# SURESH CHANDRA BAHRI ETC. ETC v. STATE OF BIHAR - **Citation:** [1994] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 483 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1994-07-13 - **Case number:** Criminal appeal No. 329 of 1992 - **Bench:** Dr. A.S. Anand, Faizan Uddin - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/suresh-chandra-bahri-etc-etc-v-state-of-bihar-12430 - **Pages:** 79 ## Headnote B Indian Penal Code 1860, Ss.302, 201 r/w 120A-Husband and two accomplices conspiring and committing murder of wife and two children-- Evidence of approver trustworthy and co"oborated in material particulars by circumstantial and expert evidence-Held, proved beyond reasonable doubt C that husband who master minded plan and co-accused hatched conspiracy and in pursuance thereof committed murder and made efforts to screen the offence Indian Penal Code, S.120A-Criminal conspiracy-Husband and two accomplices conspiring and killing wife and two children-Held, essential D ingredient is agreement between conspirators to commit crime; not necessary that each party to conspiracy must do some overt act. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, S.306( 4) (a )-Approver granted pardon by CJM without recording statement-<:ase committed to Trial Court-Thereafter records sent back to CJM for recording statement of apE prover-Whether provision mandatory and whether failure to comply vitiates the trial-Held, provision mandatory but on facts trial not vitiaied. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, S.306(4)(b)-Approver in custody at time of pardon-Later released on bail by High Court even before conp clusion of trial-Whether mandatory provision violated-Held, no; release of approver on bail in the circumstances not illegal. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, S.313--lncriminating circumstances not put to the accused during examination-Held, does not vitiate trial unless real prejudice caused to the accused. G Indian Evidence Act, 1872, S27-Discovery of incriminating articles pursuant to confessional statement of accused-Held, in the instant case disclosure statement true and worthy of credence. Indian Evidence Ac~ 1872, Ss.114 Illustration (b), S.133-Conviction H 483 484 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 1 S.C.R. A for offence of murder on basis of approver evidenc~vidence on broad and material particulars scrutinised-Held, approver's evidence trustworthy and corroborated in material particular,· deserves credence. Criminal trial-Sentencing-Death sentence-Accused killing wife in extremely brutal gruesome diabolical and dastardly manner-Body truncated B into two parts in devilish style evincing total depravity to gain control over property-Further killing two chUdren in cold blooded manner making them believe about being taken on a pleasure tri~odies thrown into river after infliction of severe injuries-Held, rarest of rare case with no mitigating circumstances; death sentence justified-Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, C S.354(3). D E F Criminal trial-Sentencing-Co-accused assisting main accused in killings but no evidence about part played and manner in which he acted in the killings-Held, extreme penalty not warranted,· death sentence commuted to life imprisonment-Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, S.354(3). Criminal trial-Circumstantial evidence-Facts and circumstances must be established beyond reasonable doubt-Should not only be consistent with guilt of accused but must be entirely incompatible with innocence of accused. Criminal trial-Corpus delec(;-{)iscovery of skull of deceased long after occurrence-Identity established through forensic methods-Held, even where dead body not recovered offence of murder could be established if there is positive evidence to connect culprit. Criminal trial-Test identification parade-Accused seen by witnesses in court without previous identification parade-Held, witnesses had seen accused continuously for several days and recognised him before they made their statements in Court; test identification parade not necessary-Indian Evidence Act, 1872, S.9. G Constitution of India, Article 13&-Trial Court and High Court after giving concurrent finding of guilt of accused-Held, finding fully supported by evidence on record; does not call for inteiference. Accused SB was married to deceased U and bad two children R and S. The relations between SB and U were strained and difference arose H between them over a house at Ranchi whic ## Text _Characters 0–39,856 of 206,919. