was not at all ransacked and hence the theory cooked by Smt. Anita that the bandits had attacked, is of no help to the accused persons. He also submitted that the statement of Udai Bhatia, who is of course a child witness, is natural one and relying on 1981 Cr.L.R. SC page 378, he submitted that though the criticism of the defence about this witness is that he was examined late, his evidence is reliable. According to the prosecution he was the most natural witness and his evidence should be relied upon. Learned PP. has also submitted that it is one of the rare of the rarest cases and, therefore, the sentence should be enhanced to capital punishment. 12. We have given our anxious consideration to all the arguments placed before us. Let us first examine the citations which the learned counsel for the accused persons have submitted before us. For appreciation of evidence of Udai Bhatia they have relied on AIR 1994 SC 542 , State of Rajasthan v. Bhola Singh and Anr. But we find that the facts of this citation were different from the facts of case in hand. Let us first examine the citations which the learned counsel for the accused persons have submitted before us. For appreciation of evidence of Udai Bhatia they have relied on AIR 1994 SC 542 , State of Rajasthan v. Bhola Singh and Anr. But we find that the facts of this citation were different from the facts of case in hand. On this point they have also relied on Jetha Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 1985 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 428 wherein it was observed that the courts are reluctant to put absolute reliance on a child's evidence and look for corroboration and the courts take extreme caution when solitary eye witness is child witness. We are cautious about it and are taking extreme caution while looking into the evidence of PW-4 Udai Batia. Another citation is Shiv Singh & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, 1985 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 401 , in which it was observed that solitary eye witness did not mention the incident to any one. He was found to be most unreliable and untrustworthy, therefore, conviction based on his evidence was set aside. A single bench ruling of Mangu & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, 1976 RCC 309 has been cited wherein it was observed that when there was material and significant contradiction in statement of a child witness it was difficult to rely upon such testimony. For delay in his examination by the police the famous case of Babu Maulana and 6 others v. State of Rajasthan, 1986 Cr.L R. (Raj.) 518 has been cited wherein it has been observed that the eye witnesses were not examined by the police immediately after the incident and the court came to the conclusion that they were not present at the time of the incident, therefore, their evidence was held fatal to the prosecution. Sunder Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1976 RCC 214 has also been cited wherein a child witness of hardly five years was alleged to be an eye witness. He turned hostile to the prosecution and he stated that he came to know about the death of his mother by his father next morning. His statement was not believed and the accused was acquitted. He turned hostile to the prosecution and he stated that he came to know about the death of his mother by his father next morning. His statement was not believed and the accused was acquitted. AIR 1994 SC 1068 , Arbind Singh v. State of Bihar has also been relied wherein convictions was based only on the basis of the evidence of a child witness aged five years, a daughter of deceased. In evidence there were apparent traces of tutoring on aspects of method adopted for killing or as to the cause why her mother was killed by her father So her evidence was not believed and the accused was acquitted. 13. Learned Public Prosecutor has cited 1994 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 247, Kidia v. State of Rajasthan wherein all the witnesses were child witness and they rightly narrated the sequence of the occurrence which was corroborating with the other circumstances. It was observed that reliability of testimony of the child witness was unquestionable. He also relied on Gulab v. State of Rajasthan, 1983 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 546 where a child of seven years was an eye witness. He did not say anything immediately after the incident. Even then the testimony of the child witness was found to be natural and corroborated by other evidence and it was held that the evidence of a child witness can be relied upon. He also cited State of U.P. v. Ranjha Ram & Ors., 1986 SCC (Cr.) 374 , wherein it was observed that the testimony of a minor eye witness was not at variance with testimony of grown-up-persons and when he was found to be truthful and consistent, High Court committed error in rejecting his testimony on trivial reasons and even doubting his presence with his parents at home. The acquittal was converted into the conviction by the Apex Court. From the above citations it comes out that a child witness can be relied when there is corroboration of his evidence and when the child witness is of a sterling worth. 