JUDGMENT : BIBEK CHAUDHURI, J. 1. Correctness of the judgement of conviction and order of sentence, dated 15 th of May, 2018 and 18 th of May, 2018, respectively, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2 nd , Fast Track Court, Patna, in Sessions Trial No. 230 of 2013, renumbered as Trial No. 17 of 2018, arising out of Jakkanpur P.S. Case No. 249 of 2012, is under challenge in the instant appeal at the instance of the convict. By the impugned judgement, the appellant was convicted under Section 235 (1) of the Cr.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life till remainder period of life for the offences under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Brief Resume of Facts: - The facts, leading to the present appeal are as follows: - (i) The prosecution case originates on the basis of a fard beyan of one Shambhu Prasad Sinha, father of the deceased Ruby Sinha, wife of the appellant, which was recorded on 13 th of September, 2012 at about 04.00 P.M., at the residence of the appellant, situated at Loco Colony, Mithapur, within the jurisdiction of Jakkanpur Police Station, Patna. (ii) The fard beyan unfolds an incident of gruesome murder of the married daughter of the informant and her minor son on 13 th of September, 2012, sometime in the afternoon before 03.30 P.M. It is stated in the fard beyan that, marriage of the daughter of the informant was solemnized with the appellant and they used to reside together in Quarter No. 59 AB, Loco Colony, Mithapur, Patna with their two children. (iii) On 13 th of September, 2012, at about 03.30 P.M., one Rajan Kumar Verma, brother of the appellant informed the son of the informant, namely, Subir Kumar Sinha that the daughter and grandson of the informant were murdered. After receiving the said information, the informant and his wife rushed to the official quarters of the appellant and found the dead-bodies of his daughter and grandson lying on the front side of the room of the quarter of the appellant with fatal injuries on their head. The injuries were so serious that their skulls were broken, and brain matter came out of the skull. The left hand of the daughter of the informant was fractured and she had serious injuries over her head area. The injuries were so serious that their skulls were broken, and brain matter came out of the skull. The left hand of the daughter of the informant was fractured and she had serious injuries over her head area. A piece of cloth was pressed inside the mouth of the grandson of the informant and both the dead-bodies were drenched with blood. He also found one flat iron rod used for construction of boundary wall of platforms, measuring three feet in length, lying by the side of the dead-bodies. The said iron rod was also stained with blood. The granddaughter of the informant told him that when she came to their quarters from school on the date of occurrence, she saw that both the main and backside doors were closed from inside. She opened hasp-bolt of the main door inserting her hand through the opening of the door and found dead-bodies of her mother and brother. The appellant was lying in an unconscious state near the sofa-set in the same room. (iv) The informant suspected that the appellant murdered his wife and minor son with the help of the aforesaid iron rod, and then consumed some sedatives and became unconscious lying near the sofa-set in the same room. (v) It is also stated by the informant that during medical treatment of the appellant, the Doctor opined that the appellant consumed sedative drugs. The informant also mentioned that when the room of the appellant was closed from both sides, it was not possible for any outsider to commit murder of the wife and the minor son of the appellant. The informant also stated that one Namita @ Bitti, wife of the younger brother of the appellant, Manoj Kumar Verma @ Manoj Kumar were staying in the adjacent room of the same quarter but surprisingly enough, she did not have any idea about the incident. The informant alleged that the appellant committed murder of his wife and son in collusion with Namita @ Bitti. (vi) The aforementioned incident led to the registration of the First Information Report, being Jakkanpur P.S. Case No. 249 of 2012, for the offences punishable under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. against the present appellant and Namita Verma @ Bitti. Sub-Inspector, Manoj Kumar was directed to conduct the investigation of the case. (vi) The aforementioned incident led to the registration of the First Information Report, being Jakkanpur P.S. Case No. 249 of 2012, for the offences punishable under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. against the present appellant and Namita Verma @ Bitti. Sub-Inspector, Manoj Kumar was directed to conduct the investigation of the case. (vii) Upon completion of the investigation, the police filed a report under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. against the appellant, alleging offence under Section 302 of the IPC. The Investigating Officer submitted final report against Namita Verma @ Bitti for lack of evidence. (viii) Upon committal, the Trial Court framed charge against the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC. The appellant entered plea of not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3. Trial of the case : - P.W. 1 Subir Kumar Sinha Brother of the deceased P.W.2. Ravi Shankar Friend of P.W. 1 P.W.3. Nawal Kishore Prasad Sinha Uncle of deceased Ruby Verma P.W.4 Ruhi Verma Daughter of the deceased Ruby Verm P.W.5 Sushil Kumar Sinha Younger brother of the deceased Ruby Verma P.W. 5 Ruhi Verma Daughter of the deceased Ruby Verma and the appellant P.W.6 Raj Kumar Verma @ Rajan Verma Younger brother of the  appellant P.W.7 Shambhu Prasad Sinha Father of the deceased Ruby Verma and the Informant P.W.8 Rishi Raj Son of Namita Verma & Bitti P.W.9 Dr. Pankaj Kumar Autopsy Surgeon P.W.10 Manoj Kumar Investigating Officer P.W.11 Himjay Kumar Serologist posted at Regional Forensic Science Laborary, Patna P.W.12 Suresh Paswan Deputy Director, Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna (ii) Exhibit (Prosecution) Ext. 1 - Signature of Ravi Shankar on Seizure list Ext. 1/1 - Signature of Shambhu Pd. Sinha on Seizure list Ext. 1/2 - Signature of Ravi Shankar on Seizure list Ext. 1/3 - Signature of Shambhu Prasad Sinha on Seizure list Ext. 2 & 2/1 - Signature of Ranjan Kumar Verma on Caarban Copy inquest report Ext.3 - Signature of Shambhu Prasad Sinha Ext. 4 & 4/1 - Signature of Shambhu Prasad Sinha on inquest report Ext. 5 - Postmortem Report of Ruby Kumari Ext. 5/1 - Postmortem Report of Harsh Kumar Ext. 6 - Signature of Rajesh Kumar Sinha SHO Jakkanpur PS Fardbayan Ext. 6/1 - Endorsement of Officer Incharge of Fardbayan Ext. 6/2 - Signature of Basgit Ram officer Incharge on F.I.R. Ext. 5 - Postmortem Report of Ruby Kumari Ext. 5/1 - Postmortem Report of Harsh Kumar Ext. 6 - Signature of Rajesh Kumar Sinha SHO Jakkanpur PS Fardbayan Ext. 6/1 - Endorsement of Officer Incharge of Fardbayan Ext. 6/2 - Signature of Basgit Ram officer Incharge on F.I.R. Ext. 7 & 7/1 - Inquest report of Deceased Rubi Sinha and Harsh Ext.8 - Seizure List Prepared by S.I. Deepak Kumar Ext.9 - Photography of deceased on place occurrence Ext.8/1 - Seizure List Prepared by Manoj Kumar I.O. on 14.09.12 (Sealed Stomach content of Accused Manoj Kumar) Ext.8/2 - Seizure List Wrapper of Valium- 5 (80 tab) and Mobile of Micromax Company on occurrence Ext. 10 - F.S.L Report No. 1646/12 dt. 30.09.15 Ext. 11 - F.S.L Report No. 1646/12 dt. 02.12.13 Ext. 12 - F.S.L Report No. 1646/12 dt. 18.10.12 (iii) After examination of the witnesses on behalf of the prosecution, the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Thereafter, he was called upon to enter into his defence. The following witnesses were examined on behalf of the defence: - D.W. 1 Anil Paswan A house help of the appellant D.W. 2 Mithilesh Kumar Resident of Quarter No. 59 C-D Railway Colony, Mithapur, Patna D.W. 3 Kishore Kumar Sinha A Clerk, Tripoliya Hospital, Gulzarbagh. D.W. 4 Dr. Ansuman Mukul Medical Officer, Railway Hospital, Patna Junction (iv) Exhibit (Defence) Ext. A - Certificate of Birth Ext- B - Discharge Summary dt. 01.03.2000 Ext- C - Certificate dt. 13.07.2017 issued by Tripolia Hospital Marked "X" for identification - Photocopy of Pathology report (v) Vide judgement of conviction and order of sentence, dated 15 th of May, 2018 and 18 th of May, 2018, respectively, the Trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him as noted at the beginning of this judgement. (vi) The said judgement is under challenge in the instant Appeal. 4. Submissions : - (i) The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, at the outset, submits that the F.I.R. was lodged on 13 th of September, 2012. (vi) The said judgement is under challenge in the instant Appeal. 