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39856 for what follows._ SURESH CHANDRA BAHRI ETC. ETC. A v. STATE OF BIHAR JULY 13, 1994 (DR. A.S. ANAND AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.] B Indian Penal Code 1860, Ss.302, 201 r/w 120A-Husband and two accomplices conspiring and committing murder of wife and two children-- Evidence of approver trustworthy and co"oborated in material particulars by circumstantial and expert evidence-Held, proved beyond reasonable doubt C that husband who master minded plan and co-accused hatched conspiracy and in pursuance thereof committed murder and made efforts to screen the offence Indian Penal Code, S.120A-Criminal conspiracy-Husband and two accomplices conspiring and killing wife and two children-Held, essential D ingredient is agreement between conspirators to commit crime; not necessary that each party to conspiracy must do some overt act. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, S.306( 4) (a )-Approver granted pardon by CJM without recording statement-<:ase committed to Trial Court-Thereafter records sent back to CJM for recording statement of apE prover-Whether provision mandatory and whether failure to comply vitiates the trial-Held, provision mandatory but on facts trial not vitiaied. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, S.306(4)(b)-Approver in custody at time of pardon-Later released on bail by High Court even before conp clusion of trial-Whether mandatory provision violated-Held, no; release of approver on bail in the circumstances not illegal. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, S.313--lncriminating circumstances not put to the accused during examination-Held, does not vitiate trial unless real prejudice caused to the accused. G Indian Evidence Act, 1872, S27-Discovery of incriminating articles pursuant to confessional statement of accused-Held, in the instant case disclosure statement true and worthy of credence. Indian Evidence Ac~ 1872, Ss.114 Illustration (b), S.133-Conviction H 483 484 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 1 S.C.R. A for offence of murder on basis of approver evidenc~vidence on broad and material particulars scrutinised-Held, approver's evidence trustworthy and corroborated in material particular,· deserves credence. Criminal trial-Sentencing-Death sentence-Accused killing wife in extremely brutal gruesome diabolical and dastardly manner-Body truncated B into two parts in devilish style evincing total depravity to gain control over property-Further killing two chUdren in cold blooded manner making them believe about being taken on a pleasure tri~odies thrown into river after infliction of severe injuries-Held, rarest of rare case with no mitigating circumstances; death sentence justified-Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, C S.354(3). D E F Criminal trial-Sentencing-Co-accused assisting main accused in killings but no evidence about part played and manner in which he acted in the killings-Held, extreme penalty not warranted,· death sentence commuted to life imprisonment-Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, S.354(3). Criminal trial-Circumstantial evidence-Facts and circumstances must be established beyond reasonable doubt-Should not only be consistent with guilt of accused but must be entirely incompatible with innocence of accused. Criminal trial-Corpus delec(;-{)iscovery of skull of deceased long after occurrence-Identity established through forensic methods-Held, even where dead body not recovered offence of murder could be established if there is positive evidence to connect culprit. Criminal trial-Test identification parade-Accused seen by witnesses in court without previous identification parade-Held, witnesses had seen accused continuously for several days and recognised him before they made their statements in Court; test identification parade not necessary-Indian Evidence Act, 1872, S.9. G Constitution of India, Article 13&-Trial Court and High Court after giving concurrent finding of guilt of accused-Held, finding fully supported by evidence on record; does not call for inteiference. Accused SB was married to deceased U and bad two children R and S. The relations between SB and U were strained and difference arose H between them over a house at Ranchi which U wanted to dispose of with a -~ S.C BAHRI v. STATE OF BIHAR 485 view to use the proceeds to migrate along with her children to America, A where her parents lived. Accused SB not liking this, hatched a conspiracy with the two co- accused RPS and GS to eliminate U and the two children. On October 11, 1983 SB and RPS murdered U in SB's house at Ranchi and served her head from the body. With the help of GS and his assistant RSV who later turned approver, the headless body was wrapped in a blanket and dumped in a septic tank in the compound of the house. B SB and RPS later threw the head under a bush in the forest on