14. The acquittal was converted into the conviction by the Apex Court. From the above citations it comes out that a child witness can be relied when there is corroboration of his evidence and when the child witness is of a sterling worth. 14. For enhancing of punishment, learned Public Prosecutor cited Surja Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 1996 SCC (Cr.) 1314 , wherein the facts were that cold-blooded barbaric murder of his brother, his two minor sons and aged aunt were committed by the accused and an attempt to murder brother's wife and daughter with a view to wipe out entire family of his brother in a calculated manner when they were fast asleep by cutting their necks with a sharp-cutting weapon. There was a dispute between the brothers relating to respective shares of land already settled with mediation of Sarpanch and only a minor quarrel relating to some objection about an attempt to put barbed wire fencing had taken place and there was no provocation nor any immediate or even proximate cause of resentment shown, the death sentence was awarded. It comes out that the death sentence can be passed in a rare of the rarest cases. 15. Now we will take up the evidence which has been led by the prosecution in the present case. 16. First of all the evidence of material witness Udai Batia, PW-4, will be discussed. From his evidence, it appears that he was six years of age at the time of occurrence. So he is a child witness. But he understands things very well as it is clear from the questions put to him by the learned Sessions Judge before declaring him a competent witness. He has stated that his father Ravindra Bhatia worked with Pratap Kesri new paper. His father's regular routine was that he used to go to office after breakfast in the morning and return at about 8 PM. The witness used to take his dinner with his father. As usual, Ravindra Bhatia returned at 8 PM. on the date of occurrence and took dinner. Thereafter he went to the office of news paper after locking the door from outside. The witness has further stated that after his father had left for his office, Raju came. Then Anita and Raju took dinner together on the double bed. As usual, Ravindra Bhatia returned at 8 PM. on the date of occurrence and took dinner. Thereafter he went to the office of news paper after locking the door from outside. The witness has further stated that after his father had left for his office, Raju came. Then Anita and Raju took dinner together on the double bed. At that time the witness was lying on his bed in the drawing room. According to him his father returned after some time arid there was a quarrel. He has stated that Smt. Anita and Raju gave beatings to his father and took him to the kitchen where Ravindra Bhatia fell down. According to him both the accused appellants tied Ravindra Bhatia and then Smt. Anita handed over a knife to Raju which he struck on Ravindra Bhatia. But Ravindra Bhatia caught the knife and then Smt. Anita gave a bigger knife to Raju by which Raju inflicted injuries. Smt. Anita bit her teeth on the arm of Ravindra Bhatia and Raju also did the same. Ravindra Bhatia died in the kitchen. 17. The witness has further stated that Smt. Anita asked Raju to tie her feet and hands as well as her mouth and injured her foot so that she may go to Pratap Kesri and state that three gundas had come who killed Ravindra Bhatia and tied her. Raju obeyed. Then Smt. Anita took the witness (Udai Bhatia PW-4) to Pratap Kesri. While they were going, the employees of Pratap Kesri met them in the way. They untied Smt. Anita's hands. Then those employees came to the house and thereafter they went to the house of his grand mother. According to him it were Smt. Anita and Raju who killed Ravindra Bhatia. He has stated that Smt. Anita used to visit Raju who was living at Ravindra Path in a rented room. Photographs Ex. P/8 to P/10 are proved by the witness and they prove that Raju was quite close to Smt. Anita. From Ex.P/8, we find that Raju is having his left hand on the shoulder of Smt. Anita embracing her. Udai is also standing on one