Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 627 (RAJ)

Ashok Raghuvanshi v. State of Rajasthan

2002-03-20

F.C.BANSAL, SHIV KUMAR SHARMA

body2002
Honble SHARMA, J.–The accused appellant Ashok Raghuvanshi (for short the accused) was indicated before the learned Sessions Judge Jaipur District in Sessions Case No. 6/94 for having committed murder of his wife Rajni and daughter Harshita. The learned Sessions Judge after finding the accused guilty convicted and sentenced him vide judgment dated December 14, 1995 as under- U/s. 302 IPC to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 100/- in default to further suffer one month imprisonment U/s. 203 IPC to suffer six months RI. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. Against the judgment of conviction that the action for filing the instant appeal has been initiated by the accused. The State of Rajasthan sought enhancement of sentence by filing a separate appeal. (2). The prosecution case as unfolded during the trial may be briefly stated thus- (i) On the basis of written report Ex. P.1, submitted by the accused himself FIR No. 319/93 was registered at Police Station Sanganer on September 6, 1993 at 11.20 p.m. for offence punishable under section 302 IPC. It had been interalia stated in the report that the accused had returned to his house at around 9.30 p.m. The lights in the house were not found on. The door at the back side on the house was not found open as usual. The accused stopped his scooter and called his wife. He knocked the door, rang the call bell. Thereafter he found the front door locked. These happenings were unusual, therefore he went towards the house of Surendra Kumar Saxena and brought him to him house. Both of them pushed the back door. The door opened with a slight push. In the torch light they found that behind the rear door a stone had been placed. The glare of the torch when fell inside the house. dead bodies of Rajni wife of the accused and Kumari Harshita the daughter of the accused were found in the Kitchen and in the dining room respectively. (ii) In the course of investigation S.H.O. PS Sanganer inspected the site. On September 7, 1993 the accused is alleged to have submitted another application Ex. P.5 to the Incharge Police Station Sanganer. It was stated therein that Rs. 8,000/-, four gold bangles, three gold rings, one gold pendant, a pair of gold ear rings and a pair of silver anklets were found missing from the house. On September 7, 1993 the accused is alleged to have submitted another application Ex. P.5 to the Incharge Police Station Sanganer. It was stated therein that Rs. 8,000/-, four gold bangles, three gold rings, one gold pendant, a pair of gold ear rings and a pair of silver anklets were found missing from the house. The police further added offence punishable under section 380 IPC. During search of the house few letters and medical reports of Smt. Rajni and Kumari Harshita were also recovered. In the course of investigation the police came to the conclusion that no theft had been committed. The articles which according to the accused had been allegedly stolen, were recovered from the custody of the accused as these articles were found lying in the almirah belonging to the accused which was placed in his office situated in Birla Planetorium. Autopsy on the dead bodies were conducted. Blood samples were lifted from the scene of occurrence. Photographs were taken. During investigation the accused was taken into custody and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against him. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Sessions Judge Jaipur District. Charges under sections 302 and 203 IPC were framed against the accused who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 28 witnesses in support of its case. In his explanation under section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused stated that the witnesses were telling lies. He stated that he had been falsely roped in as his in laws were annoyed with him. The report from the Forensic Science Laboratory was false and fabricated. The accused also submitted a written statement. Two witnesses Rajendra Kumar Jain and Rajendra Godha were examined in defence. After hearing final submissions, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused as indicated hereinabove. (3). Mr. S.R. Bajwa, learned Senior Counsel vociferously canvassed that the learned trial judge has erred in law in holding the accused guilty on the basis of perverse appreciation of evidence. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are for from being conclusive in nature. No conviction on the basis of circumstances which can be explained away on hypothesis other than leading to guilt alone. The prosecution has failed to prove that the accused had any ill will or enmity against his own daughter Kumari Harshita. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are for from being conclusive in nature. No conviction on the basis of circumstances which can be explained away on hypothesis other than leading to guilt alone. The prosecution has failed to prove that the accused had any ill will or enmity against his own daughter Kumari Harshita. There could not be any motive on the part of the accused to take the life of his own daughter. There is no cogent and convincing evidence available on record to infer muchless to conclude that there was any bad blood between the accused and his wife Smt. Rajni. There could be no motive for the accused to commit murder of his own wife. The contemporaneous events fail to point out conclusively that the murders must have been committed by the accused and none else. There is strong probability that some intruders barged into the house with some ulterior design like robbery and confronted with stiff resistance they caused two murders and thereafter some intervening factors might have prevented them from committing robbery and the possibility cannot be ruled out that they had to leave the house suddenly without achieving their ultimate goal. So far as evidence collected on the basis of site plan Ex.P.2 is concerned, the same is neutral in nature. Medical evidence including the post mortem reports is also neutral in effect. Letters Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.29 do not conclusively point out that the accused had been designing to liquidate his wife and his daughter. Recovery of Rs. 8000/- and gold ornaments etc. is fake and fabricated. The recovery of a hammer vide recovery memo Ex. P.57 is false and frivolous. The investigating agency has planted these articles to connect the accused with the alleged offence. The learned trial judge has based the conviction on the basis of sheer surmises and conjectures. Reliance was placed on various authorities that shall be considered in the later part of the judgment. (4). Per contra Mr. S.S. Rathore, learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. S.R. Surana, learned counsel for the complainant supported the impugned judgment and urged that the prosecution had established by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances proved form chain of events from which the only irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the accused can be safely drawn and no other hypothesis against the guilt is possible. S.R. Surana, learned counsel for the complainant supported the impugned judgment and urged that the prosecution had established by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances proved form chain of events from which the only irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the accused can be safely drawn and no other hypothesis against the guilt is possible. Case law on which reliance was placed shall be referred at the appropriate juncture. (5). We have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record. Admittedly there is no direct evidence to connect the accused with the guilt and the case is based on circumstantial evidence. The law relating to circumstantial evidence in clear and unmistakable terms has been laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Tanviben Pankajkumar Divetia vs. State of Gujrat (1). It was indicated thus : (Para 45) ``The Principle for basing a conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidences has been indicated in a number of decisions of this Court and the law is well settled that each and every incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable and clinching evidence and circumstances so proved must form a chain of events from which the only irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the accused can be safely drawn and no other hypothesis against the guilt is possible. This court has clearly sounded a note of caution that in a case depending largely upon circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof. The Court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain of events have been established clearly and such completed chain of events must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. It has also been indicated that when the important link goes, the chain of circumstances gets snapped and the other circumstance cannot, in any manner establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. It has been held that the Court has to be watchful and avoid the danger of allowing the suspicion to take the place of legal proof for sometimes, unconsciously it may happen to be a short step between moral certainty and legal proof. It has been held that the Court has to be watchful and avoid the danger of allowing the suspicion to take the place of legal proof for sometimes, unconsciously it may happen to be a short step between moral certainty and legal proof. It has been indicated by this court that there is a long mental distance between `may be true and `must be true and the same divides conjectures from sure conclusion. These principles have been elaborately dealt with in Sharad Bidhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra (2). (6). Bearing the aforequoted principles in mind we propose to examine each set of evidence and to see whether taken together they are sufficient to raise inference that the victims were done