SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd. Page 7 Monday, October 24, 2022 Printed For: Navami Krishnamurthy, Jindal Global University SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 23. Mr. Reddy further submitted that once the extra judicial confession alleged to have been made before the two prosecution witnesses i.e. the PW-3 and PW-4 resply and the evidence of the discovery of the weapon of offence is discarded and eschewed from consideration, then nothing remains in the case of the prosecution. 24. Lastly, Mr. Reddy would submit that howsoever unnatural one may find the conduct of the accused after the alleged crime, the same, by itself, is not sufficient to convict the accused for an offence like murder. In such circumstances referred to above, Mr. Reddy prayed that there being merit in his appeals, those may be allowed. He prayed that the order of conviction and death penalty be set aside and the appellant may be acquitted of the charge of murder. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE 25. Mr. Adarsh Upadhyay, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State of Uttar Pradesh has on the other hand vehemently opposed the appeals. He would submit that no error, not to speak of any error of law, could be said to have been committed by the Courts below in holding the accused appellant guilty of the offence of murder and imposing death penalty upon him for the gruesome murder of five of his family members. He would submit that there is no good reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW-3, Babu Ram Hans and PW-4, Ram Kumar resply before whom the accused appellant made the extra judicial confession. He further submitted that there is no good reason to even disbelieve the discovery of the weapon of offence at the instance of the accused appellant. He would submit that over and above the two incriminating circumstances in the form of extra judicial confession and the discovery of weapon of offence, there was a strong motive for the accused appellant to commit the crime. 26. Mr. Upadhyay vehemently submitted that the accused appellant desperately wanted to get married to Manju and his wife Sangeeta (deceased) was coming in his way. The accused appellant decided not only to terminate his own wife but also mercilessly killed four of his innocent minor daughters so that he may not have to take care of them after marrying Manju. He would submit that it is one of the most heinous and gruesome crimes committed by the accused appellant. 27. He further submitted that the prosecution is not obliged to explain the injuries suffered by the accused appellant as those injuries were found to be superfluous in nature. The prosecution is obliged to explain the injuries suffered by an accused, if any, only if such injuries are grievous in nature which may throw a considerable doubt on the very genesis or the origin of the case of the prosecution. He would submit that the defence of the accused appellant that four unidentified persons were the assailants stands falsified by his own unnatural conduct. Mr. Upadhyay would submit that the accused appellant has not been able to explain in what circumstances the smell of kerosene was coming from his clothes as deposed by the witnesses and the doctor. He would argue that if out of fear he had escaped from his house and ran away, then how he came in contact with kerosene. He would submit that the case of the accused appellant that one of the unidentified persons fired a shot from a firearm is also falsified as no cartridge or any pellets were recovered from the place of occurrence. 28. Mr. Upadhyay would submit that the scope of the present appeals filed under Article 136 of the Constitution is very limited. It is only in exceptional circumstances that this Court may disturb the concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the trial court and High Court respectively. He would submit that the view taken by the trial court and the High Court is correct and in no manner the appreciation of evidence could be termed as perverse. 29. In such circumstances referred to above, Mr. Upadhyay prays that there being no merit in the appeals filed by the accused appellant, those may be dismissed. ORAL EVIDENCE ON RECORD