side and another child is in the lap of Smt. Anita. From photograph Ex. P/10 it is proved that Anita and Raju are standing very close to each other having the younger child, in the lap of both of them. Udai is also standing on one side and another child is in the lap of Smt. Anita. From photograph Ex. P/10 it is proved that Anita and Raju are standing very close to each other having the younger child, in the lap of both of them. The younger child is in the lap of Raju in Ex.P/9. The case of the defence is that these photographs were snapped after the arrest of both the accused appellants. But this is not correct because there is no sign of any perplexity on the faces of either Anita or Raju of Udai. The photographs are very natural. In Ex.P/9, Udai is standing in a very gay mood. So are Raju and Anita in all three photographs. They show the intimacy of Raju with Anita. The argument that they had mother and son relationship cannot be accepted after seeing the photographs. The register Ex.P/42 seized from Bharat Colour Studio proves that the photographs were snapped on 25.8.93. 18. PW-12 Murarilal, who is the proprietor of Bharat Colour Studio, has been examined on behalf of the prosecution and was declared hostile. According to him the photographs Ex. P/8 to P/10 were snapped by him at the instance of the police after the arrest of accused persons, but we cannot accept it to be correct statement because the photographs are very natural. The witness has been won over. Ex. P/42 was seized from his shop which mentions that snaps were taken on 25.8.93. The witness has admitted that Ex. P/41, seizure memo of the photographs, bears his signatures. The photographs were seized on 1.9.93 alongwith a copy (note book) which contains the entry Ex.P/42. The photographs Ex. P/8 to P/10 show that they were snapped not in a studio but somewhere outside in a green background and are natural and sufficient to corroborate PW-4 to the effect that Smt. Anita and Raju had illicit relations. 19. PW-4 Udai Bhatia has been criticized by the defence on many counts. The first and foremost point is that his statement was not recorded either on the date of occurrence or immediately after the occurrence. Instead he was examined on 1.10.93 i.e. after about a month of the occurrence. Learned Sessions Judge while relying on Suresh v. State of U.P., 1981 Cr.L.R. (SC) 379 held that the delay was not material. The first and foremost point is that his statement was not recorded either on the date of occurrence or immediately after the occurrence. Instead he was examined on 1.10.93 i.e. after about a month of the occurrence. Learned Sessions Judge while relying on Suresh v. State of U.P., 1981 Cr.L.R. (SC) 379 held that the delay was not material. In this citation the child witness was examined by the police about 20 days later. There was a valid reason for delay viz. the state of mind and the state of his body and in the circumstances it was found that the witness was reliable as he was the most natural one. In the circumstances ot the present case, during that fateful night Udai was the most natural witness. Though he has been examined by the police after about a month, yet there are valid reasons for this delay. He has stated that he did tell to his grand mother that his father was murdered by Smt. Anita, his mother, and Raju. His conduct is very natural. He was seeing his father being murdered by his mother and her paramour before his eyes. He was naturally shocked while lying on his bed. The helpless boy could not have done anything except looking to what was happening. He was in a position to see the whole incident from his bed and he was doing so but being a helpless boy was under a trauma after having seen the murder of his loving father by his coquettish mother and her paramour. His conduct is very natural as he says that since the police did not enquire from him on the fateful night, he did not tell anything to the police on his own accord. Besides he must have been under fear of Smt. Anita and Raju who had murdered his father before him. The presence of the witness in the house cannot be denied that he must have undergone a shock after having seen the occurrence. The delay in examining the witness by the police is not material in the circumstances of this case. It has been submitted that the witness is under the influence of his grand mother who was not happy because Ravindra Bhatia had married with Smt. Anita against her wishes. The delay in examining the witness by the police is not material in the circumstances of this case. It has been submitted that the witness is under the influence of his grand mother who was not happy