1. Challenge in this appeal is the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.06.2023 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities) Raipur in Sessions Trial No. 130 of 2019 convicting the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/- and RI for 3 three years with fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulations respectively. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. Brief facts of the case is that the deceased Hemprabha Bose is the mother of the appellant. She died on 25.02.20219. On 02.03.2019, Jagdish Chandra Bose, PW-1, brother of the deceased made his written complaint to the Police Station Purani Basti, Raipur, alleging that he is residing at village Makdi, Kanker, the adopted son of his sister i.e. the appellant herein has not given him the intimation about the death of his sister Hemprabha Bose, who died in unnatural circumstances. He is having suspicion and therefore after collecting information he made his complaint. On the basis of written complaint Ex.P/1, the police has recorded merg intimation Ex.P/3 on 02.03.2019 and started merg inquiry. In the intervening night of 25-26th February, 2013 the deceased died and as per her Will and Declaration, her deadbody was donated to Medical College Raipur for the purpose of medical study on 27.02.2019. Thereafter, the brother of the deceased have made a complaint and merg intimation was recorded. Since the body was donated at Medical College, Raipur, during merg inquiry, the police made an inquest Ex.P/6 in presence of the witnesses at Medical College, Raipur. The deadbody was sent for postmortem where a team of four doctors namely Dr. Snigdha Jain Bansal, Dr. Shivnarayan Manjhi, Dr. Jayant Chandrakar, and Dr. Anil Baghel have conducted postmortem on 03.03.2019. Postmortem report is Ex.P/7. The Doctors gave their joint opinion as under:

"1. Cause of death is under investigation & reserved pending histopathology & viscera report. Histopathology sample is sent to department of pathology, Pt. J.N.M. Medical College, Raipur. Viscera sample is sent to FSL through the concerned police constable.

2. However, multiple external contusions present which are caused by hard & blunt force impact by an object/trauma.

3. Time since death cannot be determined due to embalming procedure already done on the body."

3. Since no definite opinion was given as to whether death is homicidal, suicidal or accidental, viscera was preserved and sent for forensic examination. Histopathology sample was also sent for the department of Pathology, Pt. JNM Medical College, Raipur to ascertain the exact cause and nature of death. Viscera report has been obtained by the police in which no poisonous substances were found. Spot map Ex. P/2 was prepared by the police on 05.03.2019. Two doormats, one bedsheet blood like stain from the earth taken though the cotton, broken glass pieces, body donation letter and plain cotton have been seized from the spot vide Ex.P/4 which was also sent for FSL examination. FSL examination with respect to above articles have been received by the police which is Ex.P/25. According to FSL report, blood was found on bedsheet, but in other articles no blood was found. It has been mentioned in the FSL report Ex.P/25 that in police memorandum by which the articles were sent for FSL examination, Article-D is mentioned as piece of door whereas after opening the packet it was found that Article-D is white cotton and piece of cloth. Although in Article-C which is bedsheet, the blood was found, but origin cannot be determined since the same is disintegrated.

4. The memorandum of appellant was recorded on 05.03.2019 and based on his memorandum Ex. P/10, one white shirt, blue jeans and mobile phone was seized vide Ex.P/11. During the course of enquiry on 24.03.2019 CCTV DVR was seized vide Ex.P/12. A query was made by the police to the Doctor who have conducted postmortem of the body of deceased and in reply to that, the doctor replied the query vide Ex.P/14 which is as follows :

5. Patwari also prepared spot map Ex.P/16. A certificate was also obtained from Ghanshyam Agrawal with regard to genuineness of the CCTV footage as to whether it is original or tempered vide Ex.P/18. Videography CD of the postmortem of the deceased was also seized by the police.

6. On the basis of merg inquiry, the police registered an FIR against the appellant for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC vide Ex.P/26 and he has been arrested on 05.03.2019. The police also seized documents which relates to donation of deadbody of the deceased from the hospital.

7. After recording statement under Section 161 CrPC of the witnesses, the police filed a charge sheet before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Raipur for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge Raipur from where the same has been transferred for its trial to Special Judge (Atrocities), Raipur.