the Ranchi Patrautu Road. Later in January 1984 GS took the body out of the septic tank carried it in a lorry and threw it in a dumping pit known as Madhukam dump. SB then wrote two letters on October 29 and November C 3 to U's parents falsely_ stating that U was extremely busy at his Dhulli farm house and that henceforth would not be able to writ letters to theni. SB withdrew the two children R and S from the school at Delhi Where they were studying. Later SB with RPS and the children left Delhi by car and reached SB's Dhulli farm house near Ranchi on December 16, D 1983. SB and RPS committed the murder of R aud S in the intervening night of December 16 and 17, took the bodies by car to Varansl and threw them in the Varona river. While S's body was later discovered on December 20 the body of R was swept away never to be recovered. U's parents suspecting foulplay asked their son B working at Libya to go to India and make enquiries about U and the children. After making frantic enquiries at Ranchi, Dhulli and Delhi B came to know the facts leading to the murders and lodged FIRs at both Ranchi and Delhi. The CBI took over the investigation of the case. On interrogating GS he made E a disclosure about throwing U's body in the Madhukam dump from where F a blanket, piece of saree and rope were recovered. SB who bad gone into hiding and was staying in different places including Nepal, was arre.ted in Delhi on July 31, 1984. RPS who was arrested on August 8 made a disclosure statement leading to the recovery U's skull, hair and jaw. RSV who was arrested on December 3 made a confessional statement G before the judicial Magistrate under S. 164 Cr. P.C. on December 19, 1984. Thereafter on an application by RSV, the CJM accepted him as approver and granted him pardon on January 9, 1985. RSV's statement as approver was recorded on January 30, 1986 and he was granted bail by the High Court on January 13, 1987. H A B 486 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. The Trial Court found SB, RPS and GS guilty of the offence causing the murder of U,R and S and of criminal conspiracy to commit the murders and sentenced each of them to death. The High Court, on reference confirmed. SB, RPS and GS appealed to this Court. It was contended that no question relation to motive having been put to the Appellants while recording their statements under S.313 Cr.P.C., no motive could be attributed to them. Further, the approver was not ex· amined as a witness by the Magistrate at the stage of grant of pardon but only later afier the matter was remitted to the committal Magistrate. Further, in contravention of S.306(4)(b) which was mandatory, the ap· C prover was released on bail even before the conclusion of the trial. The approver's statement under S.164 Cr. P.C. was not voluntary and his evidence, in the absence of corroboration of material particulars could not form the basis of the convictions. The recovery of the blanket, piece of saree and rope at the instance of appellant GS was not, in the absence of any D disclosure statement, valid in law. Without there being any previous iden· tification parade, the identification of RPS in the dock for the first lime by witnesses was of no evidentiary value. There was no direct evidence against the appellants for their involvement in the conspiracy and no factual evidence of the actual participation of GS in tl1e crime. Finally it was contended that the facts ahd circumstances did not warrant the E extreme penalty of death sentence. Dismissing the appeal of SB and partly allowing the appeals of RPS and GS, this Court F HELD : 1.1. On an overall independent consideration of the circumstantial and expert evidence as well as the evidence of the approver adduced by the prosecution it is abundantly clear and satisfactorily established that the evidence of the approver has received requisite corroboration on all material particulars and the totality of the surronnding circumstances, antecedents and subsequent conduct amongst other factors G established against the three appellants prove beyond all reasonable doubt that at the instance of SB who masterminded the plan, the other two appellants conjointly hatched a conspiracy to commit the murder of U and that in prosecution of the common intention SB and RPS did commit the murder ofU. Not only this but all the three appellants with a view to screen H themselves from the commission of the offence made all out efforts for the - S.C. BAHRI v. STATE OF BIHAR 487 disappearance of the dead body of U. [534-C, DJ 1.2. The totality of the circumstances complete the chain which lead to the only irresistible conclusion that the appellants hatched the conspiracy to commit the murder of the two children and in prosecution of their