JUDGMENT : Naheed Ara Moonis, J. Since both the accused appellants have been convicted and sentenced vide order dated 8.7.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Court No.10 Muzaffar Nagar, hence these appeals have been heard together and are being decided by a common order. 2. These criminal appeals have been preferred on behalf of the accused-appellants against the impugned judgment and order dated 8/9-7-2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 10 Muzaffar Nagar whereby the accused-appellants have been convicted and sentenced to serve out life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 25, 000/- in Sessions Trial No. 382 of 1982 (State vs. Sheela @ Sushila and others) under Sections 302 read with section 34 IPC, Police Station Hastinapur District Meerut .In default of payment of fine, they have to undergo imprisonment for a period of three months. 3. The emanation of facts giving rise to the prosecution in a short conspectus is that a first information report was lodged on 22.6.1982 at about 6.20 a.m. with respect to the incident occurred at night on 21/22-6-1982 with the allegation that the complainant heard shrill and shriek of his brother's wife in the morning on 22nd June 1982 at about 5.00 a.m. Being thunder-struck and panicky the complainant, his elder brother Mahesh and other family members rushed towards the room of Ramesh where they saw the dead body of his brother Ramesh lying on the cot. The blood was oozing from his mouth. There were marks of a number of injuries on the person of Ramesh. Ramesh was done to death at any time in the night. On the basis of tip off of the complainant (Ashok Kumar Singhal), an FIR was registered against unknown persons at police station Medical District Meerut vide Case Crime No. 170 of 1982 under section 302 IPC. 4. After lodging of the FIR, the investigating officer S.I. Sudarashan Chandra Katoch (P.W.12) swung into action and recorded the statement of the complainant and the witnesses. He got the copy of the FIR entered in the case diary. He reached at the place of incident i.e. residence of deceased Ramesh, Mohalla Madho Nagar, Meerut. He prepared the site plan which is marked as Ext. Ka.14. After conducting the requisite formalities, Panchayatnama of corpse was prepared on the same day in accordance with the procedure prescribed which was marked as Ext.Ka.15. He reached at the place of incident i.e. residence of deceased Ramesh, Mohalla Madho Nagar, Meerut. He prepared the site plan which is marked as Ext. Ka.14. After conducting the requisite formalities, Panchayatnama of corpse was prepared on the same day in accordance with the procedure prescribed which was marked as Ext.Ka.15. Thereafter, the copy of chik, copy of report, photo lash, challan lash, report R.I., report C.M.O. and sample seal along with sealed dead body was sent to the mortuary for the autopsy. The aforesaid papers were marked as Ext.Ka.16 to 19. The investigating officer prepared the questions to be asked from the Medical Officer which was marked as Ext.Ka.20. At the instance of accused Haroon he prepared the recovery memo of blood stained Pant and towel from the shop which was marked as Ext.Ka.4. On 23.6.1982, arrested accused Sheela from her house and was interrogated. At her instance a screw driver was recovered in the presence of witnesses exhibited as Ext.12. Site plan with regard to recovery of Screw Driver was marked as Ext.Ka. 21. One piece of blood stained rod recovered at the instance of accused Rahimuddin exhibited as Ka.4 of which memo was prepared as Ext.Ka.5. The site plan of recovery of iron rod was prepared which was marked as Ext.Ka.22. Constable CP 710 Rameshwar Singh associated with S.I.Suresh Chandra were present at the place of occurrence. After Panchayatnama, the corpse of Ramesh Chand was handed over to them with relevant papers for autopsy. Autopsy of deceased Ramesh was conducted on 23.6.1982 by P.W.10 Dr.S.K.Tyagi, Medical Officer, P.S.Sharma Hospital Meerut. The investigating officer after completing all the necessary formalities and collecting the credible and clinching evidence against the accused appellants Sheela and Irfran, and co-accused Rahimuddin and Haroon submitted the charge sheet under sections 302/120B IPC. 5. The case was initially committed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Meerut but was later on transferred to the VIth Additional Sessions Judge Meerut for trial. 6. The learned trial judge after hearing the prosecution as well as the defence and also after providing the necessary documents to the accused appellant and the co-accused persons framed charges against them under Section 302/34/120B IPC. The charges framed against the appellants and the co-accused persons were read over and explained to them. 6. The learned trial judge after hearing the prosecution as well as the defence and also after providing the necessary documents to the accused appellant and the co-accused persons framed charges against them under Section 302/34/120B IPC. The charges framed against the appellants and the co-accused persons were read over and explained to them. All the accused persons adjured the charges and claimed to be tried hence the prosecution was called upon to lead the evidence. 7. In order to prove guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution had examined the complainant Ashok Kumar (PW-1), Mahendra Giri (PW-2), Suresh Chandra Singhal (PW-3), Babu Lal Sharma (PW-4), Mahesh Chandra (PW-5), Pradeep Kumar (PW-6), Ram Karan (PW-7) Constable Kanhaiya Lal (P.W.8), Prakash Chand (P.W.9), Dr.S.K.Tyagi (P.W.10), Constable Subhash Chand (P.W.11), S.I. Sudarshan Chandra (P.W.12) and Constable Rameshwar Singh (PW-13) All the prosecution witnesses had supported the prosecution case. 8. After examining the prosecution evidence, the accused appellants namely Sheela and Irfan and the co-accused Rahimuddin and Haroon were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. and in their statement, they denied all the charges levelled against them and pleaded for innocence. The accused persons pleaded that they have been falsely implicated in the present case on account of suspicion and personal vengeance. The accused appellant Sheela in her statement divulged that she was on duty in the nursing home on the fateful night of 21/22.6.1982. Kaushal Kumar an employee of Nandan Cinema Meerut was examined as D.W.1. 9. Since the accused Haroon was declared juvenile by the Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board, Muzaffar Nagar hence his trial was separated vide order dated 5.4.2014. The learned trial Judge, Muzaffar Nagar upon appreciation and appraisal of material evidence on record held that the prosecution has failed to prove evidence against Rahim Uddin under section 302 read with section 34 and section 120B IPC. The learned Addl. Additional Sessions Judge, (Court No.10) held the appellants Sheela and Irfan guilty for the murder of Ramesh whereby they were convicted and sentenced under Section 302/34 IPC to serve out life imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 25, 000/-. In case of default, they were directed to serve out additional sentence of three months. Both the accused appellants were acquitted of the charge of section 120B IPC. Since the prosecution had not provided any evidence against accused Rahimuddin, he was acquitted from the charge under section 302/34/120B IPC. 25, 000/-. In case of default, they were directed to serve out additional sentence of three months. Both the accused appellants were acquitted of the charge of section 120B IPC. Since the prosecution had not provided any evidence against accused Rahimuddin, he was acquitted from the charge under section 302/34/120B IPC. His bonds and sureties were discharged. 10. In support of prosecution case, the prosecution has examined Ashok Kumar Sanghal son of Kailash Narain as PW 1. In his testimony, Ashok Kumar deposed that he is well aware about the miscreants present in Court namely Mohd. Irfan, Rahimuddin, Haroon and Sheela. Accused Sheela is the wife of his brother Ramesh (deceased). Accused Haroon and Rahimuddin were doing the work of mechanic with accused Irfan. Irfan has developed illicit carnal relation with accused Sheela. Accused Irfan was running a shop in contiguous to his house. Accused Irfan had taken on rent on rent a shop in the house of the complainant (P.W.1). He had also taken a room on rent in the house of Ramesh. Ramesh is the elder brother of the complainant. The house of the complainant (P.W.1) and Mahesh are adjoining. The main gate of the house of Ramesh was opening towards road in the western side. A door of that house was opening in the back side towards lane. He had seen his Bhabhi Sheela reading and writing. He can easily identify her writings. It was crucial day of 22.6.1982 at about 5.00 a.m. in the morning, he was sleeping in the Verandah of his house. He heard panic-stricken voice of lamentation & bemonaning of Sheela (appellant). The complainant, his brother Mahesh and other family members reached there at the place of occurrence. The complainant (P.W.1) saw the corpse of his brother lying on the cot. The deceased Ramesh had sustained fatal injuries. The fan was moving. The deceased Ramesh had worn blue linear underwear which was soaked with blood. Rigor mortis was present on the corpse and there was blue mark around the neck. A number of persons of the locality namely Natthoo Lal, Mahinder Giri, Baboo Ram, Satya Prakash and other arrived there. The accused Sheela had strained and acrimonious relation with her husband (Ramesh deceased). The brother of the compainant namely Ramesh used to thrash his wife (Sheela) occasionally on account of illicit corporal relation with Irfan. A number of persons of the locality namely Natthoo Lal, Mahinder Giri, Baboo Ram, Satya Prakash and other arrived there. The accused Sheela had strained and acrimonious relation with her husband (Ramesh deceased). The brother of the compainant namely Ramesh used to thrash his wife (Sheela) occasionally on account of illicit corporal relation with Irfan. There had been scuffling between Ramesh and his wife (Sheela) in the morning on 19.6.1982. Just after half or quarter to half hour Irfan appeared and uttered that he would not spare any person who would try to put spokes on their relations whosoever may be inclusive of her husband. The paper written by Sheela which was marked as Ext.Ka.1 and the paper which was written by accused Irfan were proved by the complainant (P.W.1). The report of the murder was given by the complainant (P.W.1) which was in his writing and signature. The paper written by the complainant marked as Ex.Ka.3 was duly proved. The accused Sheela used to sleep with his brother (Ramesh) in the room. The cot on which dead body was lying had a blank sheet, two pillows. Both the pillows were saturated with blood. 