8. The trial Court has framed charges under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The appellant abjured his guilt, plead innocence and claimed trial.

9. In order to prove the charges against the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses. The statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C of the appellant was also recorded in which he denied the material appearing against him and plead innocence and submits that he is the real son of the deceased. His maternal uncle Jagdish Chandra Bose, PW-1 has caused quarrel between his mother and father and by that reason they have taken divorce. Her mother was about 70 years of age and suffering from Sugar, Blood Pressure and Asthama and she died on account of her ailment. After death of his mother, his maternal uncle, in order to grab her property, lodged a complaint showing that he (appellant) is adopted son of his sister late Hemprabha. The appellant further submitted that from 02.03.2019 to 06.03.2019 the police has taken him in custody and committed marpeet with him and he could be produced before the court on 06.03.2019. The appellant has examined himself as DW-1.

10. After appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in para 1 of this judgement. Hence, this appeal.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the deceased died due to her ailment and there is no any report by the doctor that death of the deceased is homicidal. Until and unless the death of the deceased is proved to be homicidal, the appellant cannot be convicted for the offence of murder. There is no Histopathology examination report on the basis of which it can be said that death of the deceased was homicidal. In viscera report no poison was found. As per the postmortem report, the nature and cause of death depends upon the said histopathology examination and viscera report, but the same is not supported the fact that the deceased died in unnatural circumstances and her death is homicidal in nature. At the time of conducting postmortem, the deadbody was preserved under the norms of preservation of the deadbody for medical education. In the intervening night of 25-26th February, 2019 when the deceased was in serious condition he has taken her to Ramkrishna Care Hospital, Raipur for her treatment where she was declared brought dead and thereafter as per her will and declaration he donated her deadbody to Medical College, Raipur for medical education after completing the formalities and intimating it to the police Station. Had he been murdered her, he would have disposed off the body of the deceased in order to conceal the evidence, but he did not do so. At the time of inquest, no injuries were noticed by the witnesses over the body of the deceased and injuries noticed by the doctor while conducting postmortem might be during the process of preservation of the deadbody. The complainant i.e. the brother of the deceased, in view of grabbing the property of the deceased has lodged a false complaint showing in it that he being the adopted son of the deceased and in the greed of her property has committed her murder. Even if it is held that he is the adopted son of the deceased or even he is the real son of the deceased, in any case he is the legal heir of the deceased who is entitled for her property and not the complainant. There are material contradictions and omissions in the deposition of the witnesses. The prosecution has failed to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore the appellant is entitled for his acquittal.

12. On the other hand, the counsel for the State vehemently opposes the arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellant and would submit that in the intervening night of 25- 26th February, 2019 when the appellant has taken her mother to Ramkrishna Care Hospital, Raipur, she was already died and without intimating to her brother or other relatives he has donated the deadbody to Medical College, Raipur. Even the neighbours have not been informed about her death and therefore there is mens-rea to conceal the death of the deceased. Injuries found on the body of the deceased was caused 2-4 days prior to her death as opined by the doctor which proves that the deceased was being ill treated by the appellant. He was the only person who was resided with her. In the bedsheet blood was found and no explanation was given by the appellant. The appellant is the ultimate beneficiary after death of deceased because the complainant was showing interest over her property. The neighbours have stated about regular quarrel between the appellant and the deceased. Therefore, learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant which needs no interference.

13. We have heard the rival contentions put forth by the counsel for the parties and perused the evidence and records.

14. The first question arises for consideration of the court is whether the death of deceased is homicidal or not because the nature of death is disputed in the present case. The appellant is saying that death of the deceased is due to her ailment whereas the complainant is saying that death of the deceased is suspicious.