4. Submissions : - (i) The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, at the outset, submits that the F.I.R. was lodged on 13 th of September, 2012. As per the provisions of Section 157 of the Cr.P.C., corresponding to Section 176 (1) of the BNSS, it is the duty of the Officer Incharge of a Police Station, who has reason to suspect the commission of an offence, which he is empowered under Section 156 (1) of the Cr.P.C., corresponding to Section 175 of the BNSS, to investigate, he shall forthwith sent a report of the same to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a police report. In the instant case, though the F.I.R. was registered on 13 th of September, 2012 at 09.00 P.M., neither the Investigating Officer nor the Officer Incharge of Jakkanpur Police Station sent a report of registration of the case to the jurisdictional Magistrate on 14 th of September, 2012. On the contrary, the report under Section 157 (1) of the Cr.P.C. was sent to the learned Magistrate on 15 th of September, 2012. It is submitted by him that delay in lodging the report of initiation of registration of a cognizable case speaks a volume against the prosecution case. (ii) In support of his contention, he refers to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arjun Marik & Ors. v. State of Bihar , reported in 1994 Supp (2) SCC 372 . In paragraph 26 of the aforesaid judgement, the Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed the issue of delayed dispatch of F.I.R. to the Magistrate in the following words: - “26. Even if we ignore the question of delay there is no material on record to show that it was actually despatched and received by the Magistrate concerned and if so on what date and time. A mere note in the FIR itself that report was despatched by special messenger is not enough. There is no mention as to which Magistrate it was despatched. The evidence of investigating officer is totally silent about it. A mere note in the FIR itself that report was despatched by special messenger is not enough. There is no mention as to which Magistrate it was despatched. The evidence of investigating officer is totally silent about it. It is true that quite often there are valid reasons for the delay in the despatch of the first information report and it is not always a circumstance on the basis of which the entire prosecution case may be said to be fabricated, but it all depends on the facts and circumstances of each case where the circumstance of delay may lead to serious consequences. But in the present case as discussed above there are other circumstances discussed which cast a serious cloud on the prosecution case and this circumstance of delay in sending the FIR still hardens the suspicion and leads to the definite conclusion that the Fardbeyan and FIR both were recorded much later in point of time than the one as shown in the said documents and in any case in our considered opinion after the appellant's house was raided and seizure of the articles was effected.” (iii) Referred to the above paragraph, it is contended by the learned Advocate for the appellant that in case of circumstantial evidence, delay in dispatching the F.I.R. is a circumstance which may lead to serious consequences. This may lead to an adverse presumption that the fard beyan and the F.I.R. both were recorded much latter in point of time than the one as shown in the said documents. (iv) On the same issue, the learned Advocate for the appellant relies on another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Teja Singh & Ors. , reported in (2001) 3 SCC 147 . (iv) On the same issue, the learned Advocate for the appellant relies on another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Teja Singh & Ors. , reported in (2001) 3 SCC 147 . It is clearly observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Teja Singh (supra) that the provision contained in Section 157 of the Cr.P.C. is mandatory and no explanation can be accepted on the ground of condonation of delay in dispatching the F.I.R. Thus, it is contended by the learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant that delay in dispatching the report under Section 157 of the Cr.P.C. and failure on the part of the Officer Incharge of the Police Station or the Investigating Officer to forthwith submit the report of registration of Jakkanpur P.S. Case No. 249 of 2012, should be held to be a suspicious circumstance, touching upon the root of the case. (v) The learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant further makes the following submissions: - (a) the case in hand is based on circumstantial evidence. It is fundamental principle that a charge based on circumstantial evidence can only be proved if the prosecution, beyond any shadow of doubt, is able to prove five golden principles of circumstantial evidence as laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra , reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116 . The five golden principles are: - (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. Each circumstance must be proved beyond reasonable doubt; (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The circumstances should be incompatible with the innocence of the accused; (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency in pointing to the guilt of the accused; (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. The circumstances should be such that they exclude all other possible explanations except the guilt of the accused; and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion, consistent with the innocence of the accused. In other words, circumstances should form a complete chain, leaving no gaps or doubts. The circumstances should be such that they exclude all other possible explanations except the guilt of the accused; and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion, consistent with the innocence of the accused. In other words, circumstances should form a complete chain, leaving no gaps or doubts. (vi) Along with the aforesaid golden principles of circumstantial evidence, we may add that prosecution is under obligation to prove each circumstance by direct evidence. In other words, circumstantial evidence cannot be proved taking aid of other circumstances, lest the decision of the Court will be based on possibility of an occurrence which is also inherent in its character impossibility of fact in issue. (vii) Thirdly, it is contended by the learned Advocate for the appellant that the Trial Court held him guilty holding, inter alia, that the appellant was inside the room where the incident took place at the time of occurrence and he was found lying in an unconscious state. However, he failed to discharge his burden under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act by explaining as how his wife and minor son were murdered. (viii) In order to substantiate his contention, he refers to the case of Satya Singh & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand , reported in (2022) 5 SCC 438 to argue that Section 106 of the Evidence Act is not intended to relieve prosecution from discharging its duty to prove guilt of the accused. Prosecution must discharge its primary onus of proof and establish the basic facts against the accused in accordance with law and only thereafter Section 106 of the Evidence Act may be resorted to, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. (ix) On the same issue, the learned Advocate for the appellant refers to the case of Vikramjit Singh @ Vicky v. State of Punjab , reported in (2006) 12 SCC 306 (x) It is further contended by the learned Advocate for the appellant that the order of sentence passed by the Trial Court is in violation of Section 53 of the Indian Penal Code. (xi) In Gopal Vinayak Godse v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (xi) In Gopal Vinayak Godse v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in AIR 1961 SC 600 , the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court made it very clear that the sentence of imprisonment for life is not for any definite period and prima facie be treated as imprisonment for the whole of the remainder period of the convict’s natural life. However, Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, empowers the appropriate government without conditions or upon any condition to suspend or remit the whole or any part of the sentences of any convicted person including life imprisonment. Section 433 of the Code empowers the appropriate government without consent of the persons sentenced to commute a sentence for imprisonment of life, for imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years or for fine. Section 433 A restricts the power of remission or commutation in cases where a sentence of imprisonment for life is imposed on conviction of a person for an offence for which death penalty is one of the punishments provided by laws or where a sentence of death imposed on a person has been commuted under Section 433 into one of the imprisonment for life. Such person shall not be released from prison unless he has served atleast 14 years of imprisonment. (xii) Section 55 of the IPC states that in every case, in which sentence of imprisonment for life shall have been passed, the appropriate government may without the consent of the offender, commute the punishment for imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding 14 years. (xiii) In Naib Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors. , reported in AIR 1983 SCC 855 