JUDGMENT : Subhash Chand, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The instant criminal appeal is preferred on behalf of the appellant against the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 9th February, 2017 and Order of sentence dated 14th February, 2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-XI, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Sessions Trial No.158 of 2014, whereby, the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. along with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in case of non-payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 3. The case of the prosecution as per fardbeyan of the informant Sonu Singh recorded by S.I., Ganesh Kumar Singh of Sidgora police satation on 6th July, 2012 is that the sister of the informant, namely, Rinki Devi got married with the appellant/convict Deepak Singh in the year 2006. The said Rinki Devi remained in her matrimonial house at Ranchi with her husband for about four years and out of the wedlock of appellant—Deepak Singh and Rinki Devi, a daughter namely Suhana was born who on the date of occurrence was of four years. The appellant/convict used to physically assault his wife Rinki Devi for which there was a Panchayat in the matrimonial house of sister of the informant. About one year back, the appellant came to the house of the informant in order to take back Rinki Devi but she denied. She did not agree to go to the matrimonial house and said that if she would go there, she would again be assaulted. About two months back, the appellant again came to the house of the informant and told Rinki Devi to accompany him to her matrimonial house but she denied. The father of the informant also arranged job of security guard for the appellant where he worked but the appellant again insisted Rinki Devi for return to her matrimonial house and after quarrel, the accused left the house of the informant on 29th June, 2012. It is also alleged that on 5th July, 2012 at about 10.00 a.m., the appellant came to the house of the informant and started searching Rinki Devi, who was doing work of paper binding in the Variety Store at Baridih. It is also alleged that on 5th July, 2012 at about 10.00 a.m., the appellant came to the house of the informant and started searching Rinki Devi, who was doing work of paper binding in the Variety Store at Baridih. The accused went there and brought Rinki Devi forcefully. At night, after taking meal, the appellant, his wife and daughter Suhana were sleeping on one bed. In morning, Rinki Devi and Suhana were found lying dead on the bed. It is alleged that the accused did not like the deceased Rinki Devi and, hence, used to assault her and finally he committed murder of his wife and daughter by pressing their neck with the help of pillow and thereafter fled away from back door. 4. On this written information, the Case Crime No.68 of 2012 was registered with the police station Sidhgora, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against Deepak Singh. The Investigating Officer after having concluded the investigation filed charge-sheet to the Court of Magistrate concerned who after taking cognizance thereon committed the case for trial to Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum Jamshedpur. Further, the Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum Jamshedpur transferred the same for trial to Additional Sessions Judge-XI, East Singhbhum Jamshedpur. 5. The Trial Court framed the charge against the accused under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. The charge was read over and explained to the accused in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. On behalf of the prosecution to prove the charge against the accused in oral evidence examined P.W.1-Dablu Singh, P.W.2-Anju Devi, P.W.3-Vinod Thakur, P.W.4-Dr. Akhilesh Kumar Choudhary, P.W.5- Dipak Devi, P.W.6-Bablu Singh, P.W.7-Sonu Singh, P.W.8-S.I. Prabhu Sahay Topno, P.W.9-Sushil Kumar Dwivedi, P.W.10 Ganesh Kumar Singh (the I.O. of the case) and P.W.-11 Bhayanand Yadav, A.S.I. 7. On behalf of the prosecution in documentary evidence adduced Ext.P1 postmortem report of deceased Rinki Devi, Ext.P2 postmortem report of deceased Suhana Singh, Ext.P3 sealed box with F.S.L. No.1299 of 2012, Ext.P4 seizure list, Ext.P5 to Ext.P8 four photographs, Ext.9 fardbeyan, Ext.10 FSL report, Ext.10/1 FSL report, Ext.10/2 FSL report, Ext. Art.1 two dupatta of pink colour, Ext. Art.2 one bed sheet and Ext.Art.3 one pillow. 8. The statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded who denied the incriminating circumstances against him in the evidence and stated to be innocent. 9. Art.1 two dupatta of pink colour, Ext. Art.2 one bed sheet and Ext.Art.3 one pillow. 8. The statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded who denied the incriminating circumstances against him in the evidence and stated to be innocent. 9. No defence evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. 10. The trial court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties passed the impugned judgment of conviction dated 9th February, 2017 convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and order of Sentence dated 14th February, 2017. 