to death by the accused. (7). The circumstances which the prosecution presented can be recast as follows- (i) Rajni and Harshita used to remain sick and the accused wanted to get rid of them. (ii) Accused wanted to marry another woman. (iii) Rajni had apprehension of her death and she wrote in her diary that after her death her all money be given to her daughter Harshita. (iv) In the preceding months of the occurrence the accused started withdrawing money from the Bank account of Rajni. (v) Conduct of the accused after the occurrence was unnatural. (vi) Accused lodged false report (Ex.P.1) with the Police Station. In another application Ex.P.5 the accused falsely informed the Police Station that Rs. 8000/-, four gold bangles, three gold rings, one gold pendant, a pair of gold ear rings and a pair of silver anklets were found missing from his house. (vii) The accused while in custody gave information leading to the discovery of cash, ornaments and blood stained hammer. (viii) The ornaments which according to the accused had been allegedly stolen from his house, were recovered at the instance of the accused from the almirah belonging to the accused which was placed in his office at Birla Planetorium. (ix) The ornaments were identified by the brother of deceased Rajni. (x) Blood stained hammer was recovered from the almirah at the instance of the accused. (xi) According to FSL report (Ex.P.101) blood group `AB of Harshita was found on hammer. (8). (ix) The ornaments were identified by the brother of deceased Rajni. (x) Blood stained hammer was recovered from the almirah at the instance of the accused. (xi) According to FSL report (Ex.P.101) blood group `AB of Harshita was found on hammer. (8). In order to establish that the accused wanted to marry another woman and intended to get rid of Rajni and Harshita as both of them used to remain sick the prosecution has examined Suresh Chand Singh PW.3, Vijay Laxmi PW.6, Dr. Gauri Shaker PW.13, Dr. Ashok Jain PW.14, Sister Deepa PW. 18, and Dr. Tapeshwar Nath PW. 20. (9). Suresh Chand Singh PW.3 is the real brother of Rajni. In his deposition Suresh Chand Singh stated that Harshita used to remain sick since her birth and after giving birth to Harshita, Rajni also suffered from ill-health. The accused once told him that because of Rajnis illness he be permitted to enter into second marriage. Rajni was not happy with this proposal and he also opposed it. The behaviour of the accused with Rajni thereafter became cruel. About two months before the incident when Rajni visited Firojabad, she told him that accused used to harass her. He alongwith his wife came to Jaipur one month before the incident and met Rajni. She then informed him that the incidents of harassment by the accused with her were increasing and once he dragged her out of the house. She also told him that money earned by her had been withdrawn by the accused after pursuading her to sign on the blank cheques. Suresh Chand Singh got exhibited. letter Ex. P.4 written by the accused to him whereby the accused invited him to Jaipur to have a talk. Suresh Chand Singh further deposited about Rajnis apprehension that the accused might kill her and her daughter. On September 7, 1997 he had received telephonic message that Rajni and Harshita had been killed but this information was not given by the accused. When he reached Jaipur and met the accused he found the accused disturbed but there were no marks of grief on his face. Finding Rajnis cot in the drawing room when Suresh Chandra Singh made query, the accused told him that they used to sleep on separate costs because of security purposes. Suresh Chandra Singh identified the ornaments of Rajni in the court. Finding Rajnis cot in the drawing room when Suresh Chandra Singh made query, the accused told him that they used to sleep on separate costs because of security purposes. Suresh Chandra Singh identified the ornaments of Rajni in the court. He identified the hand writing of Rajni in the Diary Article 3 wherein Rajni wrote that after her death all her money be handed over to her daughter Harshita. (10). Smt. Vijay Shree (PW.6) the wife of Suresh Chand Singh also deposed that Rajni and Harshita used to became sick and the accused expressed his desire to marry with another woman. When his proposal was opposed, he started harassing Rajni. (11). Dr. Gauri Shanker (PW. 13) Dr. Ashok Jain (PW. 14) Sister Dipa (PW. 18) and Dr. Tapishwar Nath (PW.20) were examined by the prosecution to establish the illness of Rajni and Harshita. (12). On a close look at the testimony of aforequoted witnesses we have come across with some exaggeration embellishments and inconsistencies but having examined their statements from the point of view of trust worthiness we find them reliable. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Kaki Ramesh vs. State of A.P. (3), propounded that exaggerations, embellishments and inconsistencies on the fringe do not make witness unreliable. In view of the testimony of these witnesses we are inclined to hold that the prosecution has established that because of Rajni and Harshits prolonged illness, the accused wanted to get rid of them. He gave a proposal to enter into second marriage to the brother of Rajni and from the behaviour of the accused, Rajni had apprehension of her death and she wrote in her diary that after her death all of her money be handed over to her daughter Harshita. (13). That takes us to another circumstance in regard to withdrawal of money by the accused from the bank account of Rajni in the preceding months of the occurrence. To prove this circumstance, the prosecution examined Suresh Chandra Singh (PW. 3), Birbal (PW. 11) and Laxmi Narain Gupta (PW. 17). Birbal (PW. 11) was the Assistant Manager of the Bank of Rajasthan University Branch at the relevant time. In his deposition Birbal stated that Rajni had Savings account in his Bank bearing Account number 14767. To prove this circumstance, the prosecution examined Suresh Chandra Singh (PW. 3), Birbal (PW. 11) and Laxmi Narain Gupta (PW. 17). Birbal (PW. 11) was the Assistant Manager of the Bank of Rajasthan University Branch at the relevant time. In his deposition Birbal stated that Rajni had Savings account in his Bank bearing Account number 14767. After examining her statement of account Ex.P.5 Birbal stated that between March 2, 1993 and August 28, 1993 Rajni had issued as many as seven cheques in the name of Ashok Kumar (accused) and Ashok Kumar had withdrawn Rs. 74,500/- through those cheques. The statement of Suresh Chand Singh (PW. 3) that Rajni informed him about withdrawal of money by the accused from the account, gets corroboration by the testimony of Birbal. The prosecution is thus able to establish this circumstance also. (14). In so far as unnatural conduct of the accused after the incident is concerned the prosecution has produced Suresh Chandra Singh (PW. 3) and Smt. Vijay Shree (PW. 6). As already stated while considering Suresh Chandra Singhs statement that the accused himself did not give information to him about the incident. When Suresh Chandra Singh came to Jaipur he found the accused disturbed but did not notice marks of grief on his face. (15). It is also established from the material on the record that the accused after filing the written report (Ex.P.1) on Sept. 6, 1993 submitted yet another application on September 7, 1993 (Ex.P.5) to the effect that Rs. 8000/- four gold bangles, three gold rings, one gold pendent, a pair of gold ear rings and a pair of silver anklets were found missing from his house and the Police Station Sanganer on the basis of said information added offence under section 380 IPC. The accused was arrested on Sept. 12, 1993 vide Arrest Memo Ex.P.64. The accused while in custody gave information under section 27 Evidence Act leading to the recovery of cash and ornaments which according to the accused had been allegedly stolen from his house were recovered at his instance from the almirah belonging to the accused which was placed in his office at Birla Planetorium. The ornaments were identified as of Rajnis Stridhan by her brother Suresh Chandra Singh before the Magistrate. The ornaments were identified as of Rajnis Stridhan by her brother Suresh Chandra Singh before the Magistrate. Blood stained hammer was also recovered from the said almirah at the instance of the accused and as per FSL report (Ex.P.101) blood group `AB of Harshita was found on hammer. (16). Shrawan Lal (PW. 9) whose duty was as booking clerk in Planetorium on September 6, 1993 from 2 p.m. to 9 p.m. in his deposition stated that the accused came to the office on that day around 2.10 p.m. The accused was having a packet wrapped in news paper. The key of the Almirah used to be kept by the accused himself. (17). The ornaments belonging to Rajni and cash in the sum of Rs. 8000/- were recovered from the almirah vide recovery memo Ex. P.57 at the instance of the accused. It is established from the evidence of Shrawan Lal (PW. 9) that the almirah was in the exclusive possession of the accused and as per the testimony of Motbirs Soran Singh (PW. 12) and Charar Singh (PW. 15) the lock of the almirah was got opened with the key possessed by the accused. The ornaments were identified by Suresh Chandra Singh (PW. 3) as of his sister Rajni in an identification proceedings conducted by the Magistrate Shri Govind Ram Gupta (PW.25). In Bhagwan (Shiv) vs. State (4), their Lordships of the Supreme Court indicated thus (Para 11) ``The possession of the fruits of the crime recently after it has been committed, affords a strong and reasonable ground for the presumption that the party in whose possession they are found was the real offender, unless he can account for such possession in some way consistence with his innocence. Their Lordships in yet another case of Earabhadrappa @ Krishnapa vs. State of Karnataka (5), wherein the deceased was throttled to death and accused was taken into custody and gold ornaments and other articles were recovered at his instance, observed that- ``This is a case where murder any robbery are proved to have been the integral parts of one and the same transaction and therefore the presumption arising under