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the sentence for imprisonment for life means rigorous imprisonment for life and in absence of order under Section 55 IPC or Section 433 B of the Cr.P.C., the convict cannot be released forthwith even after expiry of 14 years. Thus, it is contended by the learned Advocate for the appellant that in Swamy Shraddananda @ Murali Monahar Mishra v. State Of Karnataka reported in (2008) 13 SCC 767 , a special category of sentence, instead of death for a term exceeding 14 years beyond the application of remission, was introduced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Thus, it is contended by the learned Advocate for the appellant that in Swamy Shraddananda @ Murali Monahar Mishra v. State Of Karnataka reported in (2008) 13 SCC 767 , a special category of sentence, instead of death for a term exceeding 14 years beyond the application of remission, was introduced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. It was held that there is a strong basis for the Court to substitute a death sentence by life imprisonment or by term in excess of 14 years and further to direct that the convict must not be released from the prison for the rest of his life or for the actual term as specified. (xiv)) Finally, the learned Advocate for the appellant refers to the decision of Union Of India vs V. Sriharan @ Murugan & Ors., reported in (2016) 7 SCC 1 . Paragraph 105 of which is relevant and quoted below: - “105. We, therefore, reiterate that the power derived from the Penal Code for any modified punishment within the punishment provided for in the Penal Code for such specified offences can only be exercised by the High Court and in the event of further appeal only by the Supreme Court and not by any other court in this country. To put it differently, the power to impose a modified punishment providing for any specific term of incarceration or till the end of the convict's life as an alternate to death penalty, can be exercised only by the High Court and the Supreme Court and not by any other inferior court.” (xv) We, therefore, reiterate that the power derived from the Penal Code for any modified punishment within the punishment provided for in the Penal Code for such specified offences can only be exercised by the High Court and in the event of further appeal only by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and not by any other Court in this country. To put it differently, the power to impose a modified punishment providing for a specific term of incarceration or till the end of the convict’s life as an alternate to death penalty can be exercised only by the High Court and the Supreme Court and not by any other inferior Court. (xvi) The same principle was also laid down in Gauri Shanker Agarwal & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. , reported in 2021 SCC Online 96 . (xvi) The same principle was also laid down in Gauri Shanker Agarwal & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. , reported in 2021 SCC Online 96 . In the instant case, the Trial Court passed an order of sentence for imprisonment till the remainder of the natural life of the appellant. (xvii) It is contended by the learned Advocate that Trial Court cannot pass such sentence and the order of sentence is wrong, unjust and liable to be set aside. 5. On Factual Issue: - (i) It is submitted by the learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant that the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. There are important missing links in the circumstances of this case, for which the appellant is entitled not only the benefit of doubt but honourably acquittal. In order to substantiate his argument, it is urged by him that there is no eye-witness of the incident. From the evidence on record, it appears that P.W. 8, Rishi Raj, the appellant’s nephew and the son of one Rajan Kumar Verma, the appellant’s brother, who resided in the same official quarters as the appellant, was the first person to see the dead bodies lying on the eastern side of the appellant’s bed room in a pool of blood. He is a boy of eleven years on the date of his evidence. It is found from his evidence that the learned trial Judge did not ask any question to ascertain as to whether he had the mental capacity to understand the questions and give reply to its logical answer. In other words, the requirement of Section 118 of the Evidence Act was not complied with. Therefore, the learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant has raised a preliminary objection with regard to acceptance of the evidence of P.W. 8. (ii) We are not in a position to accept such preliminary objection on the ground that the appellant relied on the evidence of P.W. 8. It is ascertained from his evidence that at the relevant point of time, he was a student of DAV Public School, Patna. He returned from the school at about 02.00 P.M. and saw that his aunt Ruby Verma and his son Harsh were lying dead in their room. He did not find the appellant inside the said room. It is ascertained from his evidence that at the relevant point of time, he was a student of DAV Public School, Patna. He returned from the school at about 02.00 P.M. and saw that his aunt Ruby Verma and his son Harsh were lying dead in their room. He did not find the appellant inside the said room. (iii) The learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant urges that evidence on record depicts that the appellant took loan from many persons. He could not repay the said loans. He was threatened by his creditors to repay the said loan, lest his entire family would be finished. Thus, it is submitted by the learned Advocate for the appellant that it might be a fact that in the absence of the appellant and any other family member of the house, one of the creditors came to the house and committed murder of the wife and minor son of the appellant. (iv) Another suspicious circumstance raised by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant is that P.W. 5, Ruhi Verma is the daughter of the appellant. She deposed during trial as P.W. 5. From her evidence, it is ascertained that on 13 th of September, 2012, she returned her house from school at about 03.00 P.M. She knocked at the front door of the house, but nobody opened the it. Then, she went to the back side of the house and knocked at the back side door. Her aunt opened the door and informed her that her mother and brother went to the house of maternal grandmother and her father was sleeping in the room. She opened the hasbolt of the front side door from outside, inserting her hand through the gap of the door and found the dead-bodies of her mother and brother lying on the floor of the room drenched with blood and father was lying on the floor in unconscious state. She raised hue and cry. Subsequently, the police came. (v) The learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant submits that from the evidence of P.W. 5, it is ascertained that even if front side entrance door of the quarters of the appellant is locked from inside, it can be opened from outside. When the hasbolt can be opened from outside, it is presumed that the hasbolt can be closed from outside also. When the hasbolt can be opened from outside, it is presumed that the hasbolt can be closed from outside also. Therefore, the plea of the appellant that somebody closed the front door from outside cannot be thrown away as a baseless circumstance. (vi) The learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant further submits that from the evidence of P.W. 8, it is ascertained that the appellant was not present in the room where wife of the appellant was murdered. He did not see the appellant inside the room at about 02.00 P.M. On the contrary, P.W. 5, who is the daughter of the appellant and the deceased, saw the appellant inside the room in an unconscious state. (vii) It is contended by the learned Advocate for the appellant that it may so happened that the husband of the deceased came subsequently in the house, saw the dead-bodies of his wife and son and then became unconscious out of shock and fell down by the side of the dead-bodies of his wife and son. (viii) This circumstance becomes more plausible when the prosecution’s case – that, after committing the murder, he consumed 80 tablets of a sedative drug, namely, Valium- 5, and fell unconscious – was not proved by the prosecution. The appellant was admitted to a private nursing home in an unconscious state; his stomach was washed, and the stomach contents were sent to the forensic laboratory for scientific examination. The Medical Officer did not find any trace of sedatives in the stomach contents. So, the allegation that the appellant became unconscious after taking an overdose of sedatives is not proved. (ix) The next import circumstance is that the Investigating Officer seized the nail cuttings of the appellant, which were stained with blood. He also seized the cotton with the help of which the blood lying on the face and hands of the appellant had been cleaned. The said materials were also sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, and the Serologist opined that the bloodstains on the nail cuttings and the