11. The aforesaid convict/appellant being aggrieved with the impugned judgment of conviction dated 9th February, 2017 and order of sentence dated 14th February, 2017 preferred the present criminal appeal. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. for the State of Jharkhand and perused the materials available on record. 13. In order to decide the legality and propriety of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court, we would like to re-appreciate the evidence on record, which are reproduced herein below : 13.1 P.W.-1 Dablu Singh in his examination-in-chief says that Rinki Devi was his sister. The occurrence is of 5th July, 2012. It was night, they all went to sleep. His sister Rinki Devi, her four years old daughter and his Jija Deepak Singh also after having taken food went to sleep in the room of his sister. In the morning at 6:30 o’ clock his mother went to awake Suhana and found sister Rinki Devi and her daughter Suhana lying dead on the bed. The articles in the room were found scattered. The window and the door of the room were open. His brother-in-law Deepak Singh was not present there. When his mother shouted, then all the family members and he reached to the room of the sister and found the sister and her daughter dead, who were having mark of scratch on the neck. The blood was also oozing from the mouth of his sister. His sister was married in the year 2006 with Deepak Singh. When his mother shouted, then all the family members and he reached to the room of the sister and found the sister and her daughter dead, who were having mark of scratch on the neck. The blood was also oozing from the mouth of his sister. His sister was married in the year 2006 with Deepak Singh. When his sister was in the matrimonial home at Ranchi an attempt was made to set her ablaze, therefore, his father brought his sister to the parental house and also informed to the police station where a compromise also arrived and ultimately his father brought his sister to Jamshedpur. His sister began to do job in a variety store at Jamshedpur. His brother-in-law came after two years to take back his sister to the matrimonial home but his sister refused to go with him with the fear that he would assault her. Again his Jija came to his house and his Jija was got employed in the security agency by his father and also began to reside at Jamshedpur in the parental house of his sister. Even then relations between the two were strained. After few days his Jija went to Ranchi when a quarrel arose between his sister and Jija and thereafter on 5th July, 2012, his Jija came at 1 o’ clock to his house and he began to make search of his sister. At that time his sister was at variety store. He brought her dragging from the variety store and in the evening asked to go for the walk. At 10 or 10:30 after having taken food, all went to sleep to their room and this occurrence took place in the night and in the morning his Jija was found missing. On the information given to the police, the police came there and the inquest report of his sister and niece was prepared on which he put his signature which was marked Ext.P1 and P2. In cross-examination, this witness stated that in regard to the occurrence his elder brother Sonu Singh informed to the police. His sister used to complain to the family members in regard to the tyranny which was caused by the inmates of the matrimonial house. On the date of occurrence, in day time, the quarrel arose between his sister and jija, not in the night. His sister used to complain to the family members in regard to the tyranny which was caused by the inmates of the matrimonial house. On the date of occurrence, in day time, the quarrel arose between his sister and jija, not in the night. On 5th July, 2012 his Jija brought his sister forcibly from the place where she was doing job. He came to know this fact from his family members since he has gone out of the house. 13.2 P.W.-2, Anju Devi in her examination-in-chief corroborates the prosecution story and in cross-examination, this witness says that his sister-in-law (Nanad) used to complaint her in regard to the torture being given to her in her matrimonial home at Ranchi. Two or three times she came from Jamshedpur to Ranchi but they did not file any case. The police had interrogated her. It is correct to say that Deepak Singh had come to her house to take her sister-in-law to Ranchi and her sister-in-law refused to go with him out of the fear of torture. Her father-in-law had got Deepak Singh employed as a security guard and he began to reside at her house. During that period Deepak Singh also compelled her sister-in-law to go to Ranchi but she flatly refused. She further says that in which room Rinki Devi was sleeping, in the adjoining room she was sleeping with her husband and in another adjoining room her mother-in-law was sleeping. She has told to police that one day before this occurrence at 1 or 1:30 o’ clock, Deepak had brought her sister-in-law from the place where she was working and also quarreled with her. 13.3 P.W.