JUDGMENT Munishwar Nath Bhandari, J. - It is a case of triple murder. The accused-appellant has been convicted for offences under Sections 302, 364 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "the Act of 1989") vide order dated 10th March, 2015. He has been sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, to further undergo one month simple imprisonment for offence under Section 364 IPC. He has further been sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in case of default to pay fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month, for each offences under Sections 302 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC&ST Act. Learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocity) Cases, Bundi (Raj.) has ordered to run the sentences consecutively without remission. 2. It is a case where a First Information Report was lodged in Police Station Kapren on 13th August, 2011 at 9.00 AM for offence under Section 302 IPC. After investigation, the Police filed charge sheet for offences under Sections 363, 364 and 302 IPC apart from Section 3(2)(v) of the Act of 1989. The trial court, however, framed charges for offences under Sections 302 and 364 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act of 1989. 3. In the FIR lodged by PW1-Pawan Kumar Rathore, it was stated that he resides at Talai Ki Pal, Shivnagar, Kapren. His second house is situated at Kabeera Ki Badi, Kapren in which one room has been occupied by Shambhoo Meena along with his family and another by accused-Ramdayal @ Ram Lal along with his wife-Kailash Devi, son-Rakesh at the age of 11 years and daughter-Anita at the age of 12 years, for last two months. In the neighbouring room, one Raghuveer Malav resides along with his family. On 13th August, 2011, Raghuveer Malav informed him on telephone that Kailashi Bai @ Sanju Bai is lying on the cot, whereas, his son-Rakesh is lying on the floor. The door of the room is locked from outside. He immediately went to the house and saw from the window that Kailashi Bai @ Sanju Bai was lying on the cot and his son-Rakesh on the floor. When they were called, no response was given. A loop of saree was tied around the neck of Rakesh. The Police was informed about it. He immediately went to the house and saw from the window that Kailashi Bai @ Sanju Bai was lying on the cot and his son-Rakesh on the floor. When they were called, no response was given. A loop of saree was tied around the neck of Rakesh. The Police was informed about it. 4. Another tenant-Shambhudayal's wife informed that accused-Ram Dayal was available till evening of 12th August, 2011 with deceased but thereafter went out after putting a lock on the door. 5. The Police, thereupon, found dead body of another deceased-Anita in drain near Petrol Pump, Mega Highway, Kasba Kapren. 6. The Police caused investigation and found case against the accused-appellant, thus filed charge sheet. The trial court framed the charges and when it was not accepted, commenced the trial. The prosecution produced 35 witnesses apart from 65 documents to prove their case. The accused produced 2 witnesses in defence apart from 16 documents. His statement was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 7. Learned counsel submits that no one had seen the occurrence yet appellant has been convicted without chain of evidence to connect the accused-appellant with the crime. 8. It is stated that appellant was not residing with the deceased, rather, he is having his own house and residing with his wife. His implication in the case is in ignorance of the aforesaid. It is further stated that deceased was not maintaining good character. Many persons used to visit her. The prosecution has not made investigation on the aforesaid but implicated the appellant without connecting evidence. 9. Learned counsel further stated that no motive could be shown by the prosecution to cause offence. In absence of it, the conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC cannot be said to be justified. 10. It is lastly stated that the trial court has grossly erred in relying on the statements of PW25-Ashok Teli and PW26-Bhojraj Gujar. They are witnesses of last seen of accused with deceased-Anita. In fact, appellant was shown to those witnesses by PW-33 Phool Singh in the Police Station before identification parade. They should not have been relied as witnesses of last seen of appellant-Ramdayal with his daughter-Anita (deceased). A prayer is accordingly made to set aside the order of trial court. It is moreso when fingerprint on the lock outside the door was not taken. They should not have been relied as witnesses of last seen of appellant-Ramdayal with his daughter-Anita (deceased). A prayer is accordingly made to set aside the order of trial court. It is moreso when fingerprint on the lock outside the door was not taken. On the basis of recovery of key from the pocket of appellant, he has been connected with the crime without any evidence to the effect that he locked the door of the room from the outside in which deceased-Kailashi Bai @ Sanju Bai along with her two kids were residing. A prayer is made to acquit the accused-appellant. 11. Learned Public Prosecutor has contested the appeal. It is submitted that in a case of triple murder, the prosecution could prove the case beyond doubt, therefore, the trial court has rightly convicted the accused-appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC apart from other offences. A prayer is accordingly made to dismiss the appeal by maintaining the order of conviction. 