Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. – Appellant Deepak Bhatt has come up before us challenging the judgment and order of his conviction, recorded by learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh on 5/7.9.2011 in Sessions Trial No. 25 of 2008 titled as 'State v. Deepak Bhatt' (crime No. 1 of 2008 Patti Modi, Tehsil Didihat). The Trial Court, adjudicated the trial and found him guilty for the offence of section 302 IPC, wherefor he has been appropriately sentenced. 2. It is the case of prosecution that the appellant committed the murder of his own young wife and minor son, yet he himself lodged the first information report. 3. Report (Ex.Ka-3/1) unfolds that on 22.4.2008, when the appellant, after doing his task, returned to his house at about 9 P.M. from Boongachina, he did not find the door bolted from inside. His call from outside the house was not re­sponded to by anyone from inside. On opening the door, he found his wife dead with slit-throat on one side of the room, whereas on the other, his daugh­ter was lying above his deceased minor son. In between those two dead bodies, fldor was blood-soaked. Appellant then turned back and called his neighbouring aunt Anandi Devi (PW1). He also made a rousing call to the villagers. Hearing the same, village Pradhan and other persons assembled. He ranged up the office of Collector also, but in vain. This FIR was lodged by the appellant next day (23.4.2008) asking intervention of Patwari (a man of revenue police). Chick report thereof is Ex.Ka-4. 4. The police then came into mo­tion, arrived at the spot and prepared the inquest reports Ex.Ka-5 (Geeta Bhatt) and Ex.Ka.10 (Master Kuldeep Bhatt). The members of inquest opined that both the deceased persons have been murdered, nonetheless, they re­quested for autopsy. 5. PW4 Dr. Lalit Mohan Joshi con­ducted autopsy on the person of de­ceased Geeta Bhatt, aged about 35 years, on 24.4.2008 at 10:30 A.M. The following ante-mortem injuries were found on her post-mortem which are mentioned in the report (Ex. Ka-3): -- 1. "Wound dorsum of left head (ante-morted) blood clotted size 3 cm. x 1 cm. margins defined. 2. Blood clotted all over the body. 3. Deep wound caused by sharp object in front of neck; bone deep, major vessels are cut # C3, C4, C5 size 16 cm. x 8 cm. x 4 cm, brown in colour (wound 3 cm. below thin). x 1 cm. margins defined. 2. Blood clotted all over the body. 3. Deep wound caused by sharp object in front of neck; bone deep, major vessels are cut # C3, C4, C5 size 16 cm. x 8 cm. x 4 cm, brown in colour (wound 3 cm. below thin). 4. Old abrasion above right el­bow (3 cm) above, red brown in colour, duration <7 days. In the opinion of doctor, death had occurred on account of haemor-rhagic shock." 6. Ex.Ka-2 is the post-mortem re­port of deceased Master Kuldeep, aged 24 months approximately, which was conducted on the same day at 11:35 A.M. The following ante- mortem inju­ries were found: - "1. Deep wound in neck # C3, C4 and C5, black in colour, size 12 cm. x 4 cm. x 3 cm, vertical width. 2. Major vessels of right side of neck is cut. As opined by medical officer, death had taken place on account of haemorrhagic shock." 7. The site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer is Ex.Ka-15. Sam­ples of plain and bloodstained soil were recovered from the spot. Memos of such recovery are Ex.Ka-16 and Ex.Ka-17. During the course of investigation, the complicity of appellant Deepak Bhatt was highlighted, so he was arrested on 26.4.2008. Memo of his arrest is Ex.Ka-18. At his instance, the pant, worn by him at the time of occurrence, as also the weapon of murder viz. a sickle, wrapped in the said pant, were recov­ered. Memo of the said recovery is Ex.Ka-19. Accused refused to sign on this memo but it bears the signature of two witnesses Fakir Dutt and Harish Chandra. Besides, bloodstained clothes of both the deceased viz. Ceeta Bhatt and Master Kuldeep, were recovered by the I.O, All the afore-stated recovered items were sent for chemical examina­tion. Ex.Ka-21 is the report submitted by the Forensic Sciences Laboratory. Those items, though were found bloodstained, but the blood was found to be disinte­grated, hence its class could not be de­termined. 8. The investigation culminated into submission of a charge-sheet (Ex. Ka-21) against the appellant/accused under section 302 IPC. On 10.11.2008, learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh, accordingly, framed charge against the accused, to which he abjured his guilt and claimed trial. 