-3 Binod Kumar in his examination-in-chief says that on 5th July, 2012, Rinki had come at the place of her job to the house of his brother Manoj Thakur and his brother Manoj Thakur had told him that Rinki Devi was taken at 1 to 1:30 o’ clock by her husband forcibly and on the next day we heard that Rinki and her daughter had been murdered. In cross-examination, this witness says that his brother had told in regard to the occurrence of 5th July. Since there was joint family of him and his brother, so his brother Manoj had told to him. 13.4 P.W.-4 Dr. In cross-examination, this witness says that his brother had told in regard to the occurrence of 5th July. Since there was joint family of him and his brother, so his brother Manoj had told to him. 13.4 P.W.-4 Dr. Akhilesh Kumar Choudhary in his examination-in-chief says that on 6th July, 2012, he was posted as Tutor Forensic Medicine, MGM Medical College, Jamshedpur. On that day at 12:30 p.m. he had conducted autopsy on dead body of Rinki Devi aged about 26 years and found the following :- Nails cyanosed, a little blood tins discharged through left angle of mouth. 1 cm x 1/4 cm muscle deep lacerated wound along inner aspect of left side of upper lip. One crescenstric shaped abrasion along right lower neck front supra clavicular region. Multiple nail scratches, abrasion along front mid arm. 5 cm x 5 cm contusion over front left upper chest : On Dissection :- 3 cm x 2cm and 2 cm x 2cm contusion over left mid neck front underneath the skin. 1 cm x 1 cm contusion over front of upper airway underneath the skin, 1 cm x 1 cm and 1 cm x 1cm along back upper airway on right side. Upper airway mucaussa contused. Opinion :- 1. Abrasion and other injuries were caused by hard and blunt substances. Abrasions are as a result of nail scratch. 2. Death was due to asphyxia as a result of pressure over mouth, nose, neck and chest. 3. Time elapsed since death-six hours to twelve hours approximate. On the same day at about 1.30 p.m., he conducted autopsy on the dead body of Suhana Singh, aged about four year and found following :- Face contused, left eye mild contusion. Nails cyanosed, nail scratch abrasion, right mid front are crescentric, nail scratches abrasion over front mid-neck, lips cyanosed. On dissection :- ½ cm x 1.4 cm soft tissue contusion over back of upper airway on right side. Opinion:- 1. Injury over neck was anti mortem in nature and caused by hard and blunt substance. 2. Death was due to asphyxia as a result of pressure over mouth, nose and neck. 13.5 P.W.-5 Deepak Devi is the mother of the deceased. In her examination-in-chief she says that Rinki Devi was her daughter and Suhana was her granddaughter. The occurrence is of two years ago. It was night. 2. Death was due to asphyxia as a result of pressure over mouth, nose and neck. 13.5 P.W.-5 Deepak Devi is the mother of the deceased. In her examination-in-chief she says that Rinki Devi was her daughter and Suhana was her granddaughter. The occurrence is of two years ago. It was night. Deepak Singh, her son-in-law had come to the house at 10 o’ clock of morning and brought her natini Suhana from the school, thereafter, he went to Bhushan Colony where her daughter was doing job and from there he brought her daughter dragging her to the house and thereafter both quarreled in the night. All had taken food and went to their room to sleep. Her daughter, her son-in-law and natini also went to sleep in one room. In the morning at 5 o’ clock, she went to awake her daughter and knocked the door, when no one come out, she went inside the room and found her daughter and natini dead. She cried but her son-inlaw was missing from there as he had fled away. There was injury on the face of her daughter. Blood was oozing. The pillow was also stained with the blood. The blood stained clothes were seized by the police including the bed sheet and seizure memo was prepared. Those blood stained articles were produced in the court which was brought from the Malkhana by the Havaldar Rajendra Prasad Singh. This witness also identified the Dupatta of her daughter Rinki which is Ext. Art. 1 on which FSL number is ‘C’. The bed sheet is also identified by this witness which is marked Ext. Art. 2 on which FSL number is ‘A’. The pillow is Ext. Art. 3 on which FSL number is ‘B’. Her daughter was tortured by Deepak in the matrimonial home, so her son had brought her to the parental house. Thereafter Deepak came to take back to her daughter but she refused to go with Deepak. Deepak Singh was got employed as guard in Jamshedpur and began to reside with her daughter at the parental house and her daughter was doing job in Bhushan Colony. Her son-in-law resided there for four months and went back to Ranchi. On the date of occurrence, he again came back and committed this occurrence. Deepak Singh was got employed as guard in Jamshedpur and began to reside with her daughter at the parental house and her daughter was doing job in Bhushan Colony. Her son-in-law resided there for four months and went back to Ranchi. On the date of occurrence, he again came back and committed this occurrence. In cross-examination this witness says that it is correct to say that Deepak Singh lived at her house with his wife and for four months both lived properly. When he went to Ranchi and came back to take her daughter but she refused to go. This witness denies this suggestion that on the date of occurrence, her son-in-law was not at her house. It is also wrong to say that her daughter did not want to live in joint family, so she had come back from Ranchi. 