15. PW-1, Jagdish Chandra Bose, who is brother of the deceased, have stated that he used to talk regularly to his sister through mobile phone. On 01.03.2019 when her sister did not call, he tried to call her, but her phone appears to be switched off. This fact has been narrated by him to his wife Sulekha Bose and also to his elder sister Shefali Thakur. All of them came to Raipur to meet her on 02.03.2019 and found her house locked. The persons of nearby vicinity and neighbours have narrated them that their sister Hemprabha Bose died in the intervening night of 25-26th February, 2019. He also states that the neighbors have also informed them that on the fateful night they have heard the noise of quarrel between the appellant and the deceased. Thereafter, he has made a police complaint regarding suspicious death of his sister. He denied the fact that her sister was a patient of Sugar, BP and Asthama. He denied the fact also that on 25.02.2019 he came to Raipur and he along with appellant has taken the deceased to Ramkrishna Care Hospital Raipur where the doctors have declared her brought dead.

16. PW-2, Sonali Thakur, is the sister of the deceased. She also states that she came to Raipur along with her brother on 02.03.2019 where the neighbors have disclosed the incident that in the intervening night of 25-26th February, 2019 there was a quarrel between the appellant and the deceased and after that the deceased was not seen by them. She has further stated that in the police station when the police have inquired from the appellant, he discloses that he assaulted his mother when she refused to give him money and when she died, he has donated her deadbody to the Medical College, Raipur. At the time of inquest, she saw the injuries over the body of the deceased.

17. PW-9, Dr. Shiv Narayan Manjhi, who is a member of team who have conducted the postmortem of the deadbody of the deceased, have stated in his deposition that on 03.03.2019 the deadbody of a person, aged about 68 years, were brought before him for the postmortem. The body was of a fatty lady. Rigor mortis was present. Hypostasis was also present. Both eyes and mouth was closed. Tongue was inside her mouth. Smell of Formalin comes out from the body. The injuries were found on the body of the deceased which have been mentioned in the preceding paragraph of this judgment. In the internal examination, he found small clotted blood in the brain under right parietal region. Larynx and Trachea was healthy. Internal organs were getting hard due to Formalin. Tissues were taken for Histopathology examination and send it to the pathology department. Videography of the postmortem proceeding was done. Viscera was also sent for chemical examination. After postmortem examination, they have opined that cause of death is under investigation & reserved pending histopathology & viscera report. Histopathology sample is sent to department of pathology, Pt. J.N.M. Medical College, Raipur. Viscera sample is sent to FSL through the concerned police constable. Multiple external contusions present which are caused by hard & blunt force impact by an object/trauma. Doctor also opined that time since death cannot be determined due to embalming procedure already done on the body.

18. Postmortem report is Ex.P/7. This witness has also re-iterated the query report Ex.P/13 and P/14. In cross examination, this witness has admitted that there was no contusion on the head of the deceased. He further admits that finger marks would come on the neck if the deceased would have been died due to strangulation, but there is no injuries found on the neck of the deceased. He admits that there is no mention in the postmortem report that the death of the deceased is homicidal in nature. He further admits that injuries found on the body of the deceased was simple in nature. He also admits that internal bleeding would have been possible on account of increasing blood pressure. He admits that contusions found on the body of the deceased was of 2-4 days prior to her death. He further states that due to embalming procedure, the time elapsed since death could not be ascertained at the time of conducting postmortem. He also admits that injuries found on the body of the deceased could be of different time and different place.

19. Viscera report submitted by the prosecution does not show that it contains poisonous substance. There is no Histopathology examination report. For the reasons best known to the prosecution as to why Histopathology examination report has not been submitted by the police.

20. From the evidence available on record, the prosecution could not establish the fact that death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. Except postmortem report, there is no other cogent and clinching evidence available on record to show that the deceased died due to any injuries or in an unnatural circumstances for which the appellant is responsible so that it can be held that the death of the deceased is homicidal.

