1.2 The trial companyrt found that the death of Tara Chand and Phoola Devi was admittedly homicidal.
It was further found that the motive for the incident was also proved in the light of the evidence of PW 10 Mukesh who stated that his father and uncle Juglal, though real brothers, had very strained relations over trivial Crl.
1.3 The matter was thereafter taken in appeal.
An FIR was, accordingly, lodged against unknown persons but on investigation the police found out that four persons had been involved in the murders, they being Juglal, the brother of the deceased Tara Chand, Satpal, Son in Law of Juglal, Crl.
The trial companyrt observed that there were numbereye witnesses to the murders and that the prosecution story depended for proof exclusively on circumstantial evidence.
The trial companyrt also found that the fourth circumstance with regard to the recoveries had been proved as the blood found on the recovered articles and the murdered weapons matched the blood group of the deceased Phoola Devi and Tara Chand.
A. 641 of 2007 matters and that their disputes had also gone to companyrt and that just a few days before the incident an unpleasant scene had been created at the time of the fixing of the electricity companynection in the house of Juglal and an exchange of heated words had followed inter se the parties.
These appeals by way of special leave arises out of the following facts 1.1 Mukesh P.W., son of the deceased Tara Chand and Phoola Devi returned home at 730p.m.
The trial companyrt relied on the evidence of PW 10 Mukesh, PW 4 Ram Chand and PW 14, Bharat Singh who stated that they had seen the appellants along with the acquitted accused near the place of incident and that they had been identified by them.
The trial companyrt then went to the last seen aspect that the appellants had been seen near the place of incident.
on 24th December, 2000 and found that his parents were lying dead in the verandah of the house.
We grant leave in the above Special Leave Petition.
7324 of 2010.
The High Court has affirmed the judgment of the trial companyrt.
A. 641 of 2007 appellants companyld number be accepted and as a false explanation had been tendered this again was a circumstance against them.
Five circumstances in all were, accordingly, determined they being i death of Tara Chand and Phoola Devi was homicidal ii motive for the companymission of the murder iii that the two appellants had been seen near the place of occurrence at about the time when the murders had been companymitted iv recovery of incriminating articles at the instance of the appellants and v false explanation with regard to the alibi claimed by them.
Mukesh P.W. and Ram Chand further stated that they had identified Satpal in the torch light and that he was the one primarily responsible for the murders.
The trial companyrt, by its judgment dated 11th January, 2002, acquitted Juglal and Rajesh but companyvicted Satpal and Surendra under Section 302 on two companynts and sentenced them to imprisonment for life under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code along with fine.
641 of 2007 and the other by Satpal being SLP Crl No.
A. 641 of 2007 Surendra the appellant before us, and Rajesh, son of Surja Ram.
Two appeals have been filed against the judgment of the High Court, one by Surendra being Criminal Appeal No.
It was also found that the alibi tendered by the Crl.
The trial companyrt, accordingly, relying on the evidence of Mukesh and three other persons Hari Singh, Goverdhan and Dharam Pal who were involved with the parties held that the motive for the murder had also been proved on record.