because Ravindra Bhatia had married with Smt. Anita against her wishes. Needless to say that there is no evidence to the effect that the parents of Ravindra Bhatia might have made a hue and cry over the marriage. Secondly much water had flown under the bridge by the time the occurrence took place because the first child of the couple was about six years of age. So the marriage of Anita and Ravindra Bhatia had taken place almost 7 or 8 years before the occurrence. Therefore after such a lapse of long years, she would not be so much unhappy that she would involve Smt. Anita by tutoring Udai Bhatia. The witness and his mother both took shelter with the mother of Ravindra Bhatia till Anita was arrested. Had Ravindra's mother been angry with Smt. Anita, she would not have given shelter to her at all. It has been contended that PW-4 Udai could not have seen the occurrence from the drawing room as he uses spectacles as brought out in the cross examination of the witness. He admits that he is myopic and was taking treatment of a doctor from Delhi. He has admitted that he wears specs all the time till he goes to sleep. It can safely be said that since he had not gone to sleep at the time of occurrence, he was wearing the specs and was, therefore, in a position to see the whole incident. The criticisms made towards the statement of this witness are of no help to the accused appellants as the witness was the most natural one. He saw the occurrence with his two open eyes. 20. He has stated that after the occurrence his mother Smt. Anita took him to the office of Pratap Kesri where his father was working during those days. It is stated by PW-1 Revtiraman that Ravindra Bhatia went from the office of Pratap Kesri at about 10.15 p.m. telling that he was going to his home and would be returning after 10 or 15 minutes, but he did not return for about an hour. Then Gurmukh was sent to his house. It is stated by PW-1 Revtiraman that Ravindra Bhatia went from the office of Pratap Kesri at about 10.15 p.m. telling that he was going to his home and would be returning after 10 or 15 minutes, but he did not return for about an hour. Then Gurmukh was sent to his house. After 10 minutes, Gurmukh came back and told that the house of Ravindra Bhatia was closed from inside. Thereafter PW-1 Revtiraman heard some noise and he thought that some quarrel had taken place. Therefore, he informed the police control room and came down stairs from his office. He found that Smt. Anita was crying and some officials of the press introduced her as the wife of Ravindra Bhatia. Then he ran towards the house of Ravindra Bhatia where Gurmukh, Iqbal, Ravi and some 15 to 20 persons had also collected. He has stated that the house of Ravindra Bhatia was in darkness and a man was seen running in the park. The crowd cried and then chowkidar told that the person could not be identified. He corroborates PW-4 Udai Bhatia to the effect that Smt. Anita had gone to the office of Pratap Kesri. PW-1 Revtiraman is corroborated by PW-2 Gurmukh Singh when he says that he was sent by Revtiraman to the house of Ravindra Bhatia. He went to the house of Ravindra Bhatia but came back as nobody responded to his call. He has further started that he heard a noise and when he saw from the first floor he found that hands of Smt. Anita were tied with a rope and her mouth was tied with a chunni. The rope was untied by Iqbal and chunni by Raju Morya. According to the witness, she was accompanied by Udai when she came to the office of Pratap Kesri. 21. PW-3 Narain Dutt has stated that the house of Ravindra Bhatia is situated near his hotel. On the fateful night at about 11.30 PM. he closed his hotel and went to urinate in a public toilet opposite the house of Ravindra Bhatia. When he was returning, Mahendra Posti met him and both of them started talking. He heard the noise of a lady from the house of Ravindra Bhatia and saw a person running and then he found that Smt. Anita came out of the house with tied hands and mouth. When he was returning, Mahendra Posti met him and both of them started talking. He heard the noise of a lady from the house of Ravindra Bhatia and saw a person running and then he found that Smt. Anita came out of the house with tied hands and mouth. She went with a child towards the office of Pratap Kesri news paper. The witness called her but she did not respond. He has also identified Raju whom he had seen running from the house of Ravindra Bhatia before Smt. Anita had come out of the house. He knew the accused from before and had seen him on earlier occasions. He has further stated that the employees of Pratap Kesri untied the hands and mouth of Smt. Anita. He was subjected to a lengthy cross examination. We find from his statement that he is a reliable witness and had seen the accused appellant Raju running from the house of Ravindra Bhatia and thereafter saw Smt. Anita and her son going towards the office of Pratap Kesri. This witness has also corroborated PW-4 Udai when he says that he had seen him going with his mother to the office of Pratap Kesri. 