12. We have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 13. It is a case of circumstantial evidence thus chain of circumstances should exist to connect the appellant with the crime. To appreciate the aforesaid, we have gone through the record and perused the evidence led before trial court. Among many witnesses, PW7-Chhoti Bai is a material witness. She has stated that on 11th August, 2011, accused-Ramdayal @ Ramlal was with deceased-Kailashi Bai and two kids. On 12th August, 2011 at about 7.00 AM, while she was making tea, heard Kailashi Bai demanding money from accused for day to day expenses. Accused-Ramdayal asked her not to disturb him, otherwise, he will kill her. She had ignored the aforesaid being routine issues between husband and wife. Accused-Ramdayal left house in the evening after locking the gate from outside. Prior to the aforesaid, when in the morning two kids demanded food, Kailashi Bai informed that appellant will bring it. The appellant brought the food for everyone. Kailashi Bai stated that food brought by appellant is bitter thus she had thrown it in the "Nali". She prepared "Dal Bati" in the lunch. It was taken by everyone and, thereafter, accused-Ramdayal left the house after putting a lock on the gate from the outside. The appellant brought the food for everyone. Kailashi Bai stated that food brought by appellant is bitter thus she had thrown it in the "Nali". She prepared "Dal Bati" in the lunch. It was taken by everyone and, thereafter, accused-Ramdayal left the house after putting a lock on the gate from the outside. On the next day morning, she saw Kailashi Bai sleeping on the cot, whereas, his son was sleeping on the floor. The girl was not seen in the room. It was informed to others. Landlord-Pawan was called by another tenant-Raghuveer Malav. 14. PW7-Chhoti Bai is a material witness and her statement could not be demolished by the appellant in cross-examination. She has proved evidence of last seen of the appellant with deceased. The aforesaid has been corroborated by other witnesses i.e. PW4-Raghuveer Malav and PW6-Shambulal. 15. The other witnesses of last seen for murder of Anita are PW25-Ashok and PW26-Bhojraj. It was stated that on 12th August, 2011 at around 8.00 PM, they had seen the accused-appellant with deceased-Anita between village Adila and Balkasa. Accused-Ramdayal stopped them and requested to drop at village Jakheda. They were taken and dropped them at Keshavraipatan circle. Girl-Anita was then found dead out of strangulation. If the cause of death of all the deceased is taken into consideration, it is by way of strangulation. 16. Learned counsel for appellant has raised objection about identification parade where PW25-Ashok and PW26-Bhojraj said to have identified accused-appellant-Ramdayal. The issue aforesaid has been considered by trial court and found that accused-Ramdayal was at Police Station but his face was covered. Two witnesses namely, PW25-Ashok and PW26-Bhojraj were available at the Police Station and said to have seen accused-Ramdayal when his face was covered thus could not be seen by those witnesses. In view of the above, trial court did not accept the argument questioning the identification parade. The trial court, rather, relied on the identification parade, thereby, last seen of the appellant with Anita (deceased) was also proved. 17. The evidence available on record shows last seen of the accused-appellant as per statements of PW7-Chhoti Bai and thereafter for deceased-Anita by PW25-Ashok and PW26-Bhojraj apart from other witnesses. The aforesaid is first aspect of the matter to find out chain of evidence to connect the accusedappellant with the crime. 18. Learned counsel has raised issue about motive or intention of the accused-appellant to cause offence. The aforesaid is first aspect of the matter to find out chain of evidence to connect the accusedappellant with the crime. 18. Learned counsel has raised issue about motive or intention of the accused-appellant to cause offence. The aforesaid issue has also been considered by trial court. It has come on record that accused-appellant was having 6 bigha agricultural land. He entered into an agreement to sell the land to PW23-Madan Lal for a sum of Rs. 31,00000/-, out of which, he received Rs. 10,00000/- in advance. The amount of Rs. 6,00000/- was deposited in the bank account of accused's wife. The deceased-Kailashi Bai got information about it thus fought with accused-appellant while demanding money for day to day expenses. The conversation for demand of money by deceased-Kailashi Bai was heard by PW7- Chhoti Bai. The agreement for sale of land has been accepted by PW23-Madanlal Meghwal. The trial court thus came to the conclusions that on demand of money by deceased-Kailashi Bai, the accused-appellant threatened her with the consequences and thereupon gave cause to the offence to settle it forever. The motive was also proved and for the aforesaid, Exhibit-D7 was relied upon. In view of the above, motive to cause offence could be established by the prosecution. 