DR. ARUIT PASAYAT, J.-

Death sentence awarded by learned Sessions Judge, Satara having been affirmed in appeal and in the reference made under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "the Code") by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, this appeal has been filed. The appellant was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 363, 376,302 and 201 of the Penal Code, 1860 (in short "IPC").

2. Two young girls who had not even seen ten summers in life were the victims of the sexual assault and animal lust of the appellant-accused. They were not only raped but were murdered by the appellant-accused. This is not the first occasion when the appellant has been convicted for rape of minor girls. Earlier in Sessions Case No. 145 of 1990 (sic), the appellant was convicted by learned I1Ird Additional Sessions Judge, Thane by judgment dated 12-6-1989 for kidnapping a minor girl and committing rape on her. Strangely, in that case the trial court had sentenced him to imprisonment for two years on each count. Thereafter the accused was again convicted in Sessions Case No. 162 of 1989 for having raped a minor girl of less than nine years on 28-7-1989. He was convicted by learned I1Ird Additional Sessions Judge, Satara and sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment. He was released after completion of said sentence and thereafter continued his degraded acts. Two girls; one was aged about five years and the other about ten years were raped which formed the subject-matter of consideration in this appeal.

3. Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:

The family of the complainant Jaysing Dinkar Jadhav (PW 10) lived at Gulumb in the locality of homeless people. He is the brother of the grandfather of deceased Neelam and Gauri. The complainant has one brother named Vinayak. Ramdas Vinayak Jadhav (PW 13) is the son ofVinayak. He and his family members lived jointly at Gulumb at the time of the incident. Deceased Gauri was the daughter of Ramdas Jadhav. At the relevant time, the complainant and other son of Vinayak i.e. Chandrakant were living at Khandala. Neelam is the daughter of Chandrakant but she was staying at Gulumb for the purpose of education. She was studying in I st Standard, whereas, Gauri was studying in 4th Standard. They were all residing in Beghar Vasti i.e. area of homeless people at Gulumb. Accused, Mohan Anna Chavan was also residing along with his wife Manda Chavan (PW 7) and daughter Reshma (PW 8) in the said locality of homeless people at Gulumb. His house was next to the house of Ramdas Jadhav and Tanaji Jadhav.

4. Tanaji Jadhav (PW 5) was the cousin brother of both Neelam and Gauri. He was also residing in Beghar Vasti. On the night intervening between 12-12-1999 to 13-12-1999 at about 2.00 a.m. Tanaji (PW 5) had a accompanied his wife for answering nature's call. At that time, the accused arrived at Gulumb from Bombay. He asked Tanaji to go home and told Tanaji that he will wait there. Thereupon, there was a quarrel between the two. Then the accused left from there. On the next day i.e. on 14-12-1999 (sic 13-121999) at about 1.30 p.m. there was quarrel between the accused and his wife Manda (PW 7). At that time Tanaji had peeped into the house and thereafter b there was a quarrel between the accused and Tanaji. There was a scuffle between the two. At that time, the accused told Tanaji that he would settle the matter in the evening.

5. On the same day in the evening at about 6.00 p.m. Reshma (PW 8) and the accused had gone to the grocery shop of Sunil (PW 6) for purchase of grocery articles. Reshma as noted above is the daughter of the accused. Similarly, at the same time Neelam and Gauri were also sent to the grocery shop for purchase of dry coconut, by their family members. The girls met the accused and Reshma and Gauri asked him to give sweets (khau) to them. The accused said that he did not have change and the accused asked Gauri and Neelam to accompany him. So saying, he too