13.6 P.W.-6 Bablu Singh in his examination-in-chief corroborates the prosecution story and in cross-examination, this witness says that it is correct to say that on shouting by his mother, the persons of the locality also came there. Among them Manoj Pandey, Kashi Nath Mishra have come with their family members. It is correct to say that Deepak Singh was guard in Jamshedpur for four months. He resided at his house during that period. Relation between him and his sister Rinki Devi was good. The trivial dispute might have happened. On the day when Deepak Singh brought his sister from the place of her work, he was not at the house. He has told to police that on 5th July, Deepak came and made search of his sister and niece. He brought his niece from the school and his sister who was at her working place was brought by him while beating. It is wrong to say that on 5th July, Deepak did not come to Jamshedpur and did not stay at his house. 13.7 P.W.-7 Sonu Singh in his examination-in-chief proved his fardbeyan as Ext.Pa and also identified his signature A to B. This witness also proved the inquest report of both the deceased as Ext. P1 and P2. He also identified the material Ext.A1 (pink colour dupatta) material Ext.2, bed sheet, material Ext.3 pillow which was recovered by the police. 13.7 P.W.-7 Sonu Singh in his examination-in-chief proved his fardbeyan as Ext.Pa and also identified his signature A to B. This witness also proved the inquest report of both the deceased as Ext. P1 and P2. He also identified the material Ext.A1 (pink colour dupatta) material Ext.2, bed sheet, material Ext.3 pillow which was recovered by the police. In cross-examination, this witness says that he had told to the police that when his father went to bring his sister, then he was also man handled by the inmates of the matrimonial home. He has also told to police that his wife and his mother went to Ranchi and a report was also lodged at that time with the police station concerned. His sister was brought back to the parental house. His Jija did job of security guard and lived at his house for two to three months. One day, he went to Ranchi after having quarreled with his sister. On 5th July, 2012 at 11 o’ clock he came and brought his niece from the school and also brought his sister from her work place by dragging her. It is correct to say that in the house, all the three bed rooms are close to each other. It is also correct to say that the room in which his sister was sleeping was adjacent to that room there is way and thereafter is a room which was vacant. 13.8 P.W.-8 Prabhu Sahay Topna in his examination-in-chief says that on 6th July, 2012, he was Circle Inspector in Sidhgora police station. At 6:30 in the morning, the Station Officer-in-Charge of Sidhgora police station, Ganesh Singh, informed him that in Bagun Nagar in Block ‘A’, a female and her daughter were murdered. He also went to the place of occurrence and saw in one room the dead bodies of Rinki Devi and her four years old daughter Suhana and it was told that she was the wife of Deepak Singh, who is son-in-law of Janak Singh. Deepak Singh had come to Jamshedpur from Ranchi to take back Rinki and her daughter but his wife refused to go, so he did maarpeet with his wife and, thereafter, the dispute was pacified. Deepak Singh had come to Jamshedpur from Ranchi to take back Rinki and her daughter but his wife refused to go, so he did maarpeet with his wife and, thereafter, the dispute was pacified. Thereafter all after having taken food, Deepak Singh, his wife and daughter all were slept in a room and in the morning Deepak Singh was found missing and his wife and four years old daughter were found dead. In cross-examination, this witness says that it is correct to say that seizure memo and photography bear his signature. 13.9 P.W.-9 Sushil Kumar Dwivedi is the witness of photography. 13.10 P.W.-10 Ganesh Kumar Singh in his examination-in-chief says that on 6th July, 2012 he was Station Officer-in-Charge of Sidhgora police station and over the telephone he received information that a lady and her daughter has been murdered at Block A, Bagun Nagar. The entry in the station diary was made and he directed the patrolling party to reach there and information was given to the higher police officer and he proceeded to the place of occurrence. On reaching there, he found the dead body of a lady and a baby girl. He recorded the fardbeyan of Sonu Singh which is Ext. Pa which is in handwriting of ASI Bhayanand Yadav. He identified his signature C to D. The investigation was taken by him. The formal F.I.R. was prepared by Ram Sharan Mishra which is in his writing marked Ext. P10 with his signature at place A to B. He