21. In case of Chandrapal Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022:INSC:629, Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 7&8 has held as under:

"7. At the outset, it may be stated that undisputedly the entire case of the prosecution rested on the circumstantial evidence, as there was no eye witness to the alleged incident. The law on the appreciation of circumstantial evidence is also well settled. The circumstances concerned "must or should be" established and not "may be" established, as held in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra1. The accused "must be" and not merely "may be" guilty before a court can convict him. The conclusions of guilt arrived at must be sure conclusions and must not be based on vague conjectures. The entire chain of circumstances on which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn, should be fully established and should not leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. The five golden principles enumerated in case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra2 laid down in para 152 may be reproduced herein for ready reference:

"152. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established:

(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned "must or should" and not "may be" established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between "may be proved" and "must be or should be proved" as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793 [LQ/SC/1973/251] : 1973 1 : (1973) 2 SCC 793 2 (1984) 4 SCC 116 [LQ/SC/1984/171] SCC (Cri) 1033 : 1973 Crl LJ 1783] where the observations were made : [SCC para 19, p. 807 : SCC (Cri) p. 1047]

"Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions."

(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency,

(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, 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 and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."

8. It is also needless to reiterate that for the purpose of proving the charge for the offence under Section 302, the prosecution must establish "homicidal death" as a primary fact. In order to convict an accused under Section 302, the court is required to first see as to whether the prosecution has proved the factum of homicidal death... "

22. In the instant case, there is no evidence on record either oral or documentary which shows that death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. Yet, the trial Court has held that death of the deceased is homicidal.

23. So far as the involvement of the appellant in crime in question is concerned, we have carefully examined the evidence available on record.

24. The complainant PW-1, Jagdish Chandra Bose was not residing with the deceased at Raipur, but resides at Makdi, Kanker. He made his complaint on suspicion that the death of the deceased was not informed to him and therefore her death is suspicious. The documents obtained by the police Ex.P/31 which is issued by Ramkrishna Care Hospital, Raipur, disclosing the fact that deceased was brought dead to the hospital on 26.02.2019 at 00:10 am i.e. intervening night of 25-26th February, 2019. When the deceased was declared dead, he made an application to the police Station Moudhapara, Raipur, for getting the deadbody in Supurdnama vide Ex.P/32 and the police has permitted him to take the deadbody in Supurdnama and thereafter on 26.02.2019 itself the appellant has donated the deadbody of the deceased to the Medical College, Raipur vide Ex.P/33. After completion of due process for the same, he donated the deadbody to the Medical College. Ex.P/30 is the declaration made by the deceased that after her death, her deadbody should be given to the Medical College for medical education.

25. PW-1 has stated in his deposition that the police has interrogated the appellant who disclosed before the police that he committed murder of his mother when she refused to give him money and he has donated her deadbody to Medical College to conceal the actual cause of her death and thereafter he made a complaint to the police. The police seized the doormats, bedsheet and other articles from his house vide Ex.P/4. When the body was taken out for postmortem, he saw the injury over the deadbody. He was also the witness of inquest Ex.P/5. In cross examination he denied that on 25.02.2019 the appellant has made a telephonic call to him and informed him the ill health of the deceased. He also denied that he came to Raipur on 25.02.2019 itself and taken the deceased to Raipur. He also denied that during merg inquiry he has given the statement that his sister is suffering from ailment and she is quite old lady. He admits that whenever his sister got ill, she has taken treatment from Ramkrishna Hospital. He admits that from 02.03.2019 the appellant was in police custody.

26. PW-2, Sonali Thakur is the sister of the deceased Hemprabha Bose. She has stated that from the age of 1 and ½ years the appellant was residing with the deceased. The deceased had informed her that the appellant used to harass and demanding money from her. On 02.03.2019 when they came to Raipur, the neighbors of the deceased have informed her that in the intervening night of 25-26th February there was quarrel between the appellant and the deceased and thereafter they have not seen her. They have raised suspicion that the appellant has murdered the deceased and taken her to Ramkrishna Care Hospital. She was not being informed by the appellant about the death of the deceased. This witness is also a hearsay witness except the fact that the deceased was residing with the appellant. She has stated that she disclosed before the police that her brother has informed her that the mobile phone of the deceased was found to be switched off, on 02.03.2019 they came to Raipur, the neighbors have informed them about the quarrel between appellant and deceased.