said plan executed it at Dhulli farm. [552-C) 2.1. The essential ingredient of the offence of criminal conspiracy is the agreement to commit an offence. In a case where the agreement is for accomplishment of an act which by itself constitutes an offence, then in that event no overt act is necessary to be proved by the prosecution because A B in such a fact situation criminal conspiracy is established by proving such C an agreement. In other words, where the conspiracy alleged is with regard to commission of a serious crime of the nature as contemplated in Section 120-B read with the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 120-A of I.P.C., then in that event mere proof of an agreement between the accused for commission or such a crime alone is enough to bring about a conviction under Section 120-B and the proof of any oven act by the accused or by D any one of them would not be necessary. The provisions in such a situation do not require that each and every person who is party to the conspiracy must do some oven act towards the fulfilment of the object or conspiracy, the essential ingredient being an agreement between the conspirators to commit the crime and if these requirements and ingredients are estabE lished the act would fall within the trapping of the provisions contained Section 120- B since from its very nature a conspiracy must be conceived and batched In complete secrecy, because otherwise the whole purpose may frustrate and it is common experience and goes without saying that only in very rare cases one may come across direct evidence or a criminal conspiracy to commit any crime and in most of the cases it is only the circumstantial evidence which is available from which· an inference giving rise to the conclusion of an agreement between two or more persons to commit offence may be legitimately drawn. [552-H, 553-A to DJ F N.M.M. Y. Momin v. State of Maharashtra, AIR (1971) SC 885 and G State (Delhi Admn.) v. V.C.Shukla, AIR (1980) SC 1382, referred to. 2.2. The facts and circumstances fully establish the offence under Section 302/120-B of the Penal Code against the appellants GS and RPS also and there Is hardly anything deserving interference with the view taken by the two cout1s below after a· detailed and elaborate discussion of H 488 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. A the evidence and material on record. The conclusions recorded by the two courts below as well as the convictions of the appellants under Section 302, 302/120-B and 201 of the Penal Code are confirmed. [555-D, El B c 3.1. The examination of accomplice or an approver after accepting the tender of pardon as a witness in the Court of the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence is• a mandatory provision and cannot be dis· pensed with and if this mandatory provisions is not complied with it vitiates the trial. [508-C] '3.2. Breach of the provisions contained in clause (a) of Sub-section (4) of Section 306 is of a mandatory nature and not merely directory and, therefore, non-compliance of the same would render committal order illegal. (508-E] 3.3. On remand by the Additional Judicial Commissioner the learned Magistrate examined the approver as a witness on 31.1.86 and then again D committed the case for trial to the Court of Additional Commissioner. E F Thus in any case the provisions of clause (a) of sub-section (4) of Section 306 were ultimately complied with. No prejudice much less any disad· vantage was caused to any of the accused. (509-F, G] Kalu Khoda v. State, AIR (1962) Gujarat 283 F.B.; Re Ramaswamy, (1976) Cr. LJ. 770 Madras and V. Vijayaraj v. State, (1986) Cr\ LJ. 2104 A.P., discussed. · 4.1. Even though the approver was not granted any bail by the committal Magistrate or by the trial Judge yet his released by the High Court would not in any way affect the validity of the pardon granted to the approver. [511·F] 4.2. The dominant objective of requiring an approver to be detained in custody till the conclusion of the trial is not intended to punish the approver for having come forward to give evidence but to protect him from G possible indignation, rage and resentment of his associates in a crime as well as with a view to prevent him from the temptation of saving his one-time friends after he is granted pardon and released from custody. , The provisions are based on statutory principles of public policy and ' public interest. (511-C, DJ H 5.1. In the event of any inadvertent omission on the part of the Court • S.C. BAHRI v. STATE OF BIHAR 489 to question the accused on any incriminating circumstance appearing A against him the same cannot ipso facto vitiate the trial unless it is shown that some prejudice was caused to him. [504-H, 505-A] Bijoy Chandra