SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd. Page 6 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. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- the following incriminating circumstances: (i) Discovery of weapon of offence and blood-stained clothes at the instance of the accused appellant. (ii) Extra Judicial confession of the accused appellant before two prosecution witnesses. (iii) Strong motive to commit the crime. (iv) False explanation at the instance of the accused appellant and his unnatural conduct. 17. The appeal filed by the accused appellant in the High Court also failed and was ordered to be dismissed. 18. Being dissatisfied, the accused appellant has come up with the present appeals. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED APPELLANT 19. Mr. S. Niranjan Reddy, the learned senior counsel appearing for the accused appellant vehemently submitted that both, the trial court and the High Court committed a serious error in holding the accused appellant guilty of the offence of murder of his wife and four minor daughters. He would submit that in the course of the trial the prosecution failed to lead any credible evidence to connect the accused appellant with the alleged crime. Mr. Reddy vehemently submitted that both the Courts below ought not to have accepted the evidence of PW-3, Babu Ram Hans and PW-4, Ram Kumar resply so as to believe the extra judicial confession alleged to have been made by the accused appellant before them. Mr. Reddy submitted that both the Courts below should have discarded the evidence of discovery of weapon and the blood -stained clothes as the prosecution has not been able to prove the authorship of concealment. He would submit that in a case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is required to establish the continuity in the links of the chain of the circumstances so as to lead to the only and inescapable conclusion of the accused being the assailant, inconsistent or incompatible with the possibility of any other hypothesis compatible with the innocence of the accused. 20. Mr. Reddy vociferously submitted that the PW-3 and PW-4 resply are ‘got up’ witnesses. The evidence in the form of extra judicial confession is nothing but a fabricated piece of evidence at the instance of the investigating officer just with a view to bolster up the case of the prosecution in the absence of any direct evidence. He would submit that both these prosecution witnesses are absolutely unreliable. 21. Mr. Reddy submitted that in a case which is based on circumstantial evidence, motive plays an important role. He would submit that the prosecution has not been able to prove the motive behind the crime. The extra marital affair of the accused appellant with Manju and the desire of the accused appellant to marry Manju at any cost has been put forward as the motive behind the crime. However, there is no cogent and credible evidence in that regard. He would submit that even otherwise an accused cannot be convicted and sentenced to death only on the circumstance of motive. 22. Mr. Reddy would submit that the prosecution has not been able to explain the injuries suffered by the accused in any manner. He would submit that on the contrary, it is the accused who has been able to explain how he suffered the injuries on his head and chest while putting forward his defence before the High Court in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC. Having noticed that the accused appellant had suffered injuries on his head and was bleeding, the accused appellant along with one police constable was sent for medical examination at the District Hospital, District Kheri. The accused appellant was taken to the hospital by a constable viz. Brij Mohan Singh, Dhaurhara, District Kheri. The PW-9, Dr. Ankit Kumar Singh has issued a medical certificate Ext. 44 stating the nature of the injuries noticed on the body of the accused appellant.