cotton contained antigens “A” and “B”. It is shown by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that both the appellant and his wife deceased Ruby Verma had blood group “O”. The said materials were also sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, and the Serologist opined that the bloodstains on the nail cuttings and the cotton contained antigens “A” and “B”. It is shown by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that both the appellant and his wife deceased Ruby Verma had blood group “O”. In case of a couple, both having “O” blood group, generally and in most cases, the child born in said wedlock will have the same blood group, i.e., “O”. In the instant case, the Serologist opined that blood containing antigens “A” and “B” was found in the nail cuttings and on the cotton ball used to clean and remove blood from the appellant’s hand and face. It is contended by the learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant, thus, that scientific examination of the seized blood stained materials did not conform the stains of blood of the deceased. In support of his contention, he refers to the evidence of P.W. 3 Nawal Kishore Kumar Sinha at page 87, who produced some documents relating to blood group of deceased Ruby Verma, where she was admitted on 25 th of February, 2000 for delivery of a baby. She was discharged on 1 st of March, 2000 and in the medical reports, the blood group of Ruby Verma was recorded as “O+”. Even the blood group of the appellant was proved by Mr. Ansuman Makul, who was a Medical Officer in the Railway Hospital, Patna Junction in the month of March, 2016. He proved the photocopy of the blood report of the appellant, which also shows that the blood group of the appellant is “O+”. Had the appellant been the miscreant, his nails might have been soaked with blood of group “O”. There is no explanation on the part of the prosecution as to how antigen “A” and “B” is found in the blood samples in the nail cuttings of the appellant. Moreover, this important circumstance was not even asked to the appellant by the Trial Court in course of his examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. (x) Last but not the least, it is submitted by the learned Advocate for the appellant that the offending weapon was not seized and produced before the forensic science laboratory for examination. Moreover, this important circumstance was not even asked to the appellant by the Trial Court in course of his examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. (x) Last but not the least, it is submitted by the learned Advocate for the appellant that the offending weapon was not seized and produced before the forensic science laboratory for examination. In support of his contention, he refers to the seizure list of an iron patti used for the construction of raillings in the platform, measuring about 3 feet in length and 2.5 inches in breadth. The forensic expert described the said iron rod having length of 78 c.m. (xi) 78 c.m. corresponds to 2.56 feet. Therefore, we are not in a position to give enough credence to the difference of only 6 inches in length of the seized iron patti, which was soaked with blood and produced as offending weapon. (xii) Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State-Respondent, on the other hand, submits that the prosecution has been able to prove all the circumstances against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, and that the circumstances, taken together, are consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and are incompatible with his innocence. It is further submitted that the door of the place of occurrence, namely, the bed room of the appellant, was locked from inside. P.W. 5, who is none other than the daughter of the appellant, found the dead-bodies of her mother and younger brother lying in the said room, while her father was lying inside the room in an unconscious state. This particular evidence was not challenged by the defence. Therefore, presence of the appellant at the scene of occurrence in an unconscious state is to be considered under Section 106 of the Evidence Act., the appellant having special knowledge to explain how his wife and son were murdered. No explanation was made by the appellant. (xiii) Another important circumstance is that the place of occurrence, being the bedroom of the appellant, had two doors: one was the entrance door, and on the opposite side there was another door leading to the remaining part of the house on the western side. No explanation was made by the appellant. (xiii) Another important circumstance is that the place of occurrence, being the bedroom of the appellant, had two doors: one was the entrance door, and on the opposite side there was another door leading to the remaining part of the house on the western side. The sketch map prepared by the Investigating Officer of the said quarters depicts that, beyond the room described as the place of occurrence, there was another room in which his younger brother, Rajan Kumar Verma, resided along with his wife and child (P.W. 8). Beyond Rajan’s room, on the western side, there was a dining room, a kitchen, a basin fixed in one corner of the dining room, bath room and toilet and on the extreme western side, there was a drain. The Investigating Officer found bloodstains in the drain situated at the extreme western side of the said house. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the State-Respondent that the incident was a cold-blooded murder committed by the appellant. After the incident, he allegedly washed the bloodstains either in the bathroom or in the wash basin situated on the extreme western side of the house, and the blood of washed materials flowed into the drain. (xiv) It is also submitted by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State-Respondent that, if the alleged incident had been committed by some other person, the doors – especially the connecting door between the room of the appellant and the room of Rajan Kumar Verma – would not have been closed from inside. Secondly, the front door was also not closed from the inside. It is not generally known to unknown miscreants that the entrance door could be locked from outside. Therefore, it is for the appellant to explain how the said room came to be closed. (xv) The learned APP next submits that the appellant tried to take advantage of the forensic report wherein blood of “A” and “B” antigen was found from his nail cuttings and cotton balls. (xvi) The learned Advocate on behalf of the State Respondent submits that he does not know the stains of blood were soaked in his nails. It is also submitted by him that after the incident, when he entered into the room, he fell down unconscious, seeing the dead-bodies of his wife and son. (xvi) The learned Advocate on behalf of the State Respondent submits that he does not know the stains of blood were soaked in his nails. It is also submitted by him that after the incident, when he entered into the room, he fell down unconscious, seeing the dead-bodies of his wife and son. He does not know how his nails were soaked with blood. It is contended in this regard by the learned APP that when the appellant has not come up with specific case of having stains of blood in his nail cuttings, from any other source, it is to be presumed that his nails were soaked with blood of the deceased. There cannot be any other alternative. In such case, report of forensic examiner does not assume any importance. When the ocular evidence and the circumstances established that the appellant was in the room where his wife and child were murdered and her nails and other parts of body were having stains with blood, it is the duty of the appellant to prove the source of the blood. Mere denial in this regard is not sufficient. Thus, it is submitted by the learned Advocate on behalf of the State Respondent that there may be some lacuna in investigation but the prosecution was able to prove the circumstances that unerringly point at the guilt of the appellant. Therefore, there is no reason to pass any alternative judgement in the instant appeal. 6. Analysis: - (i) We have already stated that P.W. 7, Shambhu Prasad Sinha lodged a written complaint on 13 th of September, 2012 at about 04.00 P.M., making allegations against his son-in-law, being the husband of his daughter Ruby Kumari, as well as against Namita @ Bitti, the wife of Rajan Kumar Verma, alleging, inter alia, that both of them, in conspiracy with each other, committed the murder of Ruby Kumari and her son Harsh. From the documents placed before the Trial Court, it is found that, after the lodging of the F.I.R. at about 04.00 P.M., inquests over the dead-bodies were conducted by the Investigating Officer on the same day at about 04.30 P.M. The dead-bodies were sent to the hospital. The post- mortem examination of the dead-bodies were held on 14 th of September, 2012 at about 11.00 A.M. and 11.30 A.M., respectively. The post- mortem examination of the dead-bodies were held on 14 th of September, 2012 at about 11.00 A.M. and 11.30 A.M., respectively. It is also not in dispute that the registration of Jakkanpur P.S. Case No. 249 of 2012 was reported to the jurisdictional Magistrate on 15 th of September, 2012. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has raised a serious question on the ground of delay in sending the report of registration of the cognizable case to the Magistrate in violation of Section 157 of the Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Teja Singh (supra) and Arjun Marik (supra) conclusively held that the provision contained in Section 157 of the Cr.P.C. is mandatory and no explanation can be accepted on the ground of condonation of delay in dispatching the F.I.R. The reason for introduction of the above provision is based on practical circumstances to the effect that in case of delayed transmission of the copy of the F.I.R. along with the report under Section 157 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate, there might be a chance for the prosecution to manufacture, exaggerate and also introduce false incidents by manipulating the F.I.R. This might be a circumstance of introduction of a false case against the appellant. Now, in order to take such defence that the F.I.R. was subsequently communicated, manufacture or some false story was inserted, it is the accused to point out such circumstances. But in the in the instant case, the appellant did not, in course of his cross-examination to the witnesses on behalf of the prosecution made any such suggestion challenging the truthfulness and veracity of the prosecution case. Therefore, the contention regarding delayed transmission of F.I.R. per se to the learned Magistrate does not create any suspicious circumstances, though it is violation on the part of the Officer Incharge of the Police Station or the Investigating Officer which they should and must necessarily perform. (ii) Coming to the instant case, let us now consider the circumstances established in course of the evidence during trial of the case. (iii) The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has used the evidence of P.W. 8, Rishi Raj as one of the trump cards to show a grave lacuna in prosecution case. We have already stated that the incident took place on 13 th of September, 2012. (iii) The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has used the evidence of P.W. 8, Rishi Raj as one of the trump cards to show a grave lacuna in prosecution case. We have already stated that the incident took place on 13 th of September, 2012. P.W. 8 was aged above eight years on the date of occurrence. He deposed on 24 th of November, 2015, i.e., after a lapse of about more than three years from the date of occurrence. During this period, he was in association with his parents, Rajan Kumar Verma and mother Namita @ Bitti. The appellant is the elder brother of his father. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The State of Madhya Pradesh vs Balveer Singh , reported in 2025 INSC 261 has underscored the complexity of child witness testimony and the need of careful judicial scrutiny. While child witnesses can be valuable in criminal trials, the Courts must ensure that their statements are: - (a) recorded promptly to minimize the risk of external influence; (b) corroborated by independent evidence, whether possible; (c) assessed for tutoring particularly when the child is under guardianship of parties, hostile to the accused, in cases where undue delay and potential coaching are evident, Courts may extend the benefit of doubt to the accused. However, this should not deter the legal system from ensuring justice for victims, where child testimony is credible or supported by other evidence. (iv) Child witnesses play an essential role in judicial system, particularly in cases of abuse, domestic violence and homicide. However, their testimony requires careful scrutiny to role out external influence, coaching or psychological distortion. The Indian judiciary has established safeguards ensuring that the witnesses are: (i) competent to testify (ii) evaluated for possible tutoring (ii) not treated as inherently unreliable (iv) subjected to preliminary judicial assessment. (v) Thus, while child witnesses can provide critical evidence, their evidence should be corroborated whenever possible to ensure fair trials and just convictions. Courts must balance the need for justice with the protection of vulnerable witnesses, ensuring that the truth is etablished without coercion or undue influence. (vi) In the instant case, P.W. 8, Rishi Raj was under the custody of his parents, Rajan Kumar Verma and Namita Verma from the date of occurrence till the date of his examination. Courts must balance the need for justice with the protection of vulnerable witnesses, ensuring that the truth is etablished without coercion or undue influence. (vi) In the instant case, P.W. 8, Rishi Raj was under the custody of his parents, Rajan Kumar Verma and Namita Verma from the date of occurrence till the date of his examination. According to him, he returned his house from his school at about 02.00 P.M. and found his aunt (Badi Mammi) and cousin brother lying dead in their room in pool of blood. The uncle, i.e., Bade Papa was not present in the house. Surprisingly enough, he did not ask anything to his mother as to how and under what circumstances the above named two persons died. His mother, Namita would have been the best witness to tell the fact as to how the above-named persons were murdered. But there is absolutely no evidence or reason cited by P.W.8 about their death. (vii) It is the specific case of the defence that the accused came to see the dead-bodies and immediately became unconscious and fell down by the side of the dead-bodies. P.W. 8 did not throw any light when the appellant allegedly came to the house. This is an important circumstance because when P.W. 8 saw the dead- bodies of his aunt and cousin brother and the appellant was not found, it is very natural for him and his mother to inform the matter to the appellant. There is absolutely no evidence as to when the appellant allegedly came to know about the incidence. (viii) Along with the evidence of P.W. 8, if we consider the evidence of P.W. 5, Ruhi Verma, who is the daughter of the appellant and he deceased Rubi Kumari, we find that she came back to her house on 13 th of September, 2012 at about 03.00 P.M. She found the main door of the house closed. She knocked at the door, but nobody opened it. She went towards the backside door and knocked, when her Chhoti Mummy opened the door and told her that her mother and brother Harsh went to the house of her grandmother. She went inside the house. At this, her aunt told her that her father was sleeping inside the room. She knocked at the door, but nobody opened it. She went towards the backside door and knocked, when her Chhoti Mummy opened the door and told her that her mother and brother Harsh went to the house of her grandmother. She went inside the house. At this, her aunt told her that her father was sleeping inside the room. She then opened the front door by inserting her hand and pulling the hasbolt and saw her mother and brother lying dead and father was lying in unconscious state on the floor. Then, she raised hue and cry. The learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant tried to convince upon this Court that the inside bold of the front door can be opened by outside, as per the evidence of P.W. 5. (xiv) At this stage, it is necessary to consider the sketch map of the place of occurrence prepared by the Investigating Officer and the evidence of P.W. 5, side by side. The sketch map of the place of occurrence shows that the appellant and his family members reside in the same room situated on the extreme northern side. Along the southern wall of the said room, there were two cots. Along the eastern wall of the said room, there was a sofa. The northern wall of the room has the main entrance gate “Mukhya Darwaza” After the sofa set on the southern side wall, there was a dressing table and a computer. The room of Rajan Kumar Verma and Namita is situated immediately to the west of the appellant’s room. Beyond the said room, there is a small Veranda on the southern side, and along the eastern wall of the said Veranda, there is a place of worship (Puja Asthan). Further to the south of the said Veranda, there is an open space. On the western side of the said place, there is a kitchen and store room. On the south eastern side of the dining space, there is a wash room and toilet. Beyond the wash room and toilet, there is a drain situated on the extreme southern side of the said quarters. The rear gate “Pichhla Darwaza”, is situated on the eastern side of the dining space. According to P.W. 5, on the date of occurrence at about 03.00 P.M., she entered into the house through the rear door. Beyond the wash room and toilet, there is a drain situated on the extreme southern side of the said quarters. The rear gate “Pichhla Darwaza”, is situated on the eastern side of the dining space. According to P.W. 5, on the date of occurrence at about 03.00 P.M., she entered into the house through the rear door. Thereafter, she found that Ugla Door of their room was closed. She opened the door by inserting her hand through the gap. Thus, this Ugla Door may not have been the main