v. State of West Bengal, (1952) Criminal Law Journal 644 SC and Rama Shankar v. State of West Bengal, AIR (1962) SC 1239 B para 14, referred to. 5.2. No such point was raised and no such objection seems to have been advanced either before the Trial Court or the High Court. Appellant being unable to show what in fact was the real prejudice caused by the omission, it cannot be said that any prejudice was caused. [505-C] C 6.1. The confessional statement of the disclosure made by the appellant GS is confirmed by the recovery of the incriminating articles and, therefore, there is reason to believe that the disclosure statement was true and the evidence led in that behalf is also worthy of credence. [532-F] 6.2. The provisions of Section 27 of the Evidence Act are based on the view that if a fact is actually discovered in consequence of information given some guarantee is afforded thereby that the information was true and consequently the said information can safely be allowed to be given in evidence because if such an information is further fortified and confirmed D by the discovery of articles or the instrument of crime and which leads to E the belief that the information about the confession made as to the articles of crime cannot be false. [532-D, E] - Nari Santa v. Emperor, AIR-(1945) Patna 161 and Abdul Sattar v. Union Territory, AIR (1986) SC 1438, distinguished. 7.1. Though a conviction can be based on uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice but as a rule of prudence it is unsafe to place reliance on the uncorroborated testimony of a approver as required by illustration (b) Section 114 of the Evidence Act. [517-H] F G Bhiva v. State of Maharashtra, AIR (1963) SC 599; Ram Narayan v. State of Rajsthan, [1973] 3 SCC 805 and Ravinder Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR (1975) SC 856, referred to. 7.2. The testimony of the approver remained consistent except for minor and insignificant contradictions and omissions which are bound to H 490 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. A occur in the statement of anyone. (p.59) The evidence of the approver has received requisite corroboration on all material particulars. [523-A, 516-E) 7 3. The confession of the approver is free from all infirmities and conforms to the requirements of S.164. [513-C] B 8.1. As far as SB is concerned, the rule of rarest of rare cases has to applied. There could be no other proper and adequate sentence except the sentence of death as there are no mitigating circumstances whatsoever. The murder of U was committed in an extremely hrntal, gruesome, diabolical, revolting and dastardly manner so as to arouse intense and extreme lndig· C nation of the society. The victim was subjected to inhuman acts of torture and cruelty while causing her murder as her body was truncated Into two parts in a devilish style evincing total depravity simply to gain control over property. Having not been satisfied with the killing of his wife SB was further determinated to kill his Innocent children at Dhulll farm making them believe that they were being taken on a pleasure trip to the farm and D after they were done to death by Inflicting severe injuries on the neck and other parts of the body threw their dead bodies in the Varona river having no consideration for human life and that too for bis own Resh and blood. The cold blooded cruel murder of the innocent children by none else but their own real father shows the enormous proportion with which it was E committed eliminating almost all members of the family. [560-B, 559-E, F, GI F H.2. Appellant GS does not deserve the extreme penalty of death but · the adequate sentence for the part he played would be life sentence. Although GS was an active member of the party who hatched the conspiracy to kill U, he was not party to her actual murder. Similarly though be rendered assistance in sending the cots and chairs to Dbulli farm and sharpening the dagger and batalies for the murder of the two children be was not in fact present at Dhulli farm when the two children were done to death. [560-H, 561-A, 560-G] G 83. It would not be proper to inflict the extreme penalty of death to RPS also but in the facts and circumstances of the case the sentence of life imprisonment will be just and proper sentence. [561-D] Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, [1980] 2 SCC 684; Machhi Singh v. S1'1f•' of Punjab, AIR (1983) SC 597 and Dhananjoy Chatterjee@ Dhana v. H Swtc of West Bengal, JT (1994) 1 SC 33, followed. .. S.C. BAHRI v. STAIB OF BIHAR 491 9. In a case or murder in which the evidence that is available is only A circumstantial in nature then in that event the racts and circumstances from which the conclusion or guilt is required to