Father and brother’s life sentence upheld for double murder of teenage daughters staged as suicide despite witnesses turning hostile.

The appellants, Ram Prasad (father) and Chandra Bhan (brother), were accused of murdering Dayawati and Dharmwati (the deceased daughters/sisters of the appellants) on October 16, 2016.

An FIR was initially lodged by an ex-Gram Pradhan stating the girls had committed suicide by hanging due to being scolded.

However, the police found the circumstances suspicious as the family had buried the bodies in the Ganga river khadar without informing the authorities.

Upon exhumation and post-mortem, the cause of death was determined to be asphyxia due to throttling.

Despite several prosecution witnesses of fact turning hostile during the trial, the Trial Court convicted the appellants under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The appellants challenged this conviction on the grounds that the chain of circumstantial evidence was incomplete.

1. Whether the prosecution established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt in a case where witnesses of fact turned hostile

2. Whether the conduct of the appellants in failing to report the deaths and hastily burying the bodies serves as a relevant incriminating circumstance under Section 8 of the Evidence Act

Section 302 (Murder) and Section 201 (Causing disappearance of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)

Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, regarding the relevancy of the conduct of the accused

Subsequent conduct of the accused having a nexus with the crime is a relevant factor (Vivek Kalra v. State of Rajasthan (2014) and Vikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab (2006))

Falsity of a suicide defense when contradicted by medical evidence (Mandhari v. State of Chhattisgarh (2002))

The role of motive in circumstantial cases (Ujjagar Singh v. State of Punjab (2007))

The Court observed that while witnesses turned hostile, medical evidence by PW-12 conclusively proved the deaths were homicidal (throttling) and not suicidal (hanging), as the tongues were protruding and no ligature marks were found.

The Court emphasized the "guilty mind" evidenced by the appellants' conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act: they failed to report the deaths to the police and buried the bodies in haste, which the court interpreted as an intent to conceal the crime.

The Court reasoned that since the deaths occurred within the family’s sphere and the defense of suicide was proven false by the autopsy, the chain of circumstances point exclusively to the father and brother. The Court characterized the incident as a "brutal murder" committed for family honor.

The Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment dated January 15, 2019, upholding the conviction and life imprisonment sentences for both appellants under Section 302/34 and Section 201 IPC. The appellants were ordered to remain in jail to serve their sentences.