has stated that the police photographer Manoj Kachchhap also came there and took photographs of place of occurrence and the said photographs are Ext. P5, P6 and P7. The inquest report of both the deceased was prepared by him which are Ext.P1 & P2. This carbon copy is of the original inquest report. The blood sained dupatta, bedsheet and pillow were taken in custody and seizure memo of the same is prepared which is Ext. P4 with signature of this witness at place E to F. The same was sent to FSL for examination. He recorded the restatement of the informant and prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence. The place of occurrence in this case is a pucca roof house facing west bearing Holding No.86 situated at A Block, Shakti Path Road at Bagun Nagar. There is a PCC road in front of the house. He recorded the restatement of the informant and prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence. The place of occurrence in this case is a pucca roof house facing west bearing Holding No.86 situated at A Block, Shakti Path Road at Bagun Nagar. There is a PCC road in front of the house. In order to go into the vacant open portion of the house, there is an iron grill and in order to enter into the house, there is another grill. After entering through the said grill inside the house, there is a long Veranda running from north to south and on east of the Veranda, there are three rooms with wooden doors. There is a bedroom in East of the rooms in the extreme north where the dead body of both the deceased were found lying flat on the bed. In south of the said room, there is an open Veranda with a kitchen in its South. There is a grill with the said Veranda in the back portion of the house for going to the courtyard, which is having boundary of four feet and thereafter, there is a nala/drain. It is stated that the said room in the north east corner is stated to be one in which the accused along with the deceased were sleeping a night before and dead body was found of both the deceased in the morning. There are doors with the southern and western walls of the room whereas the western and northern walls are having windows. Between both the dead bodies, one pillow and a dupatta were found. He received the postmortem reports and the seized articles were sent to FSL. The FSL report was received which was marked Ext. P11. In cross-examination, this witness says that it is correct to say that he recorded the statement of the family members of deceased and did not recorded the statements of neighbours. The distance between the place of occurrence and Bhusan colony was 400 to 500 meter. It is also correct to say that Anju Devi had told him that from the variety store, Deepak brought his wife forcibly. The distance between the place of occurrence and Bhusan colony was 400 to 500 meter. It is also correct to say that Anju Devi had told him that from the variety store, Deepak brought his wife forcibly. 13.11 P.W.-11 Bhayanand Yadav in his examination-in-chief says that on 6th July, 2012 he was ASI at Sidhgora police station and on the direction of station Officer-in-Charge Ganesh Singh, he recorded the fardbeyan of Sonu Singh which is in his handwriting and signature marked Ext. 9. The fardbeyan and the inquest report of both the deceased are in his handwriting. He identifies the same marked Ext. P1 and P2. The seizure memo of bedsheet, dupatta and the pillow is in his handwriting marked Ext.P4. 14. From the testimony of P.W.-1 Dablu Singh (brother of the deceased Rinki Devi), P.W.-2 Anju Devi (Bhabhi of the deceased), P.W.-5 Deepak Devi (mother of the deceased), P.W.-6 (father of the deceased) and P.W.-7 Sonu Singh (brother of the deceased), who are the members of the parental house of the deceased Rinki Devi and the maternal uncle, maternal aunt, maternal grandfather and maternal grandmother of the deceased Suhana, it is proved that the Rinki Devi was married with Deepak Singh and out of their wedlock, one daughter, namely, Suhana was born and the relations between them were strained. Deepak Singh did not like Rinki Devi, so he used to torture her, so she was brought to the parental house at Jamshedpur. Rinki Devi began to do job in Bushan Colony and her daughter Suhana was also studying in a school. Her husband Deepak Singh came from Ranchi to Jamshedpur to his in-law’s house and made effort to take back Rinki to Ranchi but Rinki Devi refused to go with him with the fear that she would be tortured again in the in-law’s house. As such, the motive of occurrence in regard to strained relation is proved. 