entrance gate; rather, it appears to have been the southern door of the appellant’s room. Generally, in old quarters, it is a common experience, particularly for those who have travelled across the length and breadth of the State of West Bengal as Judicial Officers, that the inner doors of such quarters are often not properly closed, and a gap usually remains between the two leaves (Palla) of the door. We are conscious to note here that we are not relying upon our personal observation as a finding in the instant case by taking recourse to the principle of preponderance of probability. We merely state the real condition of old quarters belonging to different departments in different parts of the State, and the State of Bihar is also no exception. (xv) This fact has not been challenged that the appellant was lying in an unconscious state in the same room where the dead-bodies were found. This evidence of P.W. 5 was not even challenged by the defence. (xvi) Thus, we find the following circumstances, which have been established beyond any shadow of doubt: - (a) The dead-bodies of the wife and son of the appellant were found in pool of blood in the bed room of the appellant; (b) The appellant was also lying unconscious in the same room; (c) The doors of the room were closed from inside; (d) An iron patti used for construction of boundary wall of railway platform soaked with blood was lying by the side of the dead-bodies; (e) A vest (gangi) and a washed track suit of the appellant were found in the said room; (f) The vest and track suit had stains of blood; (g) Police seized the said articles and sent it for forensic expert; and (h) The forensic expert reported presence of human blood on it. (xvii) The specific defence of the accused that upon seeing the dead- bodies, he became unconscious has not been satisfactorily proved because of the fact that the medical treatment of Rajeshwar Hospital (Exhibit-9) shows that the appellant was admitted with complaints of loss of conscious (suspected drug overdose) and injection Flumazenil 02 mg stat was administered to him. (xviii) Injection Flumazenil is a prescription medication used to rapidly reverse the sedative effects of Benzodiazepines, commonly utilized for Anaesthesia or in overdoes emergencies. It acts as a competitive antagonistic to GABA receptors. It is administered intravenously and is used for both adults and children, typically acting within 1-2 minutes. Benzodiazepines is a sedative compound of Valium-5. (xix) On a careful consideration of the evidence on record, it is ascertained that P.W. ` 1, Subir Kumar Sinha, son of P.W. 7, Shambhu Prasad Sinha was informed on 13 th of September, 2012 by Rajan Kumar Verma, appellant’s brother, that his sister and her son had expired. After giving such information he disconnected the phone. Subir Kumar Sinha informed the matter to his father, Shambhu Prasad Sinha (P.W. 7). He also informed the matter to his brother Sushil Kumar Sinha, who was working as a Branch Manager of a Bank. Then, he proceeded for Patna. At about 07.30 P.M., he reached the Loco Colony in the matrimonial home of his elder sister. He saw the dead-bodies of Ruby and her son Harsh. Police was present there. Other people were also present. The dead-bodies were taken to the Police Station for the purpose of conducting post-mortem. From the evidence of P.W. 1, it is found that the room where the dead-bodies of the deceased were lying was drenched with blood. One iron rod, one track suit, one vest, one towel (Gamchha), all belonging to the appellant, were found lying in the said room, and those articles were stained with blood. When P.W. 1 reached the place of occurrence, he found his father, elder brother Sushil Kumar Sinha, Naresh Kumar Sinha and one Ravi Shankar present there. It further appears from the cross- examination of P.W. 1 that the appellant was lying in an unconscious state in the same room and was thereafter taken to the hospital. P.W. 2, Ravi Shankar, was a friend of P.W. 1. Upon receiving information from P.W. 1, he rushed to the house of Manoj Kumar Verma. It further appears from the cross- examination of P.W. 1 that the appellant was lying in an unconscious state in the same room and was thereafter taken to the hospital. P.W. 2, Ravi Shankar, was a friend of P.W. 1. Upon receiving information from P.W. 1, he rushed to the house of Manoj Kumar Verma. He also saw that the wife of Manoj and his son were lying dead in their bed room in pool of blood. The police seized one iron rod, allegedly used in the construction of a railway platform, which was stained with blood. The police also seized one blood-stained white vest, one blood stained white coloured striped towel, one black coloured track suit and one sky coloured bed sheet under the seizure list. The police further collected a sample of blood flowing with water through the drain situated on the extreme southern side. P.W. 2 and P.W. 7 put their signature on the seizure list. Their signatures on the seizure list are marked as Exhibit-1, 1/1, ½ and 1/3 respectively. Police also held inquest over the dead-bodies of Rubi Verma and Harsh in presence of P.W. 6, Raj Kumar Verma @ Rajan Verma, who is the younger brother of the appellant. (xx) From his evidence, it is found that on 13 th of September, 2012, when the incident took place, he and his wife were in a hospital for medical treatment of his father-in-law, Nalini Kant Sinha. Only the appellant, his wife and minor child were present in the said quarters. The son of Rajan Verma went to school. Rajan also stated on oath that he and his wife Namita came back to the said quarters from IGIMS Hospital at about 01.00 P.M. He left his wife in the said quarters and went to his place of work at Deedarganj. At about 03.30 P.M., his wife and Ruhi informed him over phone that his sister-in-law, elder brother Manoj Kumar Verma and their son Harsh were confined in a room of the said quarters from inside. Subsequently, the niece of P.W. 6, somehow opened the hasbolt of one door of the said room. In the meantime, P.W. 6 also came to the place of occurrence and found his sister-in-law and nephew lying dead inside the room. According to him, he did not find his elder brother, Manoj Kumar Verma, inside the said room. Subsequently, the niece of P.W. 6, somehow opened the hasbolt of one door of the said room. In the meantime, P.W. 6 also came to the place of occurrence and found his sister-in-law and nephew lying dead inside the room. According to him, he did not find his elder brother, Manoj Kumar Verma, inside the said room. When the police arrived at the place of occurrence, he came to know that Manoj Kumar Verma had been taken to the hospital for medical treatment. The signatures of P.W. 6 on the inquest reports were marked as Exhibits-2 and 2/1. In his cross- examination, P.W. 6 stated that his brother Manoj had taken huge amount of loans from different persons. The said creditors used to threaten him frequently, saying that if Manoj failed to repay the said loans, they would finish Manoj’s entire family. Therefore, Manoj remained under fear regarding the fate of his family members. The said witness also said that his brother Manoj loved his wife and children very much. Rajan Verma also admitted that the inside lock of the door of Manoj’s room could be opened by inserting one’s hand through the gap between the leaves of the door.. We have already discussed the evidence of P.W. 7 and other witnesses. Reiteration of evidence on record of the above-named witnesses was felt necessary to arrive at a conclusive finding in the instant appeal. 7. On careful perusal of the evidence of P.W. 6., Rajan Verma, this Court finds that in his evidence, he deposed falsely in respect of certain important aspects. Let us explain hereinbelow: - (i) From the evidence of P.W. 5, Ruhi Verma, it is found that she came from her school to her house at about 03.00 P.M. She knocked at the entrance gate, but nobody opened the door. Then, she knocked at the rear door and the said door was opened by her aunt Namita. Namita told her that her father was sleeping inside their room. She opened the inside bolt of the room from outside and found dead- bodies of her mother and brother lying on the floor of the room in pool of blood and her father was lying on the floor in unconscious state by the side of a sofa. Namita told her that her father was sleeping inside their room. She opened the inside bolt of the room from outside and found dead- bodies of her mother and brother lying on the floor of the room in pool of blood and her father was lying on the floor in unconscious state by the side of a sofa. (ii) From the evidence of Rajan Verma, P.W. 6, we find that he was informed about the incident at about 03.30 P.M. by his wife and niece over phone. From the evidence of P.W. 1, it is ascertained that it was Rajan, who informed P.W. 1 about the incident. According to him, he came to the place of occurrence at about 03.30 P.M. P.W. P.W. 1 then informed the incident to his father / informant (P.W. 7) and his elder brother. Fard beyan was recorded at 04.00 P.M. On the basis of the said fare beyan, Jakkanpur P.S. Case No. 249 of 2012 was registered at about 09.00 