27. PW-3, Sarita Singh, is the neighbor of the deceased. She has also stated that there was quarrel between the appellant and deceased, but the appellant has not informed about death of the deceased. On fateful night she heard the noise of quarrel. After 2-3 days when other neighbors have asked the appellant about the deceased, he disclosed that she has died. In cross examination, she has stated that she has never intervened in the quarrel between them. She has also stated that the police has not taken her statement and she first time narrated the incident before the court.

28. PW-4, Meenu Mishra is also the neighbor and witness of the same fashion as PW-3 is. PW-5, Subrat Bose is the witness of seizure memo Ex.P/4 and notice of inquest Ex.P/5 and inquest Ex.P/6. In cross examination he has admitted that he has signed the document Ex.P/4 in the police station. He further admits that in the inquest memo Ex.P/6 there is no mention of any injury over the deadbody of the deceased.

29. PW-6, Uttam Karmkar is also the witness of notice Ex.P/5 and inquest Ex.P/6. He is also the witness of memorandum Ex.P/10 and seizure Ex.P/11. In cross examination, this witness has also admitted that he has signed the document Ex.P/10 in the police station before the postmortem of the deadbody. He further admits that at the time of inquest the maternal uncle of the appellant i.e. the complainant was also present there, but he has not made any complaint to the police regarding murder of the deceased by the appellant.

30. PW-7, Virendra Sharma and PW-8, Lal Rajendra Singh are the witnesses of seizure of DVR vide Ex.P/12. They have stated in their cross examination that DVR was seized after one week of the incident. When they went to the house of the appellant, the house was locked which was opened by the police. At the time of preparing document Ex.P/12, the appellant was also with the police. DVR was not sealed after its seizure.

31. PW-10, Durgesh Rawte, is a Police Inspector who conducted part of the investigation and seized DVR vide Ex.P/12. The contents of the DVR was kept in a Pen Drive through Ghanshyam Agrawal Baba Enterprises and obtained a certificate Ex.P/17 from Ghanshyam Agrawal. Videography of postmortem was also kept in a CD which was also seized vide Ex.P/18. He has seized doormats, bedsheet and blood like stains, cloths vide Ex.P/19 and sent it for its forensic examination. Seized articles were sent for its FSL examination. He has made a query to the doctor vide Ex.P/24 and obtained query report vide Ex.P/14. In cross examination, he has admitted that there is no certificate or Gumasta license of said Baba Enterprises with respect to Computer work. He admits that when he went to the house of the appellant to seize the DVR, the house was closed. He could not tell as to whether any lock was there or not, but there was no person inside the house. He admits that on 05.03.2019 the appellant was in jail. The DVR was seized in absence of the appellant. There was no Panchnama prepared before entering into the house of the appellant. The said DVR was not sealed after its seizure. There was no notice to the witnesses before seizure of said DVR. He admits that the Malkhana register which relates to seizure of said DVR has not been produced by him. He also admits that the doctor has not opined that cause of death of the deceased is homicidal. Rather, he opined that it is a matter of investigation. He admits that during the course of investigation he came to know that on 01.03.2019 the natural death of the deceased was published in daily newspaper. He further admits that during investigation he came to know that deadbody of the deceased was a non MLC case and after completion of entire formalities the deadbody was donated in the Medical College, Raipur.

32. PW-11, Subhash Pawar, Sub Inspector of Police, has conducted part of the investigation, recorded memorandum and made certain seizures vide Ex.P/4, P/11 and arrest memo Ex. P/27.

33. PW-12, Radheshyam Upadhyay, is the witness who has recorded merg intimation Ex.P/3 on the basis of written complaint made by the complainant Jagdish Chandra Bose and prepared the inquest Ex. P/6. In cross examination, this witness admits that at the time of inquest, the complainant and his family members have not stated anything about the assault made by the appellant. Only suspicion was raised. He further admits that at the time of inquest, PW-2 Sonali Thakur have not intimated any injury over the body of the deceased.