11. During cross examination condition of the deceased was neither disclosed in the FIR nor was communicated to the Station Officer. There was no mention in the first information report with regard to clothes and cot. He did neither disclose the factum of sleeping in room with Sheela (accused) in the FIR nor to the station officer concerned. The marriage of Irfan (co-accused) was solemnized prior to 8 to 10 days. The complainant (P.W.1) had relation with Irfan (co-accused) as tenant. The complainant (P.W.1) and his brother Mahesh had attended his marriage. The marriage of Irfan (co-accused) was performed at Unchauli. The complainant was doing the work of Munshi prior to 1 & 1½ years but he denied that he was doing the work of Munshi with Gajendra Singh Dhama. Mahesh (P.W.5) was doing the work at Kutcheri (civil court).His father and uncle were also doing the work at Kutcheri (civil court). On 19.6.1982, Ramesh had thrashed Sheela (accused) for attending the marriage of Irfan. On the persuation of his mother, the complainant had gone at the residence of Irfan but looking the presence of Sheela, he came back. The place where dead body was lying was in the tenancy of Irfan (co-accused). On 19.6.1982, Ramesh had thrashed Sheela (accused) for attending the marriage of Irfan. On the persuation of his mother, the complainant had gone at the residence of Irfan but looking the presence of Sheela, he came back. The place where dead body was lying was in the tenancy of Irfan (co-accused). Since Ramesh was the owner of that room hence it was mentioned in the first information report. When the complainant came back after lodging the first information report, Babu Lal Sharma (P.W.4) met him outside the room. The name of father of Mahendra Giri (P.W.2) is Lakhpat. His house is adjoining to the shop of Irfan (accused appellant). The father of the complainant (P.W.1) had got published in the news paper prior to murder of Ramesh that the demeanour and conduct of Ramesh was not fair. This fact was disclosed by his mother. His father had written will deed in favour of his mother. It was incorporated in the will deed by his father that after his death, the property left by his will be inherited by the complainant and his brother Mahesh (P.W.5). It was not remembered to the complainant as to whether the portion in which Ramesh and Sheela used to live was constructed prior to executing will deed or thereafter. The father of the complainant had expired prior to six years of the incident. The portion in which Ramesh (deceased) and Sheela (accused) used to live was taken into possession by the complainant's mother. The accused appellant Sheela used to work in Manjula Nursing Home adjoining to the home during the course of that period. The complainant (P.W.1) showed his ignorance as to whether Sheela (accused) used to work in that nursing home at night. The complainant used to meet Ramesh (deceased) frequently. The complainant went to lodge the report with his brother Mahesh (P.W.5) and Raj Kumar. He reached at the police station ast 6.15 a.m. and the police personnel came at the spot at about 7.00 a.m. Satya Prakash Tyagi and Mahendra were tenant in the house of the complainant. The portion of the house where the complainant was sleeping, its door was opening towards west. The door of the house of complainant was not opening towards the house of Ramesh. There was a window in between the house of the complainant and Ramesh but that window was not being used for ventilation. The portion of the house where the complainant was sleeping, its door was opening towards west. The door of the house of complainant was not opening towards the house of Ramesh. There was a window in between the house of the complainant and Ramesh but that window was not being used for ventilation. The tenant had also reached there. The police personnel remained present near the dead body of Ramesh upto 11.15 a.m. It was asserted by the complainant that there was illicit carnal relation between Sheela and Irfan. The complainant deposed that Ext.Ka.1 was not written before him. He had not seen that letter earlier. Nobody had come to collect money from Sheela borrowed by Ramesh. There was cordial and congenial relation between Ramesh and the complainant. Irfan used to repair light of the motor and charge battery. Shop is in the name of Jalaluddin on rent of Rs.50/- who is tenant since childhood. There was no dispute between Irfan and Jalal Uddin for getting the shop vacated. Rahim Uddin was doing the repairing of the tractor. He also used to work as electrician at the shop of Irfan. When threat was extended by Irfan to eliminate Ramesh, his mother, Mahendra, Natthoo and other persons of the locality were present. At that moment about 10-15 persons were there. The complainant showed his ignorance with respect to Ext.Ka.2. portraying second of wife of Irfan. He did not certify the photo taken at the marriage of Irfan. The complainant (P.W.1) had come back prior to reciting the Nikah at about 11/12 "O" clock. He did not have any information as to whether the girl with whom marriage of Irfan was performed was within the access of Sheela. He proved similarity between Ext.Kha2 and Ka.2. In Ext.Ka.3 Irfan and Sheela were shown side by side. Irfan was wearing the cloths of groom. In Ext.Kha.4, the picture of Irfan has been delineated. Probably, the lady was the same which was delineated in Ex.Ka.2. The invitation card which was printed for the marriage of his sister was proved as Ext.Ka.5. In that invitation card, the name of Ramesh (deceased) was elucidated. There is no member of his family in Ext.Ka.6. He disowned that he had falsely implicated them on account of litigation. Probably, the lady was the same which was delineated in Ex.Ka.2. The invitation card which was printed for the marriage of his sister was proved as Ext.Ka.5. In that invitation card, the name of Ramesh (deceased) was elucidated. There is no member of his family in Ext.Ka.6. He disowned that he had falsely implicated them on account of litigation. It was also divulged that the room of the house was rented to Irfan in the intervening period of one & half to two years earlier. The possession of the room rented to Irfan was taken by the mother of the complainant after 8-9 months of the incident of murder. At the crucial period of murder of Ramesh, some glasses and clothes were lying inside the room of which photo was taken by the station officer concerned. The complainant asserted with respect to presence of Irfan in that room. The complainant was associated with his brother Mahesh (P.W.5) upto coming back from the police station concerned. The dead body was sent at about 10.15 a.m. on rickshaw. Mahesh (P.W.5) went on motor cycle. Irfan was tenant in the room of Ramesh. Sheela had illicit corporal relation with Ramesh. There is no intention of implicating Irfan with an oblique design of getting the room vacated. 12. Mahendra Giri was examined as P.W.2. In his statement on 24.9, 86 averred that his house is in the adjoining of Ashok (P.W.1) and Mahesh (P.W.5). He was well aware about the identity of accused persons namely Haroon, Rahimuddin, Irfan and Sheela. Sheela is the widow of Ramesh (deceased). Haroon and Rahimuddin used to work with Irfan. His shop was situated in the vicinity of his house. Haroon and Rahimuddin did not stay at the shop in night. It was the incident prior to four to four and half years, he came to know in the morning about murder. The miscreants Irfan and Haroon were coming back from the house of Sheela at about 12.15 in the night. The accused persons were not present at the shop on the fateful day of occurrence. He had seen the dead body of Ramesh to whom a number of injuries were inflicted. 13. In his cross examination he deposed that he was sleeping outside the house. He had seen from the distance of 5 to 7 paces that the miscreants were going. He had seen the dead body of Ramesh to whom a number of injuries were inflicted. 13. In his cross examination he deposed that he was sleeping outside the house. He had seen from the distance of 5 to 7 paces that the miscreants were going. The distance from the shop of Irfan was about 8 to 10 paces. His shop was adjacent to the shop of Irfan. Irfan had small shop. The door of the shop of Mahendra Giri (P.W.2) and Irfan was opening towards east. He (P.W.2) was taking rest after urination. He had shown the place of his sleeping and the place of departing of miscreants. He could not put forth any reason as to why it has not been demonstrated in the map. He was well aware about the miscreants. Their names were disclosed to the station officer concerned. He could not advance any reason why it was omitted. When he reached near the dead body of Ramesh at about 5.30 a.m., Ashok (P.W.1) Mahesh (P.W.5) and Banwari were present. He had gone at the house of Ramesh at about 4.30 p.m. at the call of Station Officer concerned. At that moment, police personnel were present there. The station officer concerned was present in front of room of Sheela (accused appellant). The dead body of Ramesh arrived after 2/3 days at about 2 to 2.30 p.m. He remained at his shop on the fateful day of murder from 7.30 to 8.00 a.m. and 7.30 to 8. p.m. It was disclosed by him that Dhama Advocate, had been looking after his cases for the last 5 to 7 years. Ashok (P.W.1) had been clerk of Mr. Dhama Advocate. It was also divulged by him that Rahimuddin is servant at the shop of Irfan (accused). 14. The prosecution had examined Suresh Chandra Singhal as P.W.3. He stated on oath that on 23.6.82 at about 1.30 p.m. he was sitting at the outer portion of house of his Tau. Yogesh, Ashok (P.W.1), Bhagat, Banwari Lal and Babu Ram were also sitting there. Haroon and Rahimuddin were brought there in the custody of police personnel. It was unfolded by the police that both the miscreants namely Haroon and Raimuddin would make recovery of the weapons inclusive of clothes used in the murder of Ramesh. Both the miscreants were interrogated by him (P.W.3), they answered in affirmative. Haroon and Rahimuddin were brought there in the custody of police personnel. It was unfolded by the police that both the miscreants namely Haroon and Raimuddin would make recovery of the weapons inclusive of clothes used in the murder of Ramesh. Both the miscreants were interrogated by him (P.W.3), they answered in affirmative. The miscreant Haroon went ahead, P.W.3 Suresh Chandra and others proceeded behind the police personnel. The lock of the shop of Irfan (accused) was opened by Haroon. He took out a dirty Khaki pant from the plywood makeshift roof which was saturated with blood. A torn towel was taken out from the cannister filled with black oil. Both the articles were sealed by the station officer concerned in different bundle. He (Suresh Chandra Singhal-P.W.3) and Yogesh had put their signatures on the Fard which was marked as Ext.Ka.4. The accused Rahimuddin went ahead and entered in the shop. He took out an iron axle from the rack of table. The fard of the recovered article was prepared and was duly signed by him and Yogesh which was marked as Ext.Ka.4. The recovered rod was put under seal cover and was also signed by him. Haroon was the servant of Irfan. Both were present in the court. On 21.6.1982, the P.W.3 Suresh Chandra Singhal and the son of his Tau, Mahesh were coming back after looking picture. They saw Irfan and Haroon coming from their shop. When they were at the distance of 5 to 7 paces, Mahesh said to Irfan to have a cup of tea. Irfan did not show his willingness on the pretext of going to village. Iran and Haroon were highly disturbed. They proceeded towards the Hapur stand. After some time Haroon came back and proceeded towards the shop of Irfan. He (P.W.3) and Mahesh returned to their house. Next day at about 5.30 a.m. He (P.W.3) was sleeping inside his house. His father shouted that someone had done to death to Ramesh in the night. He (P.W.3) immediately rushed towards the house of Kailash Narain. Sheela (accused appellant) was lamenting and bemoaning outside of the house. The corpse of Ramesh was lying on the cot in the room. There were multiple injuries on his person. There was blue mark on the neck. On that crucial date, Irfan, Rahimuddin and Haroon did not come at the shop. The shop was closed. Sheela (accused appellant) was lamenting and bemoaning outside of the house. The corpse of Ramesh was lying on the cot in the room. There were multiple injuries on his person. There was blue mark on the neck. On that crucial date, Irfan, Rahimuddin and Haroon did not come at the shop. The shop was closed. He (P.W.3) remained present there upto 6'½ 'O' clock till then neither they (accused persons) came nor the shop was opened. He reached near to the deceased Ramesh at about 5.00 a.m. and remained there till 6.30 a.m. When he (Suresh Chandra Singhal-P.W.3) reached at the place of occurrence, Mahesh, Ashok, Natthoo were present there. Mahesh s/o Lakhpat was also present there. The shop of Mahesh s/o Lakhpat was opened on the fateful day. The miscreants were arrested by the police personnel on 23.6.1982. The key of lock which was opened by Haroon was closed by police personnel and was given to Haroon. They remained present at the shop of Irfan about one hour. The panchayatnama of Ramesh was done before him. The house of Ramesh is at a distance of 400 yards from the tea shop of Bhure and 100 yards from his house. He proved the presence of Irfan and Haroon. 