be drawn by the prosecu· tion must be folly established beyond all reasonable doubt and the racts and circumstances so established should not only be consistent with the guilt or the accused but they also must entirely be incompatible with the innocence or the accused and must exclude every reasonable hypothesis consistent with bis innocence. [514-B, CJ 10: It could not be accepted that the prosecution has railed to estab· lish that the skull which was recovered at the instance or RPS did not belong B to U. Most often and in certain cases even the dead body or the deceased C person is not recovered or seized but irthere Is positive evidence to connect the culprit, it cannot be said that the offence or murder is not established. . [529-F, E] 11. Test identification parade was not necessary at all as the wit· nesses bad seen the appellant RPS continuously ror several days and they D had the opportunity or knowing and recognising him since before they had made their statement in the Court. [542-H] Kannan v. State of Kera/a, [1979] 3 SCC 319 and Mohan/a/ Ganga Ram Gehani, [1982) 1 SCC 700, distinguished. 12. Since after going through the evidence and material on record the racts and circumstances established by the Trial Court as well as by the High Court are well founded and rully supportable by evidence on record, the same do not call for interlerence by the Supceme Court under Article 136. Ordinarily the Supreme Court does not review and reappraise t.he evidence under Article 136 or the Constitution. [541-A] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal appeal No. 329 of 1992 etc. etc. From the Judgment and Order dated 16.12.91 of. the Patna High E F Court in Cr!. A. No. 152/90 (R). G Sushi! Kumar, K.B. Sinha, Ashok Kumar Sharma and J.P. Sharma for the Appellants. A. Raghubir, Tara Chand Sharma, Ms. Neelam Sharma, B.B. Singh and P. Parmeshwaran for the Respondent/State/C.B.I. H 492 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. A The following judgment of the Court was delivered by FAIZAN UDDIN, J. 1. In Sessions Trial No. 77/85 the appellants Suresh Bahri and Raj Pal Sharma were convicted under Section 302 of the Penal Code for B causing murder of Urshia Bahri and her two children, namely, Richa Bahri and Saurabh Bahri. All the three appellants, Suresh Chandra Bahri, Gurbachan Singh and Raj Pal Sharma were also convicted under Section 302/120-B of the Penal Code for the offence of criminal conspiracy to commit murder of Urshia Bahri and her twQ children named above. The C appellal/ts Suresh Chandra Bahri and Raj Pal Sharma Were further convicted under Section 201 of Penal Code for causing dis-appearance of evidence of murder of Saurabh Bahri and the appellants Suresh Chandra Bahri. Gurbachan Singh and Raj Pal Sharma were also convicted under Section 201 of the Penal Code for causing disappearance of evidence of murder of Urshia Bahri by the Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi D by judgment dated 27.7.90 who awarded the sentence of death for the offences under Section 302 and 302/120- B of the Penal Code and Rigorous lmprisor.ment to all the three appellants for a period of seven years' for the offec ce under section 201 of the Penal Code. The learned Trial Judge made a reference to the High Court of Patna, Ranchi Bench under Section E F 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for confirmation of the sentence of death and at the same time the three appellants also preferred separate criminal appeals No. 142, 143 and 152 of 1990 challenging their convictions under Sections 302/120-B and 201 of the !PC. The High Court of Patna (Ranchi Bench) dismissed the three appeals preferred by the three appellants affirming the sentences awarded to them and accepted the death reference by judgment dated 16.12.91 against which these three appeals by leave of this Court have been preferred. Since all these appeals arise out of the common judgment of the High Court, they are being disposed of together. 2. It may be pointed out that along with the above named three G appellants three other accused, namely, Y.D. Arya, the maternal uncle of the appellant Suresh Bahri, Smt. Santosh Bahri the mother of the appellant Suresh Bahri and one Mohd. Suhail, Truck driver, were also charged and tried as co-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302/120-B and 201 of the Penal Code, but they were acquitted by the learned Trial Judge giving them benefit of doubt. No appeals against their acquittal are H preferred. ·I S.C. BAHRI v. STATE OF B!HAR [FAIZAN U!JIJIN. J.j 493 3. Admittedly, al the relevant time the appellant Sur"h Chandra A Bahri (hereinafter referred to as Surcsh Bahri) resided along \Vith hi-. deceased wife Urshia Bahri, at south Ranchi, House No. 