A.S. Chandurkar J.

This appeal under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code takes exception to the judgment dated 24th August 2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Wardha in Sessions Case No.184 of 2007 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the Penal Code) and has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the murder of his mother-Anusayabai and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two years. The appellant has also been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the murder of his sister-Sandhya and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two years. Both the sentences have been directed to run one after the other.

2. The case of the prosecution as can be gathered from the material on record is that the appellant used to reside with his mother and sister at village Babhulgaon. The appellant wanted to marry the sister-in-law of his brother but the same was objected to by his mother and sister. According to the prosecution in the night between 01.08.2007 and 02.08.2007 i.e. at about 12.30 a. m. when the mother and sister were sleeping, the appellant gave blows with heavy wooden log on their heads causing their death. Thereafter the appellant put chili powder in his own eyes and made hue and cry. People thereafter gathered at said place and on noticing two dead bodies informed the police. The police thereafter prepared spot panchanama and sent the bodies for postmortem. On 02.08.2007 First Information Report was lodged against an unknown offender. Subsequently, the dog squad was called and as the trained dog who was given smell of the wooden log barked at the appellant, the appellant was arrested and thereafter put to trial. The charge sheet was thereafter submitted before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class and as the case was triable by the Sessions Court it was accordingly committed for trial. On the charge being read over to the appellant he pleaded not guilty. After the conclusion of the trial the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Penal Code as stated above. Hence the present appeal.

3. Shri R. M. Daga, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been wrongly convicted by the trial Court. According to the learned counsel entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. However, the chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of the appellant has not been established beyond doubt. It is submitted that merely because the appellant was present at the site of the offence i.e. his own house, he was made accused in the aforesaid case and tried. It is submitted that the seizure of the wooden log has not been duly proved. It is stated that while the seizure memorandum at Ex.44 dated 02.08.2007 indicates the time of seizure as 13.30 Hrs. in the cross examination of P. W. 6-P. S. I. of dog squad indicates that the said squad had reached the spot of incidence at about 3.45 P. M. Thereafter the dog was made to smell wooden log. It is, therefore, submitted that when the said wooden log was shown to have been seized at 13.30 hrs. on 02.08.2007, the question of dog being made to smell the wooden log at 3.45 P.M. would not arise. It is further submitted that though First Information Report was lodged on 02.08.2007 and the dog squad was also immediately called on the same day, the appellant was arrested on 30.08.2007. Further the Medical Reports on record also clearly show injuries on the body of the appellant besides chili powder being thrown in his eyes. In absence of any motive on the part of the appellant being proved by the prosecution to commit aforesaid offence, conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained. The learned counsel, theref