15. The prosecution has examined Baboo Lal Sharma as P.W.4. He stated on oath with regard to murder of Ramesh in June 1982. He had gone at the place of occurrence. The dead body of Ramesh was lying on the cot. The police personnel had come and had taken into custody the pillow etc. The articles taken by the police were marked as Ext.Ka.8 to 11. He had proved his signature on Ext.Ka.6. Next day, Sheela (accused) had supplied screw driver which was marked as Ext.Ka.12. The screw driver recovered by the police personnel was saturated with blood. It was affirmed that the said screw driver was used in the commission of murder. Sheela went ahead. She opened the lock and door. The screw driver was wrapped in the cloth and the fard of which was prepared and marked as Ext.Ka.7.He had proved his signature on Fard Ext.Ka.7. Next day, the children of Sheela had left the house. 16. In his cross examination he deposed that he had reached at the place of occurrence at about 5.30 a.m. The police personnel were not present there. Next day, the children of Sheela had left the house. 16. In his cross examination he deposed that he had reached at the place of occurrence at about 5.30 a.m. The police personnel were not present there. Mahesh, Ashok, Banwari and Suresh were present there. He could not mind as to whether Mahendra was present there or not. Sheela (accused appellant) was present there., He came back after 2 to 4 minutes. He again went at about 8.30 a.m. The dead body of Ramesh was lying on the cot. The dead body was not sealed. He had again gone at 10.30 a.m. The dead body of Ramesh was sent at that time. He came back at about 6 to 6.30 p.m. Next day, police was not present there. Recovery was made at about 11.30 a.m. There was gathering on 23.6.1982 then he was also present there. One police constable called him by indication. The Station officer concerned, P.W.4 Babu Lal Sharma and Sheela entered inside the room. The station officer concerned came back taking the screw driver. The screw driver used in the said crime was marked as Ext. Ka.11. The entire process was completed at the place of occurrence. The house of P.W.4 Babu Lal Sharma and Mahesh was in front of each other. The house of the deceased Ramesh is situated at Hapur road. 17. The prosecution has examined Mahesh Chandra as P.W.5. He stated on oath that he is well aware about the identity of the accused persons. Haroon and Rahimuddin used to come to Irfan. Sheela is the wife of his brother, Ramesh. In one portion Ramesh used to live, one portion of that house was given on rent to Irfan. Sheela and Irfan had illicit physical relation. He heard shriek and scream of wife of Ramesh (Sheela) on 22.6.82 at about 5.00 a.m. He in the company of his wife, Ashok Kumar (P.W.1) and mother went inside the room of Ramesh (deceased). Sheela was lamenting on the door step of the room of Irfan. The dead body of Ramesh who was wearing linear half pant was lying on the cot in the room. Blood was clotted on the face. There were multiple injuries. One pillow was placed below the head and one beneath the leg. Both the pillows were saturated with blood. The children of Ramesh were not present there. The dead body of Ramesh who was wearing linear half pant was lying on the cot in the room. Blood was clotted on the face. There were multiple injuries. One pillow was placed below the head and one beneath the leg. Both the pillows were saturated with blood. The children of Ramesh were not present there. They came out seeing the deceased Ramesh. The condition of his mother deteriorated. She was consoled. At about 5.30 a.m. he (P.W.5), Ashok and Rajkumar went at the police station concerned for lodging the first information report. Ashok (P.W.1) handed over the report of the incident to the Moharrir. On 21.6.82, he (P.W.5) and Suresh went to see picture, while returning they were taking tea and saw Haroon and Irfan were coming back from their shop. When they came near to them, they offered to have a cup of tea. Irfan was confounded and perplexed. He showed his hurriness. After sometime Haroon came there and moved towards his shop. There was illicit corporal relation between Irfan and Sheela. Irfan had thrashed to Ramesh many times on this pretext. Irfan had given overt challenge to eliminate to anyone who would dare to intervene in their relation. Ramesh had beaten to his wife Sheela. Sheela had attended the marriage of Irfan against the wish of Ramesh. Ext.Ka.1 was written by Sheela. On thrashing of Sheela by Ramesh, Irfan came and warned that whosoever would muster courage to interdict in his matter, would be eliminated for ever. Ext.Ka. 2 was recovered from the room of Ramesh in the newspaper. He (P.W.5) had seen to Sheela reading and writting the letter. Ext.Ka.1 is signed by her. He had seen her reading and writing .He was well aware about her hand writing. The same was signed by her. 18. The fateful date when Ramesh was liquidated, the shop of Irfan was closed. On 23.6.1982, the wife of Ramesh had come at about 3’½ 'O' clock. When the wife of Irfan opted to open the door, in the meantime police arrived and took her into custody. He (P.W.5) and Babu Lal were called outside by the police personnel. It was disclosed by the Police personnel that the accused Sheela wanted to get the screw driver recovered. On being interrogated, Sheela evinced her willingness to get the recovery of screw driver used in the murder of Ramesh. He (P.W.5) and Babu Lal were called outside by the police personnel. It was disclosed by the Police personnel that the accused Sheela wanted to get the screw driver recovered. On being interrogated, Sheela evinced her willingness to get the recovery of screw driver used in the murder of Ramesh. It was about 11.30 a.m. Two sub-inspectors, P.W.5 Mahesh Chand and Babu Lal went forward behind Sheela. Sheela opened the door after unfastening the lock and entered inside the house. Both the sub-inspectors in association with P.W.5 Mahesh Chand and Babu Lal entered inside the house. The cannister was placed towards north window. The screw driver used in the commission of said crime was taken out from that cannister. The said screw driver was saturated with blood at a number of places. The said screw driver was put under seal and the fard was prepared exhibiting as Ka.7. The said Fard was signed by P.W.5 Mahesh Chand, Babu Lal and Sheela and was marked as exhibit-12. 19. In cross examination Mahesh Chandra (P.W.5) divulged that he had been working on the post of clerk in the civil court since 3.7.75. He was posted in the court of Munsif Magistrate. The report was written at about 5.30 a.m. in the frontal portion of room of Ramesh. At that moment, Suresh, Banwari Lal, Babu Lal, Nattho etc. came. He did not mention with regard to envision of Haroon and Irfan in the night. There has been no disclosure with regard to illicit relation between Irfan and Sheela. He has also not discussed any inkling for thrashing to Sheela and any threats extended by Irfan. This fact was also not unravelled that the condition of mother was deteriorated. He (P.W.5) stayed at the police station concerned about 10 minutes. The police had come after 5 to 7 minutes after his departure. It was intimated by him to the Station Officer concerned that Rahimuddin was doing work at Irfan but this was not reduced in writing. It was not divulged by him that Sheela was weeping at the threshold of room of Irfan. It was also not unfolded that the children of Ramesh were not there. This matter was brought in the notice of Irfan which caused him infuriation and extended threats. This fact was intimated to the Station officer concerned. It was not divulged by him that Sheela was weeping at the threshold of room of Irfan. It was also not unfolded that the children of Ramesh were not there. This matter was brought in the notice of Irfan which caused him infuriation and extended threats. This fact was intimated to the Station officer concerned. He could not expose any reason as to why it was not reduced in writing. Irfan had taken on rent the said room prior to one & half or two years. He could not inform the amount of rent. This fact was not mentioned while lodging the report. The relationship with Irfan was merely of a tenant. Irfan had thrashed to Ramesh about month back to the incident. He (Irfan) used to beat to Ramesh earlier also. On account of relationship with Bhabhi (Sheela) he had gone on 12.6.82. Ashok Kumar (P.W.1) was also associated to him. They remained at the house of Irfan about one and half hour. It was not remembered to him that photo was clicked or not. He could not identify to Ext.Ka.2 (photo) which was clicked in red Sari whether she was the wife of Irfan as he (P.W.5) had never seen the wife of Irfan. In Ext.Ka.2 green dhoti of Sheela has been depicted. Second lady is the same who has been portrayed in Ext.Ka.2. That lady was seen in the marital function. In Ext.Ka.4, Irfan has been evinced. He (P.W.5) was not aware as to that photo was pertaining to marriage and the said lady was not manifested. In Ext.Kha 3 groom Irfan was evinced. He showed his ignorance as to whether it was pertaining to the marriage. In Ext.Kha.1. the photo of Mahesh Chand (P.W.5) and Sheela was displayed. He could not ascertain as to whether this photo was clicked at the time of marriage of Irfan. The name of son of Sheela is Manoj. Ext.Ka.2 and negative were made available to him in December 1982 which were handed over to Government Counsel. The letter was also given to him. He could not disclose the name of government counsel. The government advocate was hailing to Meerut District. He was engaged when the case was transferred. No letter or application was presented to the Superintendent