9. In this case, prosecution has ex­amined as many as six witnesses viz. PW1 Smt. Anandi Devi, PW2 Smt. Shanti Bhatt, PW3 Moti Ram Dalakoti, PW4 Dr. Ka-21) against the appellant/accused under section 302 IPC. On 10.11.2008, learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh, accordingly, framed charge against the accused, to which he abjured his guilt and claimed trial. 9. In this case, prosecution has ex­amined as many as six witnesses viz. PW1 Smt. Anandi Devi, PW2 Smt. Shanti Bhatt, PW3 Moti Ram Dalakoti, PW4 Dr. Lalit Joshi, PW5 Diwani Ram and PW6 Bhuwan Chandra Joshi. Thereafter the statement of the appellant was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. In his defence, he produced DW1 Har­ish Chandra and DW2 Fakir Dutt. 10. The Trial Court resulted the trial into conviction of the appellant/ac­cused, as stated hereinabove. 11. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the evidence available on record. 12. On priority, we would like to consider the evidence of PW3 Moti Ram Dalakoti, who is the father of deceased Geeta. He has proved that his daughter was espoused with the appellant on 23.6.1998. Few days after marriage, she returned at her parents' house and dis­closed the taunting and tormented atti­tude being extended towards her at the hands of her mo.ther-in-law. After per­suasion, PW3 himself went to make reach his daughter to her in-laws house but-her mother- in-law was not ready to accept her. The constrained father met with Ramesh Chand Bhatt, Pradhan of village and narrated the entire tale, who assured for help. At the time of dusk, appellant too arrived there where a little altercation took place between him and PW3. Next day, PW3 returned to his home leaving his daughter at her mat­rimonial house. For few months, his daughter stayed there but subsequent thereto, she again returned and brought some burnt clothes with her. She dis­closed that her mother-in-law and hus­band were troubling her again. She was not provided food and her husband used to pass sarcastic and treacherous comments, asking her to go elsewhere as he would find plenty of women like her. Helplessly, she filed a petition seek­ing maintenance against her husband which was decreed for ? 500/- per month. For 3-4 months, her husband complied the order but thereafter, he stopped making payment. Later on, for few months, the wife could get the maintenance with great difficulty, and that too at the intervention of the Court. When a sum of Rs. Helplessly, she filed a petition seek­ing maintenance against her husband which was decreed for ? 500/- per month. For 3-4 months, her husband complied the order but thereafter, he stopped making payment. Later on, for few months, the wife could get the maintenance with great difficulty, and that too at the intervention of the Court. When a sum of Rs. 6,000/- became due to be paid, appellant came with one Ramesh Chand and took Geeta with him on assurance of providing respect­ful living at her in-laws house. This compromise was entered into in the Court. After resuming the wedded life, appellant and deceased Geeta remained together for about 4-5 years. During this period, when they led a joint life, appel­lant's mother resided separately in an­other hamlet namely 'Jajar Dewal'. Meanwhile, they were blessed with two children. 13. PW3 has further deposed that soon after marriage, Geeta told him that her husband was demanding ? 50,000/-. The demand of his son-in-law was an­swered by way of paying ? 10,000/-immediately after marriage and another instalment of ? 10,000/- was also paid to him afterwards. The evidence of PW3 indicates that appellant and deceased Geeta were living separately in the vil­lage 'Bhainsuri' along with their two children. 14. The evidence of PW3 finds sup­port with the evidence of PW1 Anandi Devi also, who has deposed that on the fateful night, appellant came at her room to call her, since her house was situated only 20-25 paces away from the place of occurrence. She came out in the worn clothes viz. petticoat and blouse. Accused was in the state of panic. She asked the appellant to wait so that she could wrap herself in a 'Dhoti' (Saree) but he persuaded her to accompany him as such. She could not resist and accom­panied the accused for his home. As soon as accused opened the door of his house, PWl's immediate sight was on the dead body of appellant's wife which was blood soaked. Floor was also smeared with blood. On the other side of room, she saw the minor children of deceased. PW1 lifted the female child who was lying on the dead body of male child with slit-open neck. She was taken aback and asked the appellant why he did so? Appellant requested PW1 to support him in those critical moments and not to shout but she re­fused for the same. PW1 lifted the female child who was lying on the dead body of male child with slit-open neck. She was taken aback and asked the appellant why he did so? Appellant requested PW1 to support him in those critical moments and not to shout but she re­fused for the same. She has not been cross-examined by the defence on the question of her such utterances and atti­tude attributing the guilt upon the ac­cused. Even no suggestion has been given to this witness on this score. 