34. PW-13, MK Pandey, is the Patwari who has prepared spot map Ex.P/16. PW-14, Sunil Dhruw is the Head Constable who have prepared seizure memo Ex.P/18.

35. PW-15, Dr. Manik Chatterjee, was a Professor at Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru Memorial Medical College Hospital, Raipur. He has stated that on 26.02.2019 the appellant has donated deadbody of the deceased by giving an application to the Anatomy Department. Along with his application, the appellant has also submitted death certificate of the deceased issued by Ramkrishna Care Hospital, Raipur. Donation of deadbody was informed to the Police Station Moudhapara, Raipur. After receiving deadbody in donation, they have preserved the deadbody and subsequently the police has demanded the same for its postmortem and they have given the body to the police on 03.03.2019. Death certificate issued by Ramkrishna Care Hospital is Ex.P/31. The application made by the appellant is Ex.P/32. The application for donation of deadbody is Ex.P/33. Driving license of the appellant is Ex.P/34. In cross examination, this witness has admitted that they were taken the deadbody on donation only after declaration by the police that the said deadbody is a non MLC body. In Ex. P/32 the police has certified that it was a non MLC body.

36. The appellant himself has been examined as DW-1, who has stated that the deceased was his real mother who died four year back. She was an old lady and was suffering from various ailments. Her mother was a divorced lady. Ex.D/3 is the marriage certificate of his parents. His birth certificate is Ex.D/4. In cross examination, this witness has admitted that he has not filed any document relating to any ailment of his mother, but for the reason that he is the real son of deceased Hemprabha Bose or not. He himself has been examined and submitted his birth certificate that he is the real son of deceased Hemprabha Bose. Nothing significant is there in his deposition so as to affect the cause of death of the deceased or the person who is responsible for death of the deceased.

37. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, the prosecution did not able to prove that death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. In absence of any findings or cogent and clinching evidence with respect to death of the deceased being homicidal in nature, the appellant cannot be convicted for the offence. Document Ex.P/31 shows that the deceased was firstly being taken to Ramkrishna Care Hospital, Raipur, where she was declared as brought dead, thereafter he informed the police on 26.02.2019 vide Ex.P/32 and obtained permission to get the deadbody in Supurdnama and thereafter on the same day donated the deadbody to Anatomy Department of Pt. JNM Medical College, Raipur, which has been proved by PW-15, Dr. Manik Chatterjee, who states that after completion of due formalities they have taken the deadbody on donation and preserved it for medical education.

38. When the case of the prosecution rest on circumstantial evidence, it was imperative for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that death of the deceased was homicidal death and not suicidal, more particularly when the line of defence of the appellant was that the deceased died due to her ailment and Dr. Shivnarayan Manjhi, PW-9, who was a member of team who conducted postmortem of the deadbody of the deceased, have opined that the cause of death is under investigation & reserved pending histopathology & viscera report. Histopathology sample is sent to department of pathology, Pt. J.N.M. Medical College, Raipur, and viscera sample is sent to FSL through the concerned police constable. In order to convict an accused under Section 302 IPC the first and foremost aspect to be proved by the prosecution is the factum of homicidal death. If the evidence of prosecution falls short of proof of homicidal death of the deceased, and if the possibility of death by ailment could not be ruled out, in the opinion of this court, the appellant could not have been convicted for causing murder of the deceased in the absence of any finding that the death of deceased was homicidal in nature.

39. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we are of the opinion that the trial Court has wrongly came to conclusion that death of the deceased is homicidal in nature and the appellant is liable for causing murder of his mother.

40. For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.06.2023 is set aside. The appellant stands acquitted from all the charges. The appellant is reported to be in jail since 05.03.2019. He be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.

41. Keeping in view the provisions of section 437-A of Cr.P.C., the appellant is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in terms of Form No. 45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of some of Rs. 25,000/- with two reliable sureties in the like amount before the court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of special leave petition against the instant judgement or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

42. The lower court records along with a copy of this judgement be sent back immediately to the trial court, concerned for compliance and necessary action.