of Police. He did not disclose the distance of Uchauli from Meerut but divulged that this path can be covered within half hour. He could not disclose the name of government counsel. The government advocate was hailing to Meerut District. He was engaged when the case was transferred. No letter or application was presented to the Superintendent of Police. He did not disclose the distance of Uchauli from Meerut but divulged that this path can be covered within half hour. He (P.W.5) was annoyed hearing about the extra marital relation of Sheela with Irfan anterior to one year. He (P.W.5) had tried to convince Irfan but he did not agree. He admitted that Irfan was tenant of Ramesh. He also ratified with regard to illicit relation of Irfan with Sheela. He also authenticated with regard to beating of Sheela by Ramesh. On 19.6.1982, Ramesh had thrashed to Sheela. After half an hour Irfan appeared then he vented his ire & irate that Ramesh will be decimated. He (P.W.5) did not move any application with regard to that episode. Jalaluddin who is the brother of Irfan, is owner of the shop in question. He could not disclose the whereabouts of Jalaluddin. He (P.W.5) did not make any complain of illicit relation of Irfan with Sheela to any person of the locality or to Jalaluddin. His father had died in 1980. He (P.W.5) did not make complain to Banwari Lal. Nobody had disclosed to him with relation to her relation with Irfan. The shop was rented at Rs. 50/-. The rent of the shop was taken by mother. The mother was living with him. His mother is in possesion of the room rented to Irfan. Irfan did not live in Uchauli at the time of marriage as well as on the crucial day of murder of Ramesh. Irfan used to live in the room of Ramesh. He (P.W.5) was not aware as to whether bus was running to Uchauli or not. The bus was plying from Mawana station. The Mawana station was at a distance of three kilometres from the place of occurrence. He did not interrogate from Irfan as to why he was going at his room at 12'1/2"O' clock at night. He (P.W.5) was sipping tea prior to 3-4 minutes. Thereafter 4 to 5 minutes were passed away. Haroon had come back after one and one & half minutes. Bhoora and his servant were present there. He had been looking to Bhoora running the shop for the last 8 to10 years. He (P.W.5) was sipping tea prior to 3-4 minutes. Thereafter 4 to 5 minutes were passed away. Haroon had come back after one and one & half minutes. Bhoora and his servant were present there. He had been looking to Bhoora running the shop for the last 8 to10 years. He was not aware as to Bhoora was conversant to Irfan. He (P.W.5) did not have any conversation with Bhoora after liquidation of Ramesh. After murder of Irfan, the shop of Natthoo was rented at Rs. 250/- per month. Mahendra did not have any shop. The room adjoining to the road was not in the tenancy of Mahendra. He (P.W.5) did not recollect as to whether this fact was narrated to the Station Officer concerned that the shop of Irfan was closed. He (P.W.5) rebutted this fact that this story was fabricated so as to get the shop vacated. He confronted this fact that the photo was taken from the album of Irfan and was got prepared deceitfully. The room was rented to Irfan. He could not recollect the exact period of departure of Sheela to attend the marriage of Irfan. On paying a glance on the wife of Ramesh, he declined to have meal. Ramesh did not interrogate from him as to why he had attended the marriage of Irfan. His father had executed a will in favour of his mother in which the place which was in possession of Ramesh and Sheela was not portrayed. He was not aware when this share was demarcated. There was no partition from Ramesh. Since Ramesh was divested from the property of his father thus the question of partition did not crop up. His mother had staked her right over that property. His mother had produced the copy of Prabhat in the suit. He could not confirm as to whether Ext.Ka.7 is the same document. This fact was divulged by Sheela to the station officer concerned and thereafter she opened the door removing the lock. The cannister was not taken into possession. After recovery of screw driver at the pointing of Sheela from the room, she put lock in the room. The Station officer concerned visited the room where the corpse of Ramesh was lying. He could not recollect as to whether the second room was opened or not. The cannister was not taken into possession. After recovery of screw driver at the pointing of Sheela from the room, she put lock in the room. The Station officer concerned visited the room where the corpse of Ramesh was lying. He could not recollect as to whether the second room was opened or not. The lock which was put in the door by Sheela was not in his presence. The fard was prepared by the same Station Officer who had recorded his statement. The process of recovery was completed at about 11.45 a.m. Sheela used to read and write and was teaching to the children. He refuted that this story has been cooked up so as to take possession over the house in question. 20. The prosecution had examined Pradeep Kumar as P.W.6. He stated on oath that he has a shop of photography at Meerut. He proved to have taken some photos of dead body. He proved Ext.Ka.3, 9/1, 9/2, 9/3 and 9/4. The photo was clicked at about 2.30 to 3.00 p.m. but he had neither put his signature nor had kept the negative. 21. Prosecution has examined Babu as P.W.7. He stated on oath that he was running tea shop in June 1982 in Madhavnagar near Hapur stand. The house of deceased Ramesh was situated in front of his tea shop. Sheela is the wife of Ramesh (deceased). The accused persons namely Irfan, Haroo and Rahimuddin are well to known to him. He divulged for closing his tea shop at about 7.30 to 8.00 p.m. He disowned closing of his shop at about 1.30 a.m. at night. He disowned his meeting with those miscreants on that night. He also stated that he had not seen those accused persons entering and departing from the house of Ramesh. The station officer concerned had not recorded his statement. He turned hostile. He was cross examined by the prosecution to have given any statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. to the investigating officer. He had proved Ext.Ka.8. He admitted that affidavit paper no.35 Kha was given by him. 22. Constable Kanhaiya Lal was examined as P.W.8. He stated on oath that he was posted as constable at the police station Medical College on 22.6.82. On the production of report Ext.Ka.3 at about 6.20 a.m. by Ashok Kumar (P.W.1), he prepared Chik Report Ext.Ka.9. He proved Ext.Ka.3, written FIR, Ext.Ka.9, Report No.6. 22. Constable Kanhaiya Lal was examined as P.W.8. He stated on oath that he was posted as constable at the police station Medical College on 22.6.82. On the production of report Ext.Ka.3 at about 6.20 a.m. by Ashok Kumar (P.W.1), he prepared Chik Report Ext.Ka.9. He proved Ext.Ka.3, written FIR, Ext.Ka.9, Report No.6. He also proved the Report No.31 dated 22.6.82 written by H.C. Dharmpal and Report No.17 dated 23.6.82 written by H.C. Dharmpal. He also proved Ext.Ka.11 and Ext.Ka.12. He (P.W.8) was not cross examined by the defence. 23. The prosecution has examined Prakash Chand as P.W.9 who was posted as C.C.Malkhana Sadar Meerut. He stated on oath that he recognized the hand writing & signature of Malkhana in-charge Sheesh Ram. He has brought with him the Malkhana register. On 27.7.1982 he sent the case property for chemical examination to Agra. Pursuant to the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 9.7.1982, those incriminating articles were sent through Constable Subhash Chand. The articles remained intact till it was preserved in the Malkhana. These articles were kept in Sadar Malkhana from the police station concerned on 26.7.1982. The order of Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 9.7.82 was received in Malkhana Sadar on 27.7.1982 and on that date it was sent to Agra for chemical examination but no report was received with regard to its return. 24. Dr. S.K.Tyagi (P.W.10) who was posted as Medical Officer at Public Health Centre Bhagwanpur District Saharanpur stated on oath that he was posted at mortuary in P.L.Sharma Hospital Meerut on 23.6.1982. On that day at about 12.00 (noon), he conducted the post mortem of Ramesh Chandra Gupta son of Kailash Chandra r/o 62, Madho Nagar Meerut. The dead body of Ramesh was brought by constable Rameshwar Singh and Constable Harendra Singh under seal cover. The deceased Ramesh was about 32 years old with average body built. Rigor mortis was present on lower extremities only and had passed from upper extremities. Decomposition had started. The nails were deeply cyanosed. Eyes were open and bulging. There was bleeding from mouth and stool was coming out of anus. His genital on examination were found with smegma behind corona glandis. 25. Following ante-mortem injuries were found on the person of deceased Ramesh. 1. Incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on the lateral aspect of right eye brow. 2. Eyes were open and bulging. There was bleeding from mouth and stool was coming out of anus. His genital on examination were found with smegma behind corona glandis. 25. Following ante-mortem injuries were found on the person of deceased Ramesh. 1. Incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on the lateral aspect of right eye brow. 2. Incised wound 2.5 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on the left angle of lower jaw. 3. Bruise 21 cm x 8 cm on the front of neck more on left sid side. 4. Multiple abrasion in area of 12 cm x 4 cm on top of left shoulder. 5. Linear abrasion of 1 cm long, 2 cm below the left elbow. 6. Bruise 18 cm x 9 cm on front, chest and lower part of neck. 7. Bruise 18 cm x 10 cm x 12 cm below the left nipple. 