15. The evidence of PW1 further suggests that when the accused came to call her, he was wearing only under­wear and under vest and was even without footwear. Subsequently she lifted the female child, left alive by the accused, and asked him to inform the villagers. On information, so extended by accused, other villagers also arrived there and the incident was in the air of village. She has further testified about the matrimonial discord between the duo for which at one point of time, de­ceased Geeta used to get maintenance from the accused by the Court's order. 16. Apart from above, on 7.5.2008, i.e. after almost a fortnight of incident, the statement of PW1 was recorded un­der section 164 Cr.P.C., wherein she cor­roborated the same facts, as have been stated hereinabove. She has testified in witness box that the statement was made by her voluntarily on oath. Albeit the same was not present at the time of her deposition in the Court but she has not resiled from the same and the prose­cution did produce them at a later point of time. 17. PW1 has clearly stated that at the time when she saw the dead bodies at the place of dwelling of appellant, electric light was there. This way, it is proved that the accused was present in the house along with his wife and two minor children in that fateful night. Here, the law u/s 106 of the Evidence Act casts a duty upon the appellant to speak about the facts which were espe­cially within his knowledge i.e. as to how the necks of his wife and minor son could slit. But he has not provided any explanation far less plausible one to dis­charge this burden. 18. Here, the law u/s 106 of the Evidence Act casts a duty upon the appellant to speak about the facts which were espe­cially within his knowledge i.e. as to how the necks of his wife and minor son could slit. But he has not provided any explanation far less plausible one to dis­charge this burden. 18. Learned Counsel has argued that at the time of occurrence, appellant was not present in his house but he was with PW5 Deewani Ram in the town 'Boongachina'. This argument is of no avail in view of deposition of PW5 to the effect that on the date of occurrence i.e. 22.4.2008, the appellant was with him only up till 6:00 PM. After that time, he (PW5) went to the shop of one 'Jiyala' in the market of 'Rasepata' whereas the appellant left for his house 'Bhainsuri'. This witness has narrated the distance between village 'Bhainsuri' and 'Rasepata' to be about one kilometre. 19. It was next argued that the 'Rasepata' market is situated at a dis­tance of about 2½. kilometres from village 'Bhainsuri'. Even if we accept this argument, then also, such a distance, at the most, could be covered by the ac­cused within an hour, i.e. he could have well reached his house around 7 PM. But there is neither any explanation nor clarification as to where the accused re­mained between 7 PM to 11 PM when he went to the house of Anandi Devi to call her. The defence has not projected his case by way of any suggestion that the deceased had nurtured enmity with someone living in the vicinity or a mad man was living in the close vicinity of her house who could commit this ghastly occurrence. 20. PW2 Shanti Bhatt is the daugh­ter-in-law of PW1 Anandi Devi. She used to reside in the joint family with her mother-in-law. When PW1 returned from appellant's house taking Deepika (deceased's daughter) in her lap, she disclosed about the incident to this wit­ness. Subsequent thereto, PW2 also went at the place of occurrence where she saw the dead bodies as well as no­ticed the presence of appellant who was wearing only underwear and under-vest by that time. 21. When PW1 returned from appellant's house taking Deepika (deceased's daughter) in her lap, she disclosed about the incident to this wit­ness. Subsequent thereto, PW2 also went at the place of occurrence where she saw the dead bodies as well as no­ticed the presence of appellant who was wearing only underwear and under-vest by that time. 21. The evidence of PW2 further strengthens the prosecution story for the reason that had the accused, after com­ing to his house from outside, noticed the entire occurrence happened in his absence (as submitted), then there was no reason for him to put off his upper clothes like pant, shirt etc., and to re­main only in under-vest and underwear. The inference is that he was well present in the house at the time of occurrence, and it was only the appellant himself and none else who committed the crime. 