illustration (a) of section 114 of the Evidence Act is that not only the appellant committed the murder of the deceased but also committed robbery of her gold ornaments which form part of the same transaction. In the instant case the accused could not give any explanation as to how the gold and silver ornaments of Rajni, which according to him were found missing from his house came into his possession. The presumption under illustration (a) of section 114 of the Evidence Act could be drawn that it was the accused who was involved in the act of murder of Rajni and removal of her ornaments. (18). As also noticed earlier that blood stained hammer was also recovered from the almirah at the instance of the accused vide Ex.P.57. The recovery so effected on the basis of disclosure statement of the accused was made soon after the arrest of the accused and the accused failed to give any explanation as to how blood stained hammer reached to his office almirah which was not accessible to other persons. When the accused lead to the recovery of blood stained hammer then there is no reason to disbelieve the recovery. There is no explanation given by the accused how there were blood stains on the hammer. In the FSL report (Ex. P. 101) the hammer was found stained with AB group human blood. The blood group of the blood stained clothes of Harshita was also found as AB. Thus it is established that the injuries sustained by Harshita were caused by the hammer recovered at the instance of the accused and the blood found on hammer was of deceased Harshita. (19). Mr. S.R. Bajwa, learned Senior Counsel pointed out that the evidence adduced by the prosecution was not sufficient to find the accused guilty for the offences the accused guilty for the offences the accused has been charged with. It was urged that various incriminating circumstances relied on by the trial court are not sufficient to draw an inference of guilt of the accused and the chain of circumstances is not cogently and firmly established and the circumstances have no definite tendency to unerringly point at the guilt of the accused. According to learned counsel there are as many as twelve missing links in the prosecution case- (i) No injury was found on the person of the accused. (ii) No blood was found on the clothes of the accused. (iii) the behaviour of the accused was quite natural after the incident. (iv) No blood was found in the bath room or wash basin. (ii) No blood was found on the clothes of the accused. (iii) the behaviour of the accused was quite natural after the incident. (iv) No blood was found in the bath room or wash basin. (v) Actual time of assault was not established by the prosecution. (vi) Time of death of the deceased as shown in the post mortem report does not tally with the prosecution version. (vii) Whether the murder of Rajni and Harshita was committed simultaneously. (viii) Dog squad did not point at the accused. (ix) Shrieks of the deceased were not heard by any body. (x) No blood was found on the ornaments of the deceased recovered at the instance of the accused. (xi) No conclusive evidence was produced to establish the presence of the accused in the house at he time of the incident. (20). We are unable to pursuade ourselves to agree with the submissions advanced by the learned Senior counsel. It is established on record that Rajni and Harshita both were the victim of prolonged illness. On the fateful day when Rajni was in the kitchen and preparing food she was attacked from behind. As such there was no question of struggle by her that could cause injuries to the accused. Harshita was brought by the accused himself on that day from the school. Bhagwan Das Auto Riksha Driver (PW. 10) who used to drive Harshita to her school in the Auto Riksha daily and drop her back to her house, deposed that on September 6, 1993 when he had gone to the house of Harshita her mother told him that Harshita was not well her father would drop her. At 12.30 p.m. he had seen Harshitas father in the school. It is thus established that on September 6, 1993 accused had brought Harshita from the school and he alongwith Harshita came to the house. Rajnis dead body was found in the kitchen. From the site plan (Ex. P. 2) it is established that when Rajni was attacked, she already cooked `Dal and was in the process of making `chapaties. Dead body of Harshita was found lying near the door of kitchen. At the time of death she was wearing grey skirt and white trousers. Her school bag and water bottle were kept on the table. P. 2) it is established that when Rajni was attacked, she already cooked `Dal and was in the process of making `chapaties. Dead body of Harshita was found lying near the door of kitchen. At the time of death she was wearing grey skirt and white trousers. Her school bag and water bottle were kept on the table. It is thus established that Rajni and Harshita were attacked soon after Harshita reached to her house from her school and at that time presence of the accused in the house was not ruled out. For ascertaining time of death post mortem report cannot be viewed with