8. Multiple abrasion 8 cm x 5 cm on the dorsom of right hand. 9. Traumatic swelling around both the scrotum sachs. Internal Examination On internal examination, the doctor found that membrances were congested. The brain was also congested. Ribs from 2 to 8 were found fractured on oath side. Pleura was lacerated and congested. There was fracture of hyoid bone and cartilages. Trachea rings were lacerated and contained blood. Both the lungs were lacerated and congested. Big vessels were contused. In the soft tissues and chest cavity there was large collection of blood about 250 ml. Penitorium was congested. Spleen & kidneys were congested. Teeth were 16 x 16, pharynx and larynx were congested. Death could have occurred in the night 21-22/6.82. According to the opinion of the doctor, the deceased Ramesh died about a day and half back because of asphyxia, syncope and ante-mortem injuries. The doctor has proved the post mortem report exhibit Ka.13.opining that injuries were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. Death could have occurred in the night of 22/22.6.1982. The prosecution had examined constable Subhash Chand as P.W.11. He stated on oath that he was posted as constable at Police Station Medical College District Meerut. He had taken the case property from Malakhana Sadar to Agra for chemical examination. The seal of the case property was intact. There was seal of Chief Judicial Magistrate Meerut on the said case property. The prosecution had examined constable Subhash Chand as P.W.11. He had taken the case property from Malakhana Sadar to Agra for chemical examination. The seal of the case property was intact. There was seal of Chief Judicial Magistrate Meerut on the said case property. The prosecution had examined constable Subhash Chand as P.W.11. He stated on oath that he was posted as constable at Police Station Medical College District Meerut. He had taken the case property from Malakhana Sadar to Agra for chemical examination. The seal of the case property was intact. There was seal of Chief Judicial Magistrate Meerut on the said property. The prosecution has examined S.I. Sudarshan Chandra Katoch as P.W. 12. He stated on oath that he was posted as S.I. in June 1982. He was entrusted the investigation of this case. He started the investigation of this case on 22.6.1982 after visiting the place of occurrence at Mohalla Madhonagar Meerut. The corpse of Ramesh was lying at the place of occurrence. The corpse of Ramesh was taken into custody and made inspection of the place of occurrence. The photographer took the photo of the place of occurrence. The investigating officer also prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence. The site plan prepared by the investigating officer was marked as Ext.Ka.14 and the same was duly proved. He got the Panchnama prepared which was marked as Ext.Ka.15. The photo lash, letter to Chief Medical Officer and the Challan Lash were prepared and marked as Ext.Ka.16, 17 and 18 respectively. The investigating officer further sent a letter to Chief Medical Officer raising some questions which was marked as Ext.Ka.20. The dead body of Ramesh was wrapped in a cloth and was sealed. After completing requisite formalities, the dead body was sent to the mortuary under the supervision of constable Harendra Singh and Rameshwar. He collected one pillow, one bed sheet and one bed cover saturated with blood which were collectively marked as Ex.Ka.6. The investigating officer recorded the statement of Ashok Kumar (complainant P.W.1) Mahesh Chandra (P.W.5), Banwari Lal, Suresh Chandra Sanghal (P.W.3), Karmvari, Babu s/o Ram Karan and Yakub s/o Pyare Mian and other witnesses. On the same night, the accused Irfan was arrested from his shop. On his pointing some incriminating articles were recovered which were deposited in the Malkhana under seal cover. On 23.6.1982, the investigating officer arrested the accused Sheela from her house. On the same night, the accused Irfan was arrested from his shop. On his pointing some incriminating articles were recovered which were deposited in the Malkhana under seal cover. On 23.6.1982, the investigating officer arrested the accused Sheela from her house. On the pointing of Sheela, a screw driver used in the said crime was recovered in the presence of witnesses namely Mahesh Chandra Sanghal and Babu Lal Sharma. The said screw driver was marked as Ext.Ka.12. The site plan of recovery of screw driver was prepared and marked as Ext.Ka.21. The statement of Mahesh Chandra Saghal and Babu Lal Sharma was recorded. Thereafter the accused Haroon and Rahimuddin were arrested. On the pointing of Haroon, blood saturated pant and towel were recovered which was marked as Ext.Ka.4. The recovered articles were duly sealed in the presence of Suresh Chandra Sanghal and Yogesh Bansal. On the pointing of accused Rahimuddin a blood saturated iron rod (Ext.Ka.4) was recovered which was marked as Ext.Ka.5. The recovered rod was put under seal in the presence of Yogesh Chandra Sanghal and Suresh Chandra Sanghal. He had proved the Ext.Ka.22 relating to site plan of recovery of piece of iron and recovery of pant and Ext.Ka 23 charge sheet dated 2.8.82 submitted by Mahavir Singh posted at Police Station Medical College as Station Officer. He confirmed the arrest of Sheela on 23.6.1982 at about 11.30 a.m. Accused Sheela was detained at the police station up 3.35 p.m. The articles which were recovered on personal search were entered in G.D. Mahendra had neither disclosed the place where he had slept in the night nor unfolded the place where he had seen the accused Irfan in the night. Mahendra had only disclosed the name of Irfan. It was also not disclosed by Mahesh Chandra that Rahim is the servant of Irfan. The children of Ramesh were not present at the place of occurrence. The accused Irfan was arrested at 7.30 p.m. at Sun Battery Charging Works. There is distance of about 14-15 yards from the place of occurrence and the said shop. The door of shop of Irfan and place of occurrence was towards Hapur road. The accused Irfan was interrogated at his shop. There was electric light at the shop and Irfan was all alone. The statement of accused Irfan was recorded in the electric light inside the shop. The door of shop of Irfan and place of occurrence was towards Hapur road. The accused Irfan was interrogated at his shop. There was electric light at the shop and Irfan was all alone. The statement of accused Irfan was recorded in the electric light inside the shop. After putting lock in the shop, the accused Irfan proceeded with him. The accused Irfan was put in lock up after search. The key of the shop was not taken from the accused Irfan as it was not related with case property. On 23.6.1982 at about 11.30 a.m. He (P.W.12) had gone at the house of accused Sheela. After taking into custody to accused Sheela, the screw driver used in the crime was recovered at her pointing. It was entered in the case diary. The accused Haroon and Rahimuddin were arrested from the bridge of foul smelling culvert. After taking into custody to Haroon and Rahimuddin, the investigating officer came at the shop of accused Irfan from where Irfan was arrested. The shop was closed and the key of which was with Haroon. At the time of search whatever articles recovered from the accused persons were deposited at the police station and entered in the G.D. The accused Irfan was sent to Jail on 23.6.1982. The almirah from which iron rod was recovered was kept at the open place. Suresh and Yogesh were the witness of fard recovery. Sudarshan Chandra (P.W.12) stood lengthy cross examination. The prosecution had examined constable Rameshwar Singh as P.W. 13. He stated on oath that he was posted at police station medical college Meerut on 22.6.1982. He had gone at the place of occurrence with S.I. Katoch (P.W.12) and Harendra constable. After completing all the necessary formalties, the corpse of Ramesh was handed over to him and constable Harendra. The dead body of Ramesh was taken at the mortuary by them with requisite papers. After completing the formalities of post mortem, Rameshwar Singh (P.W.13) and Harendra reported at the police station concerned and submitted the post mortem report. The prosecution had examined constable Subhash Chand as P.W.11. He stated on oath that he was posted as constable at Police Station Medical College District Meerut. He had taken the case property from Malakhana Sadar to Agra for chemical examination. The seal of the case property was intact. The prosecution had examined constable Subhash Chand as P.W.11. He stated on oath that he was posted as constable at Police Station Medical College District Meerut. He had taken the case property from Malakhana Sadar to Agra for chemical examination. The seal of the case property was intact. There was seal of Chief Judicial Magistrate Meerut on the said case property. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the accused-appellants namely Sheela, Irfan, Rahim Uddin and Haroon were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and in their statement they denied all the charges levelled against them and pleaded for innocence. They stated that they have falsely been implicated in the present case at the inkling and connivance of interested and partisan persons. The investigating officer has submitted false and frivolous charge sheet against them. In her statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. accused Smt. Sheela herself divulged that her father in law had executed a will deed prior to this incident. The room in which the accused Sheela and her husband (Ramesh) used to live was got constructed by her after execution of the will deed. The complainant (P.W.1) and her mother in law wanted to grab the room on account of which they were annoyed and exasperated from her. In connection to this a civil suit was also instituted. She used to work in the nursing home at the night. In the morning when she came, she began to bemoan and lament looking to the pitiable and pathetic condition of her husband. Subsequently in connivance with police, the complainant (P.W.1) and the witnesses got her challenged fraudulently. The witnesses and the complainant (P.W.1) had been working in civil court Meerut. They are hands in glove with the police personnel. In the statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C of Haroon (who has been later on declared juvenile vide order dated 5.4.2014 and his trial was separated), it has come out that all the witnesses are hailing to the same genealogy and have come forward to implicate them on account of personal animosity taking the camouflage of getting the shop vacated. Further in the statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. it has been unravelled by Irfan that he used to go to his village per day at evening after closing the shop and after coming back at morning he was opening his shop. Further in the statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. it has been unravelled by Irfan that he used to go to his village per day at evening after closing the shop and after coming back at morning he was opening his shop. He also proved Ex.Kha.1 the photo of his marriage in which the son of Sheela (accused), Mahesh (P.W.5) and other persons are dancing .He also proved Ext.Kha.2 the photo of his marriage in which his wife and Sheela are present. He proved Ext.Kha.3 photo with his wreath in which a number of persons are clicked. It was also unfolded by accused Irfan that after the sad demise of Kailash Narain, on the issue of enhancing the rent, some dispute had taken place with Mahesh, Ashok (P.W.1) and Mahendra but the persons present in the market got it pacified. They wanted to get the shop vacated from him. They had also filed suit in civil court Meerut for the purpose of getting the shop vacated. He has been falsely implicated on account of putting undue pressure upon him. Accused Rahimuddin in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. deposed that he has been implicated as he had taken the side of Haroon, when quarrel of Haroon with Mahesh took place. He has been implicated due to animosity. The accused appellants in their defence examined Kaushal Kumar (D.W.1) who divulged that he was in service at Nandan Cinema in 1980. In 1982, Naresh Chand Jain was holding the post of Manager in the said Cinema Hall and Khalil Ahmad Khan used to prepare the B.Form. On 21.6.1982, he (D.W.1), Naresh Chandra Jain and Khalil Ahmad were in service at Nandan Cinema. Naresh Chandra Jain & Khalil Ahmad Khan had died. On 21.6.1982, there were three classes in Nandan Cinema i.e. Balcony, Special and First Class. The defence witness after looking the attested copy of B.Form submitted that on the said photo sets signatures were made by Naresh Chandra Jain. That B.Form was pertaining to night show of 21.6.1982 in respect to Nandan Cinema. B.Form