22. PW-5 Raju Morya and PW-6 Syed Mohd. Iqbal are the employees of Pratap Kesri. According to Raju Morya, Smt. Anita and her son came to the press. According to him, hands of Smt. Anita were tied with a rope while her mouth was tied with chunni. He opened the chunni and Iqbal opened the rope. He has thus corroborated Udai when he says that Smt. Anita and her son had come to the press. PW-6 Mohd. Iqbal has also stated so and has stated that Raju untied the chunni while he untied the rope. Then he alongwith other employees of Pratap Kesri went to the house of Ravindra Bhatia and found that the house was in darkness. He has stated that after the police came, the electricity wires of the house were put in order and the house was lighted. From this evidence, it is well proved that smt. Anita had gone to the office of Pratap Kesri with tied hands and tied mouth taking her son Udai. She wanted to pretend that some bandits had murdered her husband. Her conduct is very strange. From this evidence, it is well proved that smt. Anita had gone to the office of Pratap Kesri with tied hands and tied mouth taking her son Udai. She wanted to pretend that some bandits had murdered her husband. Her conduct is very strange. She did not tell anything to either of these witnesses as to how the occurrence had taken place and who were the persons who had entered into the house. Accused appellant Raju was seen running from the house of Ravindra Bhatia by the witness. He was also identified by PW- 3 Narain Dutt. 23. PW-7 Vishnu Prasad was the chowkidar of the area where house of Ravindra Bhatia is situated. He has stated that at about 10.30 p.m. Ravindra Bhatia came from the office of Pratap Kesri and went inside his house. Then he checked the locks of shops in the market and also checked the house of Ravindra Bhatia and found that it was closed from inside. According to him at about 12.05 a.m., he found that 5 or 7 persons were running towards the house of Ravindra Bhatia. He went there and found that a police gypsy was standing and some persons were present. He came to know about the occurrence and then he went to the house of father-in-law of Smt. Anita and awakened him. 24. From the statement of PW-8 Vinay Khaturia, it is proved that Raju was a tenant in his house whom Smt. Anita Bhatia with her children used to visit. He has stated that the accused appellant Raju had told that he was having relations with Anita Bhatia. From his statement it is proved that Smt. Anita used to visit Raju very often and when admitted case of the Raju is that he was a driver of Ravindra Bhatia on his Maruti car, Smt. Anita had no other purpose to go to a room of a driver unless she had some extra marital relations. 25. PW-14 Sanjay Bhatia is the real brother of Ravindra Bhatia. According to him at about 12.15 a.m. on 29.8.93 the watchman rang the bell of his house and he opened the door. On enquiry, the watchman told that an occurrence had taken place in his brother's house. He went to the house of Ravindra Bhatia where Smt. Anita Bhatia was found weeping and told that somebody had killed Ravindra. According to him at about 12.15 a.m. on 29.8.93 the watchman rang the bell of his house and he opened the door. On enquiry, the watchman told that an occurrence had taken place in his brother's house. He went to the house of Ravindra Bhatia where Smt. Anita Bhatia was found weeping and told that somebody had killed Ravindra. He was the first relation from the parents side of Ravindra Bhatia to reach at the place of occurrence. Smt. Anita told him that somebody had killed Ravindra Bhatia but did not tell the whole story. Prior to it she had gone to the office of Pratap Kesri and met the employees. She did not tell anything to them nor to this witness who was the real brother of the deceased. It was she who was present in the house at the time of occurrence and the things were in her knowledge. But her conduct of not telling anything about the incident and simply saying that somebody had killed her husband is a circumstance in itself which speaks volumes against her. 26. PW-14 Sanjay Bhatia has stated that after when police officers came, Smt. Anita, on interrogation, told that three dacoits had come and killed Ravindra Bhatia. But the house was not