P.M. However, investigation of the case was initiated at 06.30 P.M. It is found from the case-diary that upon seeing the appellant in an unconscious state, local people took him to Railway Hospital for medical treatment. (iii) Exhibit-9 shows that on 29 th of November, 2012, the Administrator of Rajeshwar Hospital, Kankarbagh, a private nursing home submitted a medal treatment report of Manoj Kumar Verma, stating, inter alia, that he was admitted to the said nursing home with complaints of loss of consciousness (suspected drug overdose) and he was accordingly medically treated. Thus, from the available evidence, we find that the appellant was alone in association with his wife and son on the date of occurrence from 11.00 A.M./11.30 A.M. to 03.00 P.M. (iv) It further transpires from the evidence of Rajan Verma that, he, for the first time went to the bed room of Manoj Kumar Verma on the date of occurrence at about 03.30 P.M. or some time thereafter. He did not find Manoj inside the room and he came to know from the Police that his brother was taken to hospital. (v) Thus, from the evidence of P.W. 5, Ruhi Verma, who entered for the first time inside the bed room of the appellant, saw her mother and brother lying dead in pool of blood and her father was lying in an unconscious state. (v) Thus, from the evidence of P.W. 5, Ruhi Verma, who entered for the first time inside the bed room of the appellant, saw her mother and brother lying dead in pool of blood and her father was lying in an unconscious state. (vi) The evidence of P.W. 5 clearly shows that the accused was in association with the deceased from the morning till 03.00 P.M./03.30 P.M., when P.W. 5 saw all three of them inside the room, which was bolted from inside. (vii) Thus, this Court can conclusively hold that murder of wife and son of Manoj Kumar Verma was committed during the period between 11.45 A.M. to 03.00 P.M. The post-mortem examination report of Rubi Verma and Harsh (Exhibit-5 and Exhibit-5/1, respectively), shows that autopsy over the dead-bodies of the deceased were conducted on 14 th of September, 2012 at 11.00 A.M. and 11.30 A.M., respectively. The Autopsy Surgeon opined that death of the said two persons occurred within 12 to 24 hours. Thus, it is found that the death of the above-named two persons was caused any time after 11.30 A.M. and before 03.00 P.M. (viii) It is not challenged by the defence that on the date of occurrence, both Ruhi and Rishi went to their school in the morning. Rajan and his wife Namita went to IGIMS Hospital to attend his father-in-law Rajan Verma, who had to undergo a surgery on that date. Thus, Manoj was alone with his wife and son. No other person was present in the house. (ix) There is no evidence on record that Manoj Kumar Verma left his home any time between 11.30 A.M. to 03.00 P.M. Manoj did not come forward with any evidence that some outsider came to his house during the aforesaid time on 13 th of September, 2012 in order to demand repayment of loan, which he took. (x) P.W. 6 Rajan Kumar Verma stated in his cross-examination that his brother Manoj Kumar Verma took loan from various persons and they used to threaten him saying that if he fails to repay the said loan, his entire family will be finished. (xi) The defence never disclosed the name of any person from whom Manoj Kumar Verma allegedly took loan to enable the Investigating Officer to investigate as to whether they had any enmity against the appellant. (xi) The defence never disclosed the name of any person from whom Manoj Kumar Verma allegedly took loan to enable the Investigating Officer to investigate as to whether they had any enmity against the appellant. (xi) Rajan Verma, being the own brother of the appellant, we can safely conclude that he made a false statement on oath. 8. In view of our discussions and on careful consideration of evidence on record, we find the following circumstances: - (i) The appellant was alone with his wife and minor son in his quarters on 13 th of September, 2012 from 11.30 A.M. to 03.00 P.M. (ii) From the Autopsy Surgeon report, it is found that the deaths of Rubi Verma and Harsh were caused within 12 to 24 hours of the date and time of post- mortem examination, which was conducted on 14 th of September, 2012 at about 11.00 A.M. and 11.30 A.M. respectively. (iii) Death of both the deceased was caused by repeatedly being struck with the help of a hard and blunt substance. (iv) An iron patti used for guarding a railway platform, stained with blood was found by the side of the dead-bodies. The Investigating Officer recorded approximate measurement of the said iron patti as two and a half feet to 3 feet. (v) It was properly mentioned in forensic science laboratory and the measurement was found to be 78 c.m. equivalent to 2.56 feet. (vi) It is not denied by the defence that the vest, track suit, towel, belonging to the appellant were found near the place of occurrence. (vii) All the articles were stained with blood. (viii) The appellant was found in unconscious state lying in the same room (ix) The appellant was taken to Railway Hospital by local people. (x) The medical examination report of Railway Hospital has not been produced by the appellant to show that he did not consume any sedative drug. (xi) We have already discussed that in Rajeshwar Hospital, Kankarbagh, he was medically treated with Flumezanil 02 mg injection. The police seized strips of 80 numbers of Valium- 5, sedative drug on the next date of occurrence from the place in front of the quarters of the appellant. 9. Defence: - (i) In support of defence, the accused examined four witnesses. D.W. 1 is one Anil Paswan. He used to work in the house of Manoj Kumar Verma since 2001. 9. Defence: - (i) In support of defence, the accused examined four witnesses. D.W. 1 is one Anil Paswan. He used to work in the house of Manoj Kumar Verma since 2001. During night from 07.00 P.M. to 07.30 P.M. till 08.30 A.M. of the next night on the date of occurrence, he came to the said house and found many people had assembled in front of the said house. He came to know that some outsider committed murder of the wife and son of Manoj Kumar Verma. He also heard that Manoj Kumar Verma took loan from some persons. It is found from his cross-examination that on the date of occurrence when he left the quarters of Manoj Kumar Verma, except Manoj Kumar Verma and his family members, Rajan Verma was present. From the evidence of Rajan Verma, we find that he left the house within few hours for IGIMS Hospital. (ii) D.W. 2, Mithilesh Kumar is a resident of quarter No. 59 CD Railway Colony. On the date of occurrence, he came back to his quarters at about 07.30 P.M. from his place of work and found many persons gathered in front of the quarters of Manoj Kumar Verma. He also suspected that as Manoj Kumar Verma took huge loan from different persons, some outsiders committed murder of his wife and son. (iii) D.W. 3, Kishore Kumar Sinha is an employee of Tripoliya Hospital, Gulzarbagh. The wife of Manoj Kumar Verma was admitted to the said hospital on 25 th of February, 2000 for delivery of a baby. He produced two medical documents from the record of the hospital, which were marked as Exhibit-A and B. In cross- examination, it is ascertained that he does not know anything about the content of the said document. (iv) One Dr. Ansuman Mukul, deposed as D.W. 4 in this case, he produced a blood report of one Manoj Kumar Verma. Amongst the exhibited documents, Exhibit-C is a certificate, issued by one Sr. Celestine Mathias, Administrator, Tripolia Social Service Hospital, dated 13 th of July, 2017, stating, inter alia, that the Rubi Verma’s blood group is “O+” as per the hospital record. A document, marked-X for identification by the learned Trial Judge on 21 st of August, 2017, being the pathological report of Central Superspeciality Hospital, E.C. Railway, Patna also show that the blood group of the appellant is “O+”. 10. A document, marked-X for identification by the learned Trial Judge on 21 st of August, 2017, being the pathological report of Central Superspeciality Hospital, E.C. Railway, Patna also show that the blood group of the appellant is “O+”. 10. As a last resort, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant vehemently urged that if the blood group of both wife and husband is “O+”, the blood group of the son obviously be “O+”. Therefore, blood stains found in the vest, track suit, Gamachha, iron rod and nail cuttings would have been “O+”. However, the Serologist found “A” and “B” blood group in the nail cuttings and other material exhibits. Such blood group did not belong to the deceased. Therefore, the stains of blood found in the wearing apparels and nail cuttings of the appellant did not belong to the deceased. This goes to suggest that the appellant was not involved in committing murder of his wife and son. 11. We are not in a position to accept such contention raised by the learned Advocate for the appellant on the ground that human blood were found in the wearing apparels and nail cuttings as well as different parts of the body of the deceased. No case was made out to the effect that the wearing apparels and different parts of the body of the deceased were soaked with blood of some other person. Therefore, presence of human blood in the body of the deceased is an important circumstance irrevocably pointing at the guilt of the accused. 