15. It also came in evidence of these witnesses that Deepak Singh also did job as a security guard where his father-in-law was also doing the job. He also resided in the parental house of Rinki Devi which is in-law’s house of Deepak Singh. He resided there for three to four months and some witnesses says that he resided for six months. He also resided in the parental house of Rinki Devi which is in-law’s house of Deepak Singh. He resided there for three to four months and some witnesses says that he resided for six months. During that period, the relations between Deepak Singh and his wife were strained but one day dispute arose on some petty matter and this Deepak went back to Ranchi to his house and again he came from there to Jamshedpur to his in-law’s house. On that day he did not find his wife at the house. He brought his daughter Suhana from the school and also brought his wife from her work place and quarrel arose between Deepak and his wife in the day time. On the date of occurrence i.e., 5th July, 2012, Deepak remained at his inlaw’s house and in the night all the family members and Deepak, his wife and daughter Suhana after having taken food went to their respective rooms to sleep. As such there is evidence of last seen of appellant/convict with both the deceased. 16. In the morning at 5 o’ clock, when P.W.-5 Deepak Devi (the mother of deceased Rinki Devi) went to awoke Suhana, she found her daughter Rinki and natini Suhana dead on the bed. There were injuries on the neck of Suhana and Rinki as well. The blood was also oozing. The bedsheet, pillow and dupatta of Rinki Devi were blood stained. She cried and upon hearing her cry, all the family members including the P.W.-1 Dablu Singh, P.W.-2 Anju Devi, P.W,.-6 Bablu Singh and P.W.-7 Sonu Singh all reached to the room of Rinki Devi in which Rinki and her daughter were found dead. 17. The inquest report of both the deceased was also prepared at the behest of P.W.-10 Ganesh Kumar Singh by P.W.-11 Bhayanand Yadav. The seizure memo of the blood stained bed sheet, blood stained dupatta and the blood stained pillow was also prepared by P.W.-11 Bhayanand Yadav at the behest of P.W.-10 Ganesh Kumar Singh. All these articles have been exhibited accordingly. The I.O. also prepared the site plan and recorded the statement of the witnesses. The postmortem of the dead body of both the deceased was also conducted. 18. All these articles have been exhibited accordingly. The I.O. also prepared the site plan and recorded the statement of the witnesses. The postmortem of the dead body of both the deceased was also conducted. 18. The homicidal death of the deceased Rinki Devi and her daughter Suhana was caused is proved from the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, namely, P.W.-1 Dablu Singh, P.W.-2 Anju Devi, P.W.-5 Deepak Devi, P.W.-6 Bablu Singh and P.W.-7 Sonu Singh, P.W.-10 Ganesh Kumar Singh (the I.O.) and also, with the testimony of P.W.-4 Dr. Akhilesh Kumar Choudhary (the doctor), who has proved the postmortem report of deceased Rinki Devi as Ext.P1 and postmortem report of deceased Suhana Singh as Ext. P2. The doctor (P.W.-4) has opined that abrasions and other injuries on the dead body of the deceased Rinki Devi were caused by hard and blunt substances and abrasion are as a result of nail scratch. According to the doctor the death of both the deceased was due to asphyxia as a result of pressure over mouth, nose, neck and chest. 19. The blood stained Duppatta, pillow and the bedsheet which were found from the bed where the deceased Rinki Devi and Suhana both were murdered. As per FSL report Ext.10/1 and 10/2, the human blood was found which was of Group ‘B’ and the same matched with the blood group of both the deceased. 20. From the evidence on record, this fact is proved by the prosecution that the homicidal death of Suhana and Rinki Devi was caused in the parental house of Rinki where accused Deepak Singh (the appellant) had also resided for three to four months and also had done job of security guard. One day he had gone to his house situated at Ranchi and came back to his in-law’s house at Jamshedpur on 5th July, 2012 and on that date, he brought his daughter from the school in day time and also brought his wife Rinki forcibly from her work place. In the night he also slept at the house of his in-law’s at Jamshedpur along with his wife and daughter and in the morning he was found missing and the daughter and his wife were found dead sustaining injuries on the neck and other parts of the body. 21. In the night he also slept at the house of his in-law’s at Jamshedpur along with his wife and daughter and in the morning he was found missing and the daughter and his wife were found dead sustaining injuries on the neck and other parts of the body. 21. The death of both the deceased was caused by asphyxia by putting pressure over the neck, chest and mouth as well. It also came in evidence that blood was also oozing from the nose and mouth of both the deceased. 22. On behalf of the appellant/convict, it has been argued that on the date of occurrence he was not at his in-law’s house at Jamshedpur and such suggestion has been given to all the prosecution witnesses. No defence evidence has been adduced on behalf of the appellant/convict to prove that on the fateful night where he was. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has simply denied that on the fateful night he was not at his in-law’s house at Jamshedpur in the room where his wife and daughter Suhana were found dead. 23. It is the prosecution, who has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. On behalf of the prosecution by adducing the prosecution witnesses, who are the family members of the deceased Rinki Devi, the prosecution has proved that the relations between the Rinki Devi and her husband were strained and she was tortured at her in-law’s house in Ranchi, so she was brought back to her parental house at Jamshedpur where Rinki Devi also began to do job in Bhushan Colony and the daughter Suhana Singh began to study in school. It also came in evidence that the appellant/convict many times made efforts to take back Rinki but she refused to come back with him with the fear of torture which was given to her in her matrimonial house. It is also further proved that the appellant/convict also came to his in-law’s house at Jamshedpur and he resided at his inlaw’s house at Jamshedpur and also did job of security guard. This fact is not denied by the appellant/convict in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. nor any suggestion has been given to any prosecution witnesses that he did not reside in his in-law’s house. The appellant/convict in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in reply of question no.3, says that Rinki resided in Ranchi. This fact is not denied by the appellant/convict in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. nor any suggestion has been given to any prosecution witnesses that he did not reside in his in-law’s house. The appellant/convict in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in reply of question no.3, says that Rinki resided in Ranchi. She had come to Jamshedpur after having quarreled with him. This corroborates the testimony of the prosecution witnesses that the relations between appellant—Deepak Singh and his wife were strained. In reply of question no.6, the appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has stated that he many times went to in-law’s house at Jamshedpur to bring his wife but Rinki did not go from her parental house to Ranchi. This statement given by the accused also corroborates the prosecution story in regard to strained relation of the Deepak with his wife, who had residing at her parental house in Jamshedpur. The question no.7 was asked to this accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that in evidence it came that at his request the father of Rinki Devi got him employed as a security guard in Jamshedpur. In reply of this question, he answered in affirmative that yes he did work as a security guard in Jamshedpur. Again question no.8 was asked that when he worked as security guard and stayed at the house of his father-in-law. In reply of this question, the appellant has stated that he worked as security guard for 1 ½ month and during that period he resided in his in-law’s house. As such the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. of the appellant/convict also corroborates the prosecution story that Deepak Singh also resided at his in-law’s house in Jamshedpur where he did job as a security guard. It also came in evidence that on the date of occurrence i.e., 5th July, 2012, the appellant—Deepak Singh had brought his daughter from the school in day time and also brought his wife from her work place by beating her and the quarrel arose between them. It also came in evidence that on the date of occurrence i.e., 5th July, 2012, the appellant—Deepak Singh had brought his daughter from the school in day time and also brought his wife from her work place by beating her and the quarrel arose between them. All the prosecution witnesses have proved this fact that the appellant in night stayed at his in-law’s house and slept along with his wife and daughter on one bed in a room but in the morning he was found missing and dead body of his wife and daughter were found on the bed in injured condition and the blood was also oozing from the mouth and nose as well, whereby the pillow, bedsheet and dupatta of the deceased were stained with the blood. As such, the presence of the appellant/convict on fateful night at place of occurrence is proved. 24. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that it came in evidence that the outer gate of the house was lock, as such, it was impossible for the accused to go out from the house. This argument of learned counsel for the appellant is not found tenable in view of the testimony of P.W.-10 Ganesh Kumar Singh (the I.O.), who has prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence. The I.O. had stated that the place of occurrence is a pucca roof house situated at A Block, Shakti Path Road at Bagun Nagar Holding No.86. He stated that in order to go into the vacant open portion of the house, there is an iron grill and in order to enter into the house, there is another grill. After entering through the said grill inside the house, there is a long Veranda running from north to south and on east of the Veranda, there are three rooms with wooden doors. There is a bed room in East of the rooms where the dead body of both the deceased were found. In the southern wall there was one door and in the western wall there was a window. It came in evidence of prosecution witnesses that when P.W.