However, even discounting the extra judicial confession, I am of the opinion the prosecution case is fully established by the fact that there is ample evidence on record to show that the appellants were present in the house when the victim girl was murdered. Evidence of doctor, PW 11 discloses extensive external and internal injuries in and around the mouth of the victim. He opined that the death was due to the effects of smothering, ante mortem and homicidal in nature. In the face of such evidence disclosing homicidal of a seven year old child it was incumbent on the appellants to explain the circumstance leading to such ghastly end. In order to discharge such onus, appellant no. 1 gave a wholly improbable explanation that the child had died due to epilepsy. Such explanation is squarely ruled out by the medical evidence of PW 11, as aforesaid. Appellants were present with the victim child in the house on the fateful day i.e. on 7.5.2014 at 4 p.m. when the minor suffered homicidal death. No other person was present in the house at that time. Explanation offered with regard to the cause of death of the child by appellant no. 1, namely, epilepsy is a false and incredible one.