ransacked. Secondly, Smt. Anita did not raise any alarm if the dacoits had come and killed Ravindra Bhatia, which would attract neighbours at least. We find from the evidence that the house of Madanlal Bhatia and Jogendra Singh are situated adjacent to the house of the deceased. Learned counsel for the defence has contended that PW-14 Sanjay Bhatia should not be believed as a litigation regarding partition of property has been pending in which he is a party. We are of the view that the statement of the witness cannot be discarded on this ground. We do not find any infirmity in his statement. Conduct of Smt. Anita is strange. She told Sanjay that somebody killed his brother but when the police came and interrogated, she told that three dacoits had come. This story was never told to the persons who had met her outside the office of Pratap Kesri. She cooked up the story in order to save herself and her paramour. Sanjay was in the nearby house. She told Sanjay that somebody killed his brother but when the police came and interrogated, she told that three dacoits had come. This story was never told to the persons who had met her outside the office of Pratap Kesri. She cooked up the story in order to save herself and her paramour. Sanjay was in the nearby house. Had Smt. Anita raised an alarm an incident had taken had taken place in the way she narrated to the police, this witness or other neighbourers would have definitely come. There is no evidence that deceased indulged in some illegal business of opium. From the evidence which has been discussed above, we find that the prosecution has been able to prove that Smt. Anita Bhatia was having illicit relations with Raju and that she and Raju committed the crime in order to get rid of Ravindra Bhatia who was an obstacle in her way. 27. PW-11 Dr. O.P. Sharma had stated that on 31.8.93 Smt. Anita was examined by a medical board comprising of Dr. O.P. Sharma, Dr. Janak and Dr. Meenakshi Bhargave, they found a cut wound of 3/4" x ⅕" muscle deep on the right foot and an abrasion of 1/2" x 1/2" on left wrist. The cut wound was caused by a sharp edged weapon and was simple in nature. It was within the period of 36 hours. The report Ex.P/19 was prepared which bears the signatures of the witness. The case of the prosecution is that this injury was inflicted by accused Raju on the request of Smt. Anita in order to show that she was also injured during the scuffle when the bandits had invaded the house. She was put question No. 14 and was asked to explain the injuries on her body. She has stated that:- " iwjk irk ugha gS fQj dgk fd eqdnek fd;k Fkk esjs ekewyh pksVsa FkhA " She has not explained as to how did she got the cut wound on her foot. It was she who was the best witness to explain her injury but she has chosen to keep silence. It means that the statement of PW-4 Udai Bhatia regarding this injury is true when he says that Smt. Anita had asked Raju to inflict injury on her leg so that she may tell the people that bandits had injured her. It was she who was the best witness to explain her injury but she has chosen to keep silence. It means that the statement of PW-4 Udai Bhatia regarding this injury is true when he says that Smt. Anita had asked Raju to inflict injury on her leg so that she may tell the people that bandits had injured her. This circumstance itself corroborates the story of the prosecution. Death of Ravindra Bhatia is homicidal and it is not disputed. Now we will take up the different recoveries made at the instance of the accused persons. Ashok was arrested on 5.9.93 at 5.15 p.m. as per arrest memo Ex. P/7. On the basis of his disclosure statement, recovery of a Rampuri knife was made on 8.9.93 at 4.05 p.m. at his instance before Amritlal and Malkiyat Singh from the back portion of the house of Ravindra Bhatia where some bricks were lying. It is supported by PW-15 Amritlal. Ex.P/54 was prepared and the knife was sealed in a packet. Ex.P/55 is the site plan of the place wherefrom knife was recovered. This recovery was made by the Investigating Officer PW-17 Surendra Singh who prepared Ex.P/55, the site plan of the place of recovery of knife. The knife was sent to the chemical examiner for examination. His report Ex. P/64 mentions that the knife was found blood stained with human blood of `B' group. Report Ex.P/64 further proves that the blood group of deceased Ravindra was `B' as the blood stained pieces of cement, dried blood obtained from the place of occurrence, curtains, towel, pant and bushirt of Ravindra Bhatia contained `B' group of human blood. It is further proved from this report that chunni of Smt. Anita Bhatia also contained the same `B' group which