19. Another connecting evidence is recovery of key as well as a wrapper of Zolmax Tablet from the pocket of accused-appellant. Two tablets of Zolmax were found with the appellant, out of a wrapper of ten tables. Eight tablets, out of ten, had been thus used earlier. Those eight tablets were mixed in the pulse (Dal) cooked by deceased-Kailashi Bai. As per FSL report, the salt of Zolmax Tables i.e. Benzodiazepine Tranquilizing was found in the dead body of three accused and even in Pulse ("Dal"). It was proved that by putting Zolmax Tablets in "Dal", the deceased were brought in unconscious condition. The accused-appellant then strangulated them. The fracture of the bone of neck was found, which takes place only when somebody is strangulated and not otherwise. The key of the lock was also found from the pocket of accused though learned counsel for appellant has raised issue about recovery of key to connect him with the crime. It is stated that there is no evidence to show that key was of the same lock as was put on the door where deceased-Kailashi Bai was residing. 20. The key of the lock was also found from the pocket of accused though learned counsel for appellant has raised issue about recovery of key to connect him with the crime. It is stated that there is no evidence to show that key was of the same lock as was put on the door where deceased-Kailashi Bai was residing. 20. Learned trial court has considered aforesaid aspect also and found that though connecting evidence has not been led to show key of the same lock. It is, however, a fact that key was recovered from the accused-appellant and he put the lock on the door. No explanation or defence has been given by the accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 to show that key was of another lock. 21. In view of the above, connecting evidence was found that accused-appellant was having a wrapper of ten tablets of Zolmax in his pocket. Out of it, eight tablets were used earlier and salt of tablets was found in the body of the deceased. It is apart from recovery of the key. With the aforesaid also, the prosecution could connect the accused-appellant with the crime. 22. It has also come on record that deceased-Kailashi Bai was having a Nokia phone and it was recovered at the instance of the accused-appellant from his house. No explanation to the aforesaid recovery could be given apart from justification of keeping deceased's cell phone with SIM. The prosecution had produced recovery memo of the cell phone along with SIM at the instance of the accused-appellant from his house. PW33-Phool Singh (former SHO) has proved the aforesaid. 23. The accused-appellant could not prove that other persons were also visiting deceased-Kailashi Bai, whereas, the prosecution could prove that the accused-appellant was having relation with Kailashi Bai and those relations were like husband and wife. Due to demand of money by deceased, the appellant threatened her to face consequence of death. 24. In the circumstances aforesaid, we find that prosecution could prove their case beyond doubt with chain of evidence to connect the accused-appellant with the crime. The documents exhibited during the course of evidence, which includes FSL report apart from post-mortem and other documents read with the statement of PW27-Dr. 24. In the circumstances aforesaid, we find that prosecution could prove their case beyond doubt with chain of evidence to connect the accused-appellant with the crime. The documents exhibited during the course of evidence, which includes FSL report apart from post-mortem and other documents read with the statement of PW27-Dr. Vishwadeepak Bijawat, we find that trial court has drawn its conclusions based on evidence led by the prosecution and recovery of the articles was in the presence of independent witnesses, who have also supported the prosecution case. It is a case where not only the prosecution could prove case against the accused-appellant for causing offence but even proved the intention and motive for it. We find no reason to cause interference in the order passed by trial court convicting the accused-appellant in a case where he has caused triple murder by killing his wife-Kailashi Bai @ Sanju Bai, Rakesh and Anita. Learned counsel for accused-appellant has raised an argument that sentences were ordered to run consecutively and not concurrently and there is denial of remission by trial court. A prayer is, accordingly, made to direct to run sentences concurrently, if conviction is maintained and at the same time, to allow remission. 25. We have considered the aforesaid issue and find that accused-appellant has caused triple murder. The offences have been considered separately thus trial court directed sentences to run consecutively instead of concurrently. We do not find any illegality in the said order because commission of offence under Section 302 IPC has been taken separately for each case. It is not a case where a person died and others received injuries so as to give direction to run the sentences concurrently. 26. Accordingly, we are unable to accept the prayer of learned counsel for accused-appellant to direct the sentences to run concurrently. We are of the further opinion that when sentences would run consecutively and not concurrently, the benefit of remission carries hardly any meaning, yet we modify the order of the trial court and order to extend benefit of remission to the accused-appellant. To that extent, the order of the trial court is modified. 27. With the aforesaid, appeal stands disposed of.