12. Last but not the least, the learned Advocate for the appellant argued with reference to Shivaji Chintappa Patil v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2021) 5 SCC 626 and Anwar Ali v. State of H.P., reported in (2020) 10 SCC 166 that in case, depending on circumstantial evidence, absence of a motive is a factor that weigh in favour of the accused. In Babu v. State of Kerala, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 189 , it was observed in paragraphs 25 and 26 as hereunder: - “25. In State of U.P. v. Kishanpal, this Court examined the importance of motive in cases of circumstantial evidence and observed: (SCC pp. 87-88, paras 38-39) “38. In Babu v. State of Kerala, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 189 , it was observed in paragraphs 25 and 26 as hereunder: - “25. In State of U.P. v. Kishanpal, this Court examined the importance of motive in cases of circumstantial evidence and observed: (SCC pp. 87-88, paras 38-39) “38. … the motive is a thing which is primarily known to the accused themselves and it is not possible for the prosecution to explain what actually promoted or excited them to commit the particular crime. 39. The motive may be considered as a circumstance which is relevant for assessing the evidence but if the evidence is clear and unambiguous and the circumstances prove the guilt of the accused, the same is not weakened even if the motive is not a very strong one. It is also settled law that the motive loses all its importance in a case where direct evidence of eyewitnesses is available, because even if there may be a very strong motive for the accused persons to commit a particular crime, they cannot be convicted if the evidence of eyewitnesses is not convincing. In the same way, even if there may not be an apparent motive but if the evidence of the eyewitnesses is clear and reliable, the absence or inadequacy of motive cannot stand in the way of conviction.’ 26. This Court has also held that the absence of motive in a case depending on circumstantial evidence is a factor that weighs in favour of the accused.” 13. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove the motive of the appellant beyond doubt, as such an important link to complete the chain of circumstances is totally absent in the present case. 14. The jurisprudence regarding the failure of the prosecution to prove motive in a case based on circumstantial evidence has undergone a substantial change over the course of time. In the case of Subhash Aggarwal v. State of NCT of Delhi, reported in 2025 Live Law (SC) 443, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that although the prosecution did not establish a clear motive, strong circumstantial evidence can suffice even in the absence of motive. In the case of Subhash Aggarwal v. State of NCT of Delhi, reported in 2025 Live Law (SC) 443, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that although the prosecution did not establish a clear motive, strong circumstantial evidence can suffice even in the absence of motive. In other words, in a case based on circumstantial evidence, proof of motive would supply a link in the chain of circumstances; nevertheless, the absence of motive cannot be a ground to altogether reject the prosecution case, as held in Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar, reported in 1995 Supp 1 SCC 80: - “Motive remains hidden in the inner recesses of the mind of the perpetrator, which cannot, oftener than ever, be ferreted out by the investigation agency. Though in a case of circumstantial evidence, the complete absence of motive would weigh in favour of the accused, it cannot be declared as a general proposition of universal application that, in the absence of motive, the entire inculpatory circumstances should be ignored and the accused acquitted.” 15. In Subhash Aggarwal (supra), the accused and the deceased along with wife of the accused and his two other children were residing in the house, which was the scene of occurrence. The wife and two daughters were sleeping in another room, and they woke up hearing the shouts of the accused, who first detected the body. They came out and saw the youngest child lying in a pool of blood and one of the daughters summoned the neighbours. The family members and the neighbour who were examined before Court spoke of the accused having tried to convince them that it was a suicide by a self-inflicted injury; found to be deliberate falsehood. The accused did not explain what led him to the body at the dead of the night, when all were asleep. The accused admitted that he owned the gun, but his explanation was that it was hidden by his children, which was not plausible in the teeth of the corroborated deposition of PW-1, 3 and 4 that it was in the custody of the husband and that only he could use it. The accused admitted that he owned the gun, but his explanation was that it was hidden by his children, which was not plausible in the teeth of the corroborated deposition of PW-1, 3 and 4 that it was in the custody of the husband and that only he could use it. In this case, it was held: - “Motive is not imperative, if there are very strong circumstances, pointing to the guilt of the accused and the evidence of the family members clearly indicates the wayward ways of the accused and that he did not maintain good relations with his wife and children. 16. In the instant case as well, the absence of motive is not important in view of the establishment of above-mentioned circumstances beyond any shadow of doubt, along with the circumstances narrated above. We would now like to apply the theory of Burden of Special Knowledge contemplated under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. Since the appellant was found to be present throughout with the deceased, it is for the appellant to explain how the deceased came to suffer such a gruesome murder. The appellant has failed to discharge this burden. Therefore, the principle of “Reverse Burden” shall apply against the appellant. 17. Before we part with, we must mention that the investigation conducted by Manoj Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police, contains a number of loopholes which ought to have been addressed during the course of the investigation. For example, the Investigating Officer found stains of blood flowing through the drain of the quarter on the extreme southern side, whereas the place of occurrence was the room situated on the extreme northern side. The sketch map of the place of occurrence shows that after the room of the appellant where the alleged incident occurred, there is a small Veranda. Thereafter, there is a dining room. On one side of the dining room, there is a kitchen and on the opposite side, there are bathroom and toilet. Beyond the dining room, there is an open Veranda. A drum, containing water is kept on the said Veranda. Perusal of the case-diary shows that blood sprinkled on the outer side of the said drum. The Investigating Officer did not ascertain as to whether any of the deceased was first assaulted at the place near the drum and then, he/she was dragged inside the room. 18. A drum, containing water is kept on the said Veranda. Perusal of the case-diary shows that blood sprinkled on the outer side of the said drum. The Investigating Officer did not ascertain as to whether any of the deceased was first assaulted at the place near the drum and then, he/she was dragged inside the room. 18. Be that as it may, this Court finds that the incident was a cold-blooded murder of wife and minor son by the appellant. After committing murder, he cleaned his track suit and blood, lying / flown at other parts of the house and flowed the blood through the drain. Then he changed his dress and consumed sedatives to create an impression that after causing death, he also tried to commit suicide. 19. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any reason to turn down the order of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court. So far as the sentence is concerned, we are of the view that the appellant cannot be sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment till the end of his life or in other words till the remaining period of his life. 20. Therefore, the order of sentence is modified by rigorous imprisonment for life and also with fine equivalent to the entire amount of his employment dues payable to him by the Railways Authorities. It is also directed that the said amount shall be spent as compensation to the only living member of the family, namely, Ruhi Verma for her progress, benefit and upliftment. If the appellant fails to pay all his dues available from his service in favour of his only living daughter, who is undoubtedly a victim of the incident, the appellant shall suffer a further imprisonment for three years. 21. Let a copy of this order be supplied to the appellant free of cost. 22. Let a copy of this order be sent to the General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur, for information and compliance.