was of deceased Ravindra Bhatia. This evidence is very material in the circumstances of this case. So far as recovery of gupti is concerned, it was recovered vide Ex.P/56 at the instance of accused appellant Raju on 11.9.93 on the basis of his disclosure statement recorded under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. Amritlal PW-15 and PW-17 Surendra Singh have proved the memo of recovery Ex.P/56 which has prepared by the Investigating Officer. It mentions that gupti was double edged and had some blood spots on its blade. The same was examined by the FSL and its report Ex. Amritlal PW-15 and PW-17 Surendra Singh have proved the memo of recovery Ex.P/56 which has prepared by the Investigating Officer. It mentions that gupti was double edged and had some blood spots on its blade. The same was examined by the FSL and its report Ex. P/64 mentions that when it was examined, it did not have blood. The minor stains might be wiped out when gupti was packed. The fact remains that gupti was recovered at the instance of the accused Raju. The dental impressions of Raju and Smt. Anita were sent for chemical examination to obtain opinion about the resemblance of injury on the photographs of Ravindra Bhatia. Ex.P/65 report says that a definite conclusion could not be drawn due to the fact that the injuries in Ex.P/5 (two photographs of deceased ) do not posses the required structural details of the teeth. We may mention that had some bandits caused murder of the deceased, they would not cut the arms of Ravindra Bhatia who might have made resistance to save himself from the clutches of Smt. Anita and her paramour Raju. They over powered him not only by doing such acts but also by tying his neck in a rope. The overall circumstances in this case very well prove that it were Raju and Smt. Anita Bhatia who committed the crime. Accused Raju has injuries which he received during the scuffle. He was examined by Dr. O.P. Sharma on 9.9.93 at 9.40 a.m. He found that Raju had four injuries. He prepared the report Ex.P/20 which mentions the injuries as follows:- (1) healed wound on right palm, (2) healed wound on top of right index finger, (3) healed wound on the middle finger of left hand near the nail, and (4) healed wound on left shoulder 13/4"x 11/2" on top of left shoulder by tooth bite. The accused appellant was examined on 9.9.93 and at that time the injuries were of the duration from a week to two weeks. The allegation of the accused appellant is that it were the police which caused injury of teeth bite on the left shoulder of the accused but he does not give any explanation about the other injuries. Raju was arrested on 5.9.93 and was produced before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar on 6.9.93 for the first time. The allegation of the accused appellant is that it were the police which caused injury of teeth bite on the left shoulder of the accused but he does not give any explanation about the other injuries. Raju was arrested on 5.9.93 and was produced before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar on 6.9.93 for the first time. He was produced before the Magistrate time and again but no such complaint was made that the police had inflicted any injury on his body. He does not give any explanation about other injuries on his body. However, during the investigation it is the Investigating Officer who got him medically examined on 9.9.93 and the above injuries were found on his body. We are of the definite opinion that he received these injuries during the scuffle on the fateful night. This ghastly crime was committed under a scheme and Smt. Anita Bhatia and Raju who had developed illicit relations decided to murder Ravindra Bhatia who had suddenly come when Smt. Anita and Raju were inside the house and both of them completed their design. They cleverly made a plan to save themselves and an injury was caused on the foot of Smt. Anita Bhatia by knife so that it may be pretended that it were bandits who had come to the house. They had murdered Ravindra Bhatia and caused injury to Anita. But from the evidence on record, we are convinced that it were Raju and Smt. Anita who murdered Ravindra Bhatia. The charges are well proved and there is no force in the appeals of Raju and smt. Anita Bhatia. We have considered the appeal of the State for enhancement of sentence. We are of the opinion that it is not a case in which the death penalty may be imposed. Consequently the appeal of the State also deserves to be dismissed. In view of the above discussion, appeals of Smt. Anita Bhatia and Raju are dismissed. State appeal is also dismissed. Appeal dismissed. Conviction upheld.. *******