22. It was argued that the motive, in order to ascribe guilt upon the appel­lant, has not been established by the prosecution. We do not subscribe with this argument for the reason that there was a long matrimonial discord contin­ued between the appellant and his wife. Besides other witnesses. PW2 has also proved that few days prior to occur­rence, the deceased stayed at her par­ents' houoe for about seven years and alitigation also persisted between the duo in this regard in the law Courts, wherein the appellant was directed to pay the maintenance to his wife, which he did not do. Thus, we find that the motive was being nurtured well in the appel­lant's heart to the effect that in order to do away with the matrimonial discord forever, he wanted to get rid of his wife. 23. It was next argued that since PW1 Anandi Devi was the probable beneficiary of the entire estate, includ­ing the agricultural land to be left by the deceased, hence she has deposed against the appellant. This is quite an unsubstantial argument and unaccept­able because the minor daughter had been left alive by the accused, sb the property of the accused (if any), would certainly be inherited by his daughter and not by his aunt (PW1). 24. PW4 is Dr. Lalit Joshi who conducted the autopsies and has proved the injuries found on the dead bodies of the deceased duo. 25. PW5 is Diwani Ram who has deposed that on 22.4.2008, the accused met him in market of 'Boongachina'. 24. PW4 is Dr. Lalit Joshi who conducted the autopsies and has proved the injuries found on the dead bodies of the deceased duo. 25. PW5 is Diwani Ram who has deposed that on 22.4.2008, the accused met him in market of 'Boongachina'. After having a walk, they both reached in the market of 'Rasepata' at about 6 PM, wherefrom, the accused went for his house while he (PW5) went to the shop of his friend Jiyala. Here, if the appellant wanted to take the plea of alibi, then it was incumbent upon him to prove where he remained from 6 PM to 9 PM when he reached at the doorstep of his house, as averred by him in the FIR itself. The expected time to cover a distance of about 2 1/2 kilo­metres, on foot, even in the hills, cannot be more than one hour. So, it indicates that after parting from the company of his friend (PW5), appellant straight away came to his house and committed this incident. 26. PW6 Bhuwan Chandra Joshi is the Patwari of revenue circle Moari. This witness has conducted investigation of the case. On culmination of the same, he submitted charge-sheet (Ex.Ka-22) against the appellant/accused. During the course of investigation, PW6 sent the shirt, under-vest and trou-ser of deceased Master Kuldeep Bhatt; the clothes which the deceased lady was having on her body at the time of occur­rence as well as the bloodstained pant of accused along with a sickle, wrapped therein, for the purpose of forensic ex­amination. On all the above items, hu­man blood was found though it was in the disintegrated state. However, no suggestion has been put forth on behalf of the defence to the effect that the said Pant did not belong to the appellant or the other clothes were not of deceased persons. 27. In defence, appellant has exam­ined DW1 Harish Chand Bhatt and DW2 Fakir Dutt. They are the witnesses of recovery of pickle (found wrapped in blood-smeared Pant) made at the in­stance of appellant. Although, both the defence witnesses have denied the re­covery in their presence but they have deposed that the Patwari (I.O.) asked them to sign on the blank papers. In defence, appellant has exam­ined DW1 Harish Chand Bhatt and DW2 Fakir Dutt. They are the witnesses of recovery of pickle (found wrapped in blood-smeared Pant) made at the in­stance of appellant. Although, both the defence witnesses have denied the re­covery in their presence but they have deposed that the Patwari (I.O.) asked them to sign on the blank papers. This defence is at all not helpful to put aside the prosecution version for the reason that nowhere it has been suggested by the accused while cross-examining the Investigating Officer that the recovered Pant was not of the appellant. 28. For the reasons/as afore-stated, we do not find any force in this appeal which is liable to be dismissed. Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Impugned judgment and order of conviction, passed by the Trial Judge, is hereby af­firmed. Appellant is to serve out the sentence so awarded by the Trial Court. 29. Let a copy of this order along with the lower Court record be sent back for compliance. Appeal Dismissed. ______________