936 on the Station Road within the jurisdiction ol Chutia Police Station. He also had a farm and house attached thereto at Du!li, a place situated at a distance of about B 40 kilometers from Ranchi, towards Khelari within the jurisdiction of Police Station Khelari, District Ranchi. Surcsh Bahri was married to the deceased Urisha Bahri in 1971 and out of their wed-lock deceased Kumari Richa Bahri and Saurabh Bahri were born. Kumari Richa Bahri was a student of class VI in Father Aqnel School, New Delhi in the year 1983, while Saurabh Bahri was a student of class IV in the same school. The acquitted accused Smt. Santosh Bahri is the mother of Suresh and the C acquitted accused Y.D. Arya is the maternal uncle of appellant Suresh Bahri and real brother of Smt. Santosh Bahri. There is no dispute that the parents of deceased Urshia Bahri were living in America having settled down there and the first informant of the incident Bineet Singh Sarang, PW 69 the brother of the deceased Urshia Bahri was employed as an Engineer in Libya. The deceased Urshia used to write letters from time to D time to her parents in America and also used to talk to them on telephone. 4. This case has a chequered story and the prosecution case unfolds a pathetic chilling and sinister phenomenon whereby the three innocent lives who were the heirs of the properties of appellant Suresh Bahri, were E eliminated from this worldly scene and consigned to their heavenly abode by putting an untimely end to their innocent lives simply in a bid to avoid interference and intermeddling in the property belonging to the appellant Suresh Bahri and thwart the accomplishment and foil the wishes of Urshia from migrating to America with her children with the sale proceeds of Ranchi house and settle down at America. F 5. The prosecution case is that the parents of deceased Urshia Bahri have settled down in America and their deceased daughter Urshia used to write letters to her parents from time to time, but they did not receive any letters from Urshia in America for quite some time, and on the contrary G they received two letters in America from the appellant Suresh Bahri, one dated 29.10.83 and another dated 3.11.83 which are marked Ext. 23/6 and 23/7, intimating them that henceforth his wife Urshia will not be in a position to address them any letter as she was engaged in urgent work and, therefore, in her place he himself would be writing letters to them. This gave rise to a s•rious suspicion in the mind of the parents of deceased H A B c D E F G SUPRFME ('(JlJRT RFl'OltTS jl'!94J SUPP. I S.C.R. Ur.'hia and they suspected sonic foul pl by making a final report. 14. By a notification dated 18.6.84 the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs entrusted the investigation of Chutia Police Case No. 27 to the C.B.J. with the consent of the Government of Bihar. The C.B.I. on the basis of the written report dated 1.2.84 made by Bineet, PW 69 registered the case No. RC-2/84 on 28.6.84 under Section 120-B read with Sections 0302/364/201 of the Penal Code. Shri Madanlal PW 85. Senior Inspector of C.B.I. New Delhi was the Investigating Officer of this case. By D another notification dated 14.9.84 the Central Government. Ministry of Home Affairs entrusted the investigation of Sarnath P.S. Case No. 100/83 also to the C.B.I. with the consent of the Government of Uttar Pradesh and the investigation of this case was entrusted to the C.B.I. Inspector, Rajendra Singh, PW 82. E 1.5. The Investigating Officer, Madanlal, PW 85 and Rajendra Singh, F PW 82 seized the entire records of Chutia P.S. Case No. 27/84 as well as the records of Sarnath P.S. Case No. 100/83. Both these Investigating ·Officers visited and inspected the Ranchi House No. 936 of appellant Suresh Bahri Situated at Station Road, along with some experts where murder of Urshia Bahri is said to have been committed. A steel trunk containing blood-stains and some scrapings of the blood stains of the wall of the room were seized which were examined by the Serol0gist and found it to be stained with human blood. A sketch map of the alleged placed of occurrence was prepared. The photographs of the dead body taken by the photographer. Ashok Kumar, PW 48 in Sarnath P.S. Case No. 100/83 were G identified by the witnesses who had seen Saurabh Bahri during his life time and stated that the photographs were of Saurabh Bahri, indicating that it was the body of Saurabh who was murdered. The articles Gadda, guilt and bed-sheets seized from Panchkoshi Road. Varanasi were also identified as helonging to the appellant. Suresh Bahri. H J 6. The appellant Gurbachan Singh was already arrested earlier by S.C. BAHR!v. STATEOFBIHAR [FAIZAN UDDIN,J.] 499 Rajeshwar Singh (PW 59), incharge. Police Station.