mathematical precision and accuracy. Honble Supreme Court in Pattipati Venkaiah vs. State of A.P. (6), indicated that ``Medical science not yet so perfect as to determine the exact time of death nor can the same be determined in a computerised or mathematical fashion so as to be accurate to the last second. The behaviour of the accused after the incident was highly unnatural. Instead of trying to push the back door of his house, he went to his neighbours Mahesh Jhalani (PW. 1) and Suresh Kumar Saxena (PW. 2). These witnesses testified that back door of the house of the accused was not bolted from inside. The act of the accused in not making attempt to push the back door of his house was quite unnatural and it appears that the accused made attempt to call his neighbours only to establish his ignorance about the incident. (21). It also appears that when the police was not satisfied with the theory of robbery as the necessary ornaments were intact on the dead body of Rajni and some currency notes were also found in the house, the accused made an application (Ex. P.5) on the next day about missing of cash in the sum of Rs. 8000/- and ornaments of Rajni which were recovered later from his almirah. (22). Mr. Bajwa, learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on Padala Vena Reddy vs. State of A.P. (7), Nesar Ahmed vs. State of Bihar (8), Jaharlal Das vs. State of Orissa (9), Devinder vs. Ram Dutta (10), Sarwan Singh vs. State of Punjab (11), Dudh Nath Pandey vs. State of U.P. (12), and Najappa Dandiba vs. State of Karnataka (13). (23). (22). Mr. Bajwa, learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on Padala Vena Reddy vs. State of A.P. (7), Nesar Ahmed vs. State of Bihar (8), Jaharlal Das vs. State of Orissa (9), Devinder vs. Ram Dutta (10), Sarwan Singh vs. State of Punjab (11), Dudh Nath Pandey vs. State of U.P. (12), and Najappa Dandiba vs. State of Karnataka (13). (23). In Nesar Ahmed vs. State of Bihar (supra) there was a reasonable doubt about the presence of the accused in their house at the crucial time and in view of this their Lordships indicated that very vital link to complete the chain of circumstantial evidence became extremely doubtful. In view of these facts their Lordships indicated that though other circumstances taken together may point a finger of suspicion towards accused but suspicion how so ever strong, can not take the place of proof. In the case on hand the presence of the accused is established in his house at the crucial time from the testimony of Auto rickshaw Driver Bhagwan Das (PW. 10) and Sharwan Lal Booking Clerk of Planetorium (PW. 9) Bhagwan Das had seen the accused at 12.30 p.m. in the School of Harshita and according to Sharwan Lal the accused reached at his office around 2.10 p.m. holding a packet wrapped in news paper. It is thus established that the accused brought Harshita from the school to the house. The accused failed to give reasonable explanation as to at what time he left his house for office. In all probabilities the accused had to leave his house for office after eating lunch but Rajni was killed even before she could cook chapaties. In the facts of the case it is hardly of any consequence if blood group of Rajni was not detected on the hammer or blood stained clothes of the accused were not recovered. If a part of hammer was found missing or blood was not found in the bath room, it does not absolve the accused from the guilt. These facts do not affect the chain of circumstantial evidence which is otherwise complete in the instant case. Thus no reliance can be placed on the plea of alibi set up by the accused. The case law cited by the learned counsel for the accused is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. (24). These facts do not affect the chain of circumstantial evidence which is otherwise complete in the instant case. Thus no reliance can be placed on the plea of alibi set up by the accused. The case law cited by the learned counsel for the accused is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. (24). It is well settled that the FIR being neither a confession nor a statement made to a police officer during the course of investigation its admissibility is not barred either by section 25 of the Evidence Act or by section 162 Cr.P.C. The FIR lodged by the accused is admissible in evidence to prove guilt against him in the instant case. (25). On scanning the entire material on record we find that the chain of circumstantial evidence against the accused in the instant case is complete and incapable of explanation on any other hypothesis except that of guilt of the accused. (26). In so far as the appeal preferred by the State of Rajasthan for enhancing the sentence is concerned we are of the view that this case is not near the region of ``rarest of the rare cases envisaged by the Constitution Bench of Honble Supreme Court in Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab (14). The learned trial judge has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused. (27). We find no merit in these appeals, the same are accordingly dismissed.