is distinct for different show. B.Form is sent to Amusement Tax Department after filling cost of ticket, rent, tax etc. The cost of the ticket for Balcony was Rs. 6.00, Special Class Rs. 5.00, First Class Rs. 3.00 According to B.Form there was no ticket for Rs. 4.00 in Nandan Cinema. B.Form is distinct for different show. B.Form is sent to Amusement Tax Department after filling cost of ticket, rent, tax etc. The cost of the ticket for Balcony was Rs. 6.00, Special Class Rs. 5.00, First Class Rs. 3.00 According to B.Form there was no ticket for Rs. 4.00 in Nandan Cinema. Naresh Chand Jain had joined in service at Nandan Cinema after 5-6 years. In the absence of Jain, other person of the staffs were doing the work. Kaushal Kumar Sharma (D.W.1) could not confirm as to whether he was on duty on 21.6.1982 or not. Who had filled the form was not confirmed by him. He had proved the signature of Naresh Chandra Jain. He confirmed that there was no ticket of Rs. 4/- in Nandan Cinema. He denied that the ticket was sold at Rs. 4/- in the case of mass gathering. The learned trial judge upon appreciation and appraisal of evidence on record convicted and sentenced the accused appellants Irfan & Sheela to undergo life imprisonment under section 302/34 IPC with fine of Rs. 25, 000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further three months imprisonment and acquitted accused Rahimuddin under section 302 read with section 34 IPC and 120B IPC . We have heard Sri N.I.Jafri Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Khalid Mohmood learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Ashwani Prakash Tripathi, learned AGA appearing on behalf of State and perused the entire material on record. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants contended that the judgment and order passed by the learned trial judge is per se illegal and erroneous whereby the appellants have been awarded life imprisonment merely on suspicion while there are serious irregularities and lapses on the part of the prosecution. The prosecution case is based entirely on circumstantial evidence. All the witnesses produced by the prosecution are highly interested and inimical who succeeded in accomplishing their evil design. All the witnesses had developed the story of illicit relationship between accused Sheela and accused Irfan being the strong motive behind the murder of Ramesh. The prosecution witnesses namely Ashok Kumar (P.W.1), Mahesh (P.W.5) have connoted a false story who in their examination unfolded that there was illicit corporal relation between Sheela and Irfan. All the witnesses had developed the story of illicit relationship between accused Sheela and accused Irfan being the strong motive behind the murder of Ramesh. The prosecution witnesses namely Ashok Kumar (P.W.1), Mahesh (P.W.5) have connoted a false story who in their examination unfolded that there was illicit corporal relation between Sheela and Irfan. Ramesh (deceased) was highly irritated and disturbed on account of easy virtue of his wife Sheela hence the relations between Ramesh and Sheela (accused) were highly ruptured and frayed. Ramesh used to thrash Sheela because of her illicit relations with Irfan. It has also come into light that in the morning of 19.6.1982, some verbal duel took place between Sheela and Ramesh (decease). After one and half hour accused Irfan came and unleashed reign of terror threatening to the husband of Sheela to be liquidated in case he caused hindrance or obstacle in their courtship. It has also come in the evidence that Ramesh had thrashed Sheela for attending the marriage of Irfan but this entire story does not stand on sound footing. There are material inconsistency in the prosecution version and the statement of the witnesses which itself creates suspicion about the incriminating circumstances framed against them. The first information report had been lodged without disclosing the name of any accused persons.'\No strong motive has been attributed for committing the said incident. The motive assigned to the appellants for committing the gruesome and barbarous murder of Ramesh does not inspire any confidence corroborating its truthfulness and probity. The accused-appellants are absolutely innocent and had been made escape goat on account of conspiracy of the complainant and other witnesses. There was property dispute among the brothers of deceased Ramesh. There is no evidence that Sheela was staying along with her husband on the fateful night. There is no evidence to show that applicant Sheela and Irfan were last seen together inside the room with deceased Ramesh. There is no evidence to show that Irfan was seen going inside the room asnd coming out of the house of Ramesh. The P.W.1 Ashok kumar, P.W.5 Mahesh Chanda are the brother of the deceased Ramesh. There was congenial and genteel family term between Irfan, Ashok Kumar (P.W.1) Mahesh (P.W.5) even the son of Ramesh (deceased) attended the marital celebration of Irfan which was solemnized on 12th June 1982. The P.W.1 Ashok kumar, P.W.5 Mahesh Chanda are the brother of the deceased Ramesh. There was congenial and genteel family term between Irfan, Ashok Kumar (P.W.1) Mahesh (P.W.5) even the son of Ramesh (deceased) attended the marital celebration of Irfan which was solemnized on 12th June 1982. There is vivid demonstration of photograph (Ext.Kha.1) showing dance and revel by the son of Sheela (accused) and Mahesh Kumar (P.W.5). There is material (Ext.Ka.2) showing Sheela sitting with Irfan and his wife of which photo clicked by Ramesh himself negative of which has been produced from the room of Ramesh. In the first information report the complainant after hearing the shriek and shrill of Sheela, he in association with his brother Mahesh (P.W.5) and other family members reached at the room of Ramesh and saw the dead body of Ramesh lying on the cot. So far as the corporal relation between Irfan and Sheela is concerned, it was natural on the part of the family members of Ramesh (deceased) not to allow Sheela to attend the marriage of Irfan and make rejoincing there. Mahesh (P.W.5) and Ashok Kumar (P.W.1) were jubilant and exhilarated and were dancing in the marriage of Irfan has vital impact. The sitting of Sheela with accused Irfan and his newly wedded wife itself demonstrates their cordial and affable relations. There was nothing to show that the appellants were party to any conspiracy. There is no evidence to show that appellants Sheela and Irfan were last seen together inside the room with deceased Ramesh. There is no evidence to show that Irfan was seen going inside the room and for coming out of the house of Ramesh. The alleged confessional statement of Sheela regarding recovery of screw driver cannot be used against her which is inadmissible under section 27 of Evidence Act. Moreover, the screw driver cannot be a weapon of crime to commit murder. There are significant contradictions with regard to the recovery of articles recovered by investigating officer. It was not established from the prosecution evidence on record that accused-appellants had committed the murder of Ramesh thus the conviction and sentence awarded under 302/34 IPC is highly cryptic and cannot sustain. There are significant contradictions with regard to the recovery of articles recovered by investigating officer. It was not established from the prosecution evidence on record that accused-appellants had committed the murder of Ramesh thus the conviction and sentence awarded under 302/34 IPC is highly cryptic and cannot sustain. The prosecution has failed to establish any criminal conspiracy between Sheela and Irfan thus it could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against them therefore, the appeal against the impugned judgment and order stands on justifiable grounds and may be allowed. The main thrust of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants is that all the witnesses produced by the prosecution were highly partisan and interested who wanted to satiate their lust of grudge. The investigation has also been done in a very perfunctory and casual manner. There are material inconsistency in the prosecution version and the statement of the witnesses which itself creates great suspicion about the manner of assault at the alleged time of occurrence. The first information report has been lodged against unknown persons while the accused appellant are well known to the complainant. The medical evidence also does not corroborate the prosecution version. The witnesses had come at the place of occurrence after hearing the shriek and shrill of accused Sheela as such it cannot be said that they had witnessed the killing and have roped the appellants on account of suspicion so as to wreak their personal vengeance. No strong motive has been attributed for committing the said incident. The motive assigned to the appellants for committing the gruesome and hellish murder of Ramesh does not inspire any confidence corroborating its verity and truthfulness. The name of the accused appellant came during investigation at the statement of complainant Ashok Kumar (PW.1) and Mahesh Chand (P.W.5) It is conspicuously explicit from the site plan prepared by the investigating officer that nobody had seen the manner of assault inflicted upon Ramesh. The statement of the investigating officer, who had prepared the site plan, recovery memo and sent the corpse to mortuary is a bundle of contradictions. The falsehood and contradictions are so evident that it would obliterate the verity and probity of the entire prosecution version. The statement of the investigating officer, who had prepared the site plan, recovery memo and sent the corpse to mortuary is a bundle of contradictions. The falsehood and contradictions are so evident that it would obliterate the verity and probity of the entire prosecution version. It is trite fact that Ramesh had met to unnatural death which is corroborated from the medical report but who were the real assailants cannot be deduced by implicating the innocent persons merely in the guise of suspicion. The learned trial judge has erroneously passed the impugned judgment and order attaching pivotal significance to the statement of Ashok Kumar (P.W.1) and prosecution witnesses without vetting and weighing the material inconsistency in the prosecution version, medical evidence and the statement of the witnesses. The prosecution has failed to corroborate that the accused appellants were the actual perpetrator of the crime. The conviction of the appellants placing reliance on the feeble eye witness account Ashok Kumar (P.W.1) and Mahesh Chand (P.W.5) is not proper for want of independent corroboration as the presence of the prosecution witnesses on the spot at the time occurrence has not been proved. The accused appellants have been subjected to scapegoat on account of evil design and revengeful sentiments of the Ashok Kumar (P.W.1) and Mahesh Chand (P.W.5). The investigating officer had submitted charge sheet against the accused appellants relying upon the statement of partisan and interested witnesses. The fair and impartial investigation has not been done rather the investigation has been done in a tainted and prejudicial manner so as to circumvent the accused appellants in the present case. The accused appellants were not arrested at the place of occurrence. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt as the evidence adduced in support thereof were not found to constitute a firm basis upon which life imprisonment has been awarded to the accused appellants. The learned trial court has framed the charges against them merely on suspicion putting at shelf all the material evidence which itself stumbles the prosecution version. The entire prosecution story is rested on uncorroborated facts and evidence and the guilt of the accused-appellants not having been proved to the hilt by the prosecution, the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt. The entire prosecution story is rested on uncorroborated facts and evidence and the guilt of the accused-appellants not having been proved to the hilt by the prosecution, the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt. The absence of apparent motive on the part of the accused-appellants who did not have any criminal history has a material bearing on the question of sentence hence the judgment and order passed by the trial court may be reversed by exercising extraordinary power of appellate jurisdiction. To buttress his argument, learned counsel for the appellants have placed reliance on the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as Hon'ble High Court enunciated in the following judgments : 1. Reena Hazarika versus State of Assam, AIR 2018 SC 5361 2. Vikram Jit Singh versus State of Punjab, (2006) 9 Supreme Court Page 338 3. Dr.(Smt.)Nupur Talwar versus State of U.P., (2018) 102 AllCriC 524 4. Joydeb Patra & others versus State of West Bengal, AIR 2013 SC 2878 5. Shanker Lal & another Versus State of Chhattisgarh (Criminal Appeal No. 497 of 2008) decided on 6.10.2017 6. Sukhjeet versus State of Punjab, 2015 3 Supreme 670 7. Ranvir Yadav versus State of Bihar, (2009) 4 Supreme 205 , 8. Shaikh Maqsood versus State of Maharastra, (2009) 4 Supreme 429 , 9. Navaneetha Krishan versus State through Inspector of Police (Criminal Appeal No. 1134 of 2013). Per contra learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State contended that from the prosecution evidence, available on record, the case of prosecution is proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused-appellants the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court is based upon proper appreciation of evidence available on record. The finding recorded by the trial court does not suffer from any legal, procedural or factual infirmity or vulnerability. It has further been contended by learned AGA that the prosecution is not bound to prove motive of any offence in a criminal case, inasmuch as motive is known only to the perpetrator of the crime and may not be known to others if the motive is proved by the prosecution, the court has to consider it and see whether it is adequate. It is also corroborated from the record that prosecution had examined the complainant Ashok Kumar as PW-1 who in his statement on oath proved Ext.Ka.1, Photo Ext.Ka.2 and written information Ext.Ka3. It is also corroborated from the record that prosecution had examined the complainant Ashok Kumar as PW-1 who in his statement on oath proved Ext.Ka.1, Photo Ext.Ka.2 and written information Ext.Ka3. The occurrence took place in the night of 21/22nd June 1982 at about 12.15 a.m. In the morning the wife of deceased Ramesh namely Sheela was bemoaning and lamenting. On hearing the shriek and shrill of Sheela, the complainant (P.W.1) and his elder brother Mahesh (P.W.5 ) and other family members rushed towards the room of Ramesh where he saw dead body of Ramesh lying on the cot. The blood was coming out from the mouth of deceased Ramesh. There was numerous marks of injuries on the body of Ramesh which demonstrates that Ramesh was liquidated at falling hours of night. The prosecution has fully proved the presence of accused Sheela in the night of 21/22.6.1982 with deceased Ramesh. The argument of learned counsel for the appellants that Sheela was working as Nurse and was on her duty in the nursing home.When she came in the morning on 22.6.1982, she found her husband (Ramesh) laying on the cot. The accused Sheela cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and silent on the premise that the prosecution has to prove its case. There is nothing on record to substantiate that accused Sheela was not present in the night on 21/22.6.1982 with her husband deceased Ramesh in the house and she was at Nursing Home. The recovery of screw driver has been made at the pointing of Sheela. The recovery of iron rod was madfe on the pointing of Rahimudddin. The recovered screw driver was duly marked as Ext.Ka.12. The recovered screw driver was saturated with blood stains. The person who is supposed to give such information could be so physically impaired that he could hardly narrate the factum of incident, knowing the conditions of the informant's mother who was highly saddened person to rush to the police station immediately after the occurrence. At times being grief-stricken because of the calamity it may not immediately occur to the informant that he may give a report in detail. It is not in dispute that place of occurrence is inside the house of Ramesh. The prosecution witnesses are natural witnesses and they have no motive to make false statements against the accused-appellant. At times being grief-stricken because of the calamity it may not immediately occur to the informant that he may give a report in detail. It is not in dispute that place of occurrence is inside the house of Ramesh. The prosecution witnesses are natural witnesses and they have no motive to make false statements against the accused-appellant. Even if, there is absence of motive, it would not benefit the accused when there is reliable and acceptable version of the eye witnesses, In a case where near and dear one is killed, his family members would not spare the real culprits and falsely implicate others. The relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. The testimony of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the ground of being closely related to the deceased. Each case must be judged on its own facts. The presence of the witnesses is proved to be natural and their statements are nothing but truthful disclosure of actual facts leading to the occurrence, it will not be permissible for the Court to discard the statement of such witnesses. There is no bar in law on examining family members or any other person as witnesses. In cases involving family members of both sides, it is the family members who come forward to disclose correct facts. If the statement of witnesses, who are known to the parties affected is credible, reliable and trustworthy there would not be any reason for the court to reject such evidence merely on the ground that the witness was a family member or an interested witness or a person known to the affected party. The P.W.1 Ashok Kumar and P.W.5 Mahesh Chandra were put to lengthy cross-examination, but nothing could be elicited by way of cross-examination so as to create doubt about their stand. Their testimonies have been well supported by the medical evidence. There is complete consistency and coherence in the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, There is nothing on record to show if the prosecution witnesses had any animus against the accused appellants so as to implicate falsely in the present case. The testimony of prosecution witnesses are cogent, credible and trustworthy and have a ring of truth. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The testimony of prosecution witnesses are cogent, credible and trustworthy and have a ring of truth. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the statements of the prosecution witnesses. On appreciation of entire evidence on record, the learned trial court has rightly found them guilty. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the registration of the first information report is mandatory with respect to the incident occurred. It is not necessary that the first information report should contain minutest detail. The first information report is not an encyclopaedia to give each and every details. Minor contradictions cannot be taken to be a ground to reject the testimony of the prosecutions witnesses of facts. In the deposition of witnesses there are always normal discrepancies due to normal errors of observation, loss of memory, mental disposition If the evidence is incredible and cannot be accepted by the test of prudence, then it may create a dent in the prosecution version. It is only the serious contradictions and omissions which materially affect prosecution case but not every contradiction or omission. In order to appreciate the evidence, the Court is required to bear in mind the set-up and the environment in the which the crime is committed. The appellant Sheela wife of deceased Ramesh is duty bound to explain as to how her husband died. When an offence like murder is committed in the secrecy inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution. In view of section 106 of Evidence Act, there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house like in the present case wife to give cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. Bearing in mind these broad principles the evidence is required to be appreciated to find out what part out of the evidence represents the true and correct states of affairs. It is for the Court to sequester the grain from the chaff. Bearing in mind these broad principles the evidence is required to be appreciated to find out what part out of the evidence represents the true and correct states of affairs. It is for the Court to sequester the grain from the chaff. The appellants Sheela, the wife of Ramesh and Irfan being the tenant of the room where the dead body of Ramesh was found, have to give an explanation as to why he sustained injuries when they could not offer any explanation as to the homicidal death of Ramesh, it is a strong circumstance against both the accused that they are responsible for the commission of the offence. The Court cannot draw adverse inference only because of any contradiction in the statement of the witnesses. The Court can rely on the quantity and not quality of evidence which is material. The testimony of the prosecution witnesses fully supports the prosecution case and they have no motive to make false statement against the accused-appellants. The evidence must be weighed and not counted. It is quality and not quantity which determines the adequacy of evidence as has been provided under Section-134 of the Evidence Act. The learned counsel for the accused appellants had cited a catena of decisions to prop up his submissions which do not have any applicability with the present set of facts. Medical evidence (postmortem report) fully corroborates the prosecution version as well as the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. The blood stained weapon of offence and recovery of articles at the time of arrest of the accused persons on their disclosure statement made by them is admissible under section 27 of the Evidence Act. Merely because the other accused Rahimuddin who was named by the prosecution has been acquitted by giving benefit of doubt would not make the evidence of the witnesses totally untrustworthy . "Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has never been accepted as an argument to discard the evidence of a witness .The trial court has appreciated the evidence carefully .The statement of prosecution witnesses of fact despite being lengthy and searching cross examination nothing of any consequence has been elicited to discredit them. It has been argued on behalf of the appellants that the injuries caused to deceased are incised wound and the recovery is of screw driver and iron piece from which it is not possible to cause incised wound. It has been argued on behalf of the appellants that the injuries caused to deceased are incised wound and the recovery is of screw driver and iron piece from which it is not possible to cause incised wound. It has also been argued that if screw driver will be used then punctured wound would be caused. He also argued that from iron piece also incised wound cannot be caused. So the weapon shown as causing murder are not connected with the injuries on the body of deceased Ramesh Chand. It has been clearly stated in the post mortem report that the death of the deceased Ramesh was due to asphyxia and syncope because of ante-mortem injuries. Medical evidence is only an opinion. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also dealt this issue in extenso in Dashrath Singh versus State of U.P., (2004) 7 SCC 408 quoting the renowned author of the Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology. It has been clarified that incised wound on occipital region is possible with lathi or stick. Occasionally, on wounds produced by a blunt weapon or by a fall, the skin splits and may look like incised wounds when inflicted on tense structures covering the bones, such as the scalp, eyebrow, iliac crest, skin, perineum etc. A scalp wound by a blunt weapon may resemble an incised wound. The injury of incised wound of deceased Ramesh is on eye brow which can be caused by iron piece or screw driver. It all depends on how the screw driver is being used. Ext.Ka.24 and Ext.Ka.25 are the chemical report and serologist report respectively from which it is clear that blood marks have been found on screw driver and iron piece as well. So, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant will not have any effect that the incised wound cannot be caused by use of iron piece or screw driver. The prosecution has been successful to prove the recovery of screw driver and iron piece from the possession of accused persons and use of it in the murder of Ramesh (deceased). The next submission that the death of Ramesh was caused in the morning on 22.6.1982 and his stomach was empty. The prosecution has been successful to prove the recovery of screw driver and iron piece from the possession of accused persons and use of it in the murder of Ramesh (deceased). The next submission that the death of Ramesh was caused in the morning on 22.6.1982 and his stomach was empty. It must have taken at least seven hours to digest the food and in no condition it could be said that the death of Ramesh took place before 12 p.m. Dr.S.K.Tyagi (P.W.10) who had conducted the post mortem had stated in his cross examination that time of death could be 3 to 4 a.m. in the night of 21/22.6.1982 because the stomach was empty and faucal matter was present and he must have eaten food seven hours before death. This aspect has also been dealt with by Hon'ble Supreme Court in re Suresh Chandra Bahri versus State of Bihar, (1994) 4 JT 309 SC, the Hon'ble Apex Court referred "Modis Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 22nd Edition, Pages 246, 247 which delineats as under : "Digestive conditions vary in individuals up 2.5-6 hours depending upon healthy state of body, consistency of food motility of the stomach, osmotic presssure of stomach contents, quantity of food in the duodenum, surroundings in which food is taken emotional factos and residual variations and only very approximate time of death can be given. The deceased Ramesh was 32 years old hence the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants will not have any force as it depends on the health and body of the person. The evidence must be weighed and not counted. It is quality and not quantity which determines the adequacy of evidence as has been provided under Section-134 of the Evidence Act. The learned counsel for the accused appellants had cited a catena of decisions to prop up his submissions which do not have any applicability with the present set of facts. After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the testimony of all the prosecution witnesses and cumulative result of all circumstances supports the prosecution case. There is nothing on record to show that the prosecution witnesses had any animus against the accused appellants so as to implicate them falsely in the present case hence there appears no justification to disbelieve the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. There is nothing on record to show that the prosecution witnesses had any animus against the accused appellants so as to implicate them falsely in the present case hence there appears no justification to disbelieve the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. From the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is fully established that Ramesh succumbed to unnatural death with on account of multiple injuries inflicted upon him. The statement of the witnesses cannot be doubted or suspected merely they are related to the deceased or on account of minor variation or aberration in their statement. The utterances have consistently and umpteen times been repeated by the witnesses who had narrated and unfolded the incident in a very natural and articulatory manner that Sheela & accused Irfan have committed murder of Ramesh The overt act of the accused appellants at the relevant moment is fully established and is unimpeachable beyond a shadow of doubt consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused appellants within all human probability. The manner in which Ramesh has been done to death portrays very inhuman and gruesome state of mind of the accused appellants. The occurrence is fully supported by the testimony of witnesses and the medical evidence which cannot be overclouded by any stretch of imagination or suspicion. In the course of cross examination, the defence side has tried to evolve a story of false implication in order to overshadow the testimony of the posecution witnesses. From the appraisal of the ocular testimony of the prosecution witnesses, the chain of circumstances explicitly proves to the hilt about the illicit relation between the accused appellants Sheela and Irfan which was going on between them. It may not be known to others about their illicit corporal relation. It is highly difficult for the prosecution to skim from the mind of the accused persons. The circumstances are of such a conclusive nature which prove that the said crime must have been committed by the accused appellants. Another circumstance which is consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused appellants that accused Irfan and Haroon were seen coming out from the house of Ramesh (deceased) on the fateful and crucial night of 21/22.6.1982 in the presence of the accused appellant Sheela on whose pointing blood stained screw driver has been recovered. Another circumstance which is consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused appellants that accused Irfan and Haroon were seen coming out from the house of Ramesh (deceased) on the fateful and crucial night of 21/22.6.1982 in the presence of the accused appellant Sheela on whose pointing blood stained screw driver has been recovered. Another circumstance which has clinching effect that at the pointing of co-accused Rahimuddin ( acquitted by the trial), recovery of piece of iron rod has been made. If these circumstances be clubbed together, it forms a complete chain that in all human probability the crimes were committed by the accused appellants and none else. While examining the accused persons under section 313 Cr.P.C. they had offered no explanation to negative the chain of circumstances pointing towards the guilt of the accused persons. There is no room to doubt that the incident had not taken place inside the house where the Ramesh (deceased) and the accused appellants were residing. If the wife of Ramesh (deceased) could not put forth any convincing and trustworthy explanation to show how her husband (Ramesh) had sustained fatal injuries that she was not having guilty mind, there is no hesitation to come to the conclusion that it was the accused appellants who were the perpetrator of the crime. Law does not require to the prosecution to prove the existence of motive and probability of the accused having committed the crime. The victim Ramesh had been done to death in a very ghastly and fiendish manner and no plausible explanation has been put forth by the accused appellants making the prosecution version unbelievable and incredible on any other hypothesis except that the accused appellants are guilty for the commission of said crime. The motive being a state of mind of the accused persons may not be known to others as to what was the motive for a particular offence.The mere fact that the prosecution failed to translate mental disposition of the accused appellants into evidence does not mean that no such mental condition existed in their mind. The accused appellants had perpetuated the crime in a very relentless and devilish manner as the prosecution has successfully proved the recovery of screw driver and iron piece from the possession of the accused persons which were used in the murder of Ramesh. The accused appellants had perpetuated the crime in a very relentless and devilish manner as the prosecution has successfully proved the recovery of screw driver and iron piece from the possession of the accused persons which were used in the murder of Ramesh. On the basis of verbose and prolix discussions made here in above and also considering the material evidence on record, we are of the considered opinion that findings of conviction for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code recorded by the Trial Court are well substantiated by the evidence on record. The Trial Court has appreciated the evidence in the right perspective. We don't find any justification to interfere with the findings of conviction recorded for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, therefore, the conviction recorded against the accused-appellants under section 302/34 IPC is hereby maintained and affirmed. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 26. The order dated 8/9-7-2014 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge Court No.10, Muzaffar Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 382 of 1982 (State vs. Sheela @ Sushila and others) under Sections 302/34 IPC is hereby affirmed. The accused appellant Sheela is in jail. The co-accused Irfan is on bail. His bail bond is hereby cancelled. He be taken into custody forthwith. They shall serve out the sentence as awarded by the learned trial court and affirmed by this Bench. 27. Let a copy of the judgment be certified and sent along with the lower court record to the court below immediately for compliance and necessary entries be made in the relevant register.