JUDGMENT

Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J.

1. Appellant, an accused held guilty of committing the murder of four children and a woman with whom he was living as husband and wife and sentenced to death is before us with the leave of the Court.

2. Residents of Rupla Naik Tanda, a remote village in District Nanded in the State of Maharashtra were horrified when few of its natives found four dead bodies floating in the village pond in the morning of 21st August, 2007. A male child of six years alongwith a female child of ten years and another female child of ten years alongwith a male child of two to four years were tied separately. P.W.1 Yashwant Jadhav, Inspector of Rupla Naik Tanda outpost came to know about the presence of dead-bodies in the pond through a villager and reached there at 8.00 A.M. There besides the aforesaid dead-bodies, he found the body of an unidentified woman with Mangalsutra on her neck below a boulder. He accordingly informed the Mahur Police Station and on that basis crime under Section 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code was registered and the investigation was entrusted to the Police Inspector Parmeshwar Munde (P.W.14). He went to the spot took out the dead bodies from the Pond and prepared the inquest reports. During the course of investigation, Maroti Madavi identified the dead body of the woman to be his daughter, Anita and the two children of deceased Anita born to her from the first husband and two children from the Appellant herein. Search was made to apprehend the Appellant but he was not found till 24th August, 2007. During the course of investigation, it further transpired that the deceased Anita who was living with the Appellant as his wife had come to know about his illicit relationship with P.W.6, Muktabai. The deceased used to protest the said relationship. This relationship led to serious dispute amongst deceased Anita, Muktabai and the Appellant. Appellant orally divorced Muktabai and agreed to pay Rs. 15,000/- to her. It was the deceased Anita who promised to pay the amount. Thereafter, Muktabai went to her village and the Appellant the deceased Anita and the four children came to Juna Pani where because of the strained relationship, Appellant committed the murder of Anita and the four children.

3. Police after usual investigation submitted the charge-sheet under Section 201 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the Appellant was ultimately committed to the Court of Session to face the trial. Appellant denied to have committed any offence and claimed to be tried.

4. In order to bring home the charge the prosecution has altogether examined 14 witnesses besides a large number of documents have been exhibited. There is no eye-witness to the occurrence and relying on the circumstantial evidence the trial court came to the conclusion that the circumstances proved clearly lead to one and the only conclusion that the Appellant had committed the murder of the four children and Anita and in order to cause disappearance of evidence of murder threw the dead bodies in the Pond. For coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the trial court held that the Appellant had motive to commit the crime and the five deceased were last seen in the company of the Appellant. Further extra-judicial confessions given before PW.6, Muktabai and PW.9, Ishwar were reliable. Failure to explain the circumstances under which all of them met homicidal death were taken into consideration to hold the Appellant guilty of the charge. Abscondence was another circumstance relied on by the trial court to hold the Appellant guilty. The trial court awarded the death sentence. On appeal, the High Court concurred with the findings of the trial court and finding the case to be one amongst the rarest of the rare cases confirmed the death sentence.

5. We have heard Mr. Manoj Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant; whereas Respondent-State is represented by Mr. Sushil Karanjakar.

6. All the deceased met a homicidal death has not been questione