-5 Dipak Devi, the mother of the deceased went to awoke her natini Suhana, she found the door and the window of the room open and all the articles in the rooms were found scattered. It came in evidence of prosecution witnesses that when P.W.-5 Dipak Devi, the mother of the deceased went to awoke her natini Suhana, she found the door and the window of the room open and all the articles in the rooms were found scattered. The dead body of Rinki and Suhana were found on the bed, therefore, this fact cannot be denied that the deceased after committing the murder had fled away through the southern door or the western window as both were found open. 25. From the prosecution evidence, the presence of the appellant on the fateful night in his in-law’s house at Jamshedpur and his last seen with both the deceased i.e., wife and daughter in the same bedroom is found proved beyond reasonable doubt. The time gap between the last seen of the appellant/convict with his deceased wife and daughter and the death of the wife and daughter is so less which indicates that the appellant/convict himself after committing their murder fled away from the back door. The window of the bedroom was also found open in the morning and household articles were also found scattered and the blood was also oozing from the dead bodies of wife and daughter of the appellant. 25.1 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bodhraj vs. State of J & K reported in (2002) 8 SCC 45 at paragraph 31 has held as under : “31. The last-seen theory comes into play where the time-gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. It would be difficult in some cases to positively establish that the deceased was last seen with the accused when there is a long gap and possibility of other persons coming in between exists. In the absence of any other positive evidence to conclude that the accused and the deceased were last seen together, it would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in those cases. In this case there is positive evidence that the deceased, A-1 and A-2 were seen together by witnesses i.e. PWs 14, 15 and 18; in addition to the evidence of PWs 1 and 2.” 26. In this case there is positive evidence that the deceased, A-1 and A-2 were seen together by witnesses i.e. PWs 14, 15 and 18; in addition to the evidence of PWs 1 and 2.” 26. Once the prosecution, proves its case beyond reasonable doubt, the burden of proof shifts upon the accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act to rebut this fact how the homicidal death of the wife and daughter of the appellant/convict was caused on the fateful night when he had slept along with them. Only the evasive denial has been made by this appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and a simple suggestion is given to all the prosecution witnesses that he was not present on the fateful night in the room where his wife and daughter were found dead. On behalf of the accused, nowhere, this suggestion was given where he was on the fateful night of occurrence. Even no defence evidence has been adduced on behalf of the appellant/convict, as such, the appellant/convict has failed to rebut this strong presumption against him which is taken against him that it was the appellant/convict, who was the perpetrator of the murder of his wife and daughter, who had slept on the fateful night with his wife in the very room in his in-law’s house at Jamshedpur. 26.1 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajinder Singh v. State of Haryana reported in (2013) 15 SCC 245 at paragraph 18 has held as under : “18. Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not relieve the burden of the prosecution to prove guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but where the prosecution has succeeded to prove the facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts and the accused by virtue of special knowledge regarding such facts fail to offer any explanation then the court can draw a different inference.” 27. After critical appraisal of the prosecution evidence available on record, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been successful to prove the case against the convict/appellant beyond reasonable doubt and the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court requires no interference by this Court. 28. After critical appraisal of the prosecution evidence available on record, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been successful to prove the case against the convict/appellant beyond reasonable doubt and the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court requires no interference by this Court. 28. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed and the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 9th February, 2017 and Order of sentence dated 14th February, 2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-XI, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Sessions Trial No.158 of 2014 is, hereby, affirmed. The appellant is already in jail and he is directed to serve out the rest of the sentence. Let the lower court's record be sent to the court concerned forthwith along with a copy of this judgment. 29. Pending interlocutory applications shall also stand disposed of.