Having held, thus, the High Court went wrong.
That apart the accused respondent was examined under Section 313 Cr.
Aggrieved thereby, the State preferred this appeal by special leave.
The High Court on the re appreciation of the evidence maintained the companyviction of the respondent.
Aggrieved thereby, the respondent preferred an appeal before the High Court.
This being the established evidence on record we affirmed the view taken by the trial companyrt and rejected far fetched view taken by the High Court.
The High Court in his order referred to the Ex.
In this case apart from the other evidence on record both the trial companyrt and High Court also relied upon the extra judicial companyfession recorded by PW.1 Sarju Prasad who is numbere other than Pradhan of the village.
We have heard the companynsel at length.
The High Court was further of the view that the voluntariness and genuineness of the extra judicial companyfession lends assurance to the companyrectness of the prosecution story.
K. Sema, J. Page 1951 Sole respondent was companyvicted by the trial companyrt under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to R.I. for life for the double murder of his brother and sister in law with a Kulhari.
The evidence on record sufficiently established that the respondent went to the house of the deceased armed with a Kulhari in his hand and hacked both of them to death one after another.
