The judgment emphasizes the requirement for conclusive and corroborative evidence in cases based on circumstantial evidence, and the necessity for fair and comprehensive questioning of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.

Manish Pitale, J.

1. By this appeal, the appellant-sole accused has challenged the judgment and order dated 11.09.2015 passed by the Sessions Court, Yavatmal, in Sessions Case No. 19 of 2014, whereby the appellant has been held guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the murder of his wife and daughter and he has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. There is also direction to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month.

2. There is no eyewitness to the incident in the present case and admittedly it is the case of the conviction based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution case is that on 28.09.2013, the wife and daughter of the appellant were found dead in the morning by PW3 Parubai, a neighbor and upon her raising an alarm, the matter was reported to the Police and father of the deceased-wife of the appellant i.e. PW1 Deorao Karande submitted an oral report on the basis of which first information report (FIR) was registered on the same day.

3. The wife and one and half month old daughter of the appellant were found with their throats slit open with profuse bleeding. A knife was also found near the dead bodies. According to PW3 Parubai, the appellant also came to the spot where the bodies were lying and that his clothes were stained with blood. According to PW1 Deorao, the appellant had caused the death of his wife and minor daughter and on that basis, an FIR was registered and investigation was undertaken.

4. Upon investigation, it was found that the appellant was living with his wife and daughter in a camp near the forest where there were tents in which various persons were living, including the appellant and his family and that all of them were taking care of sheep, which were kept in the space surrounded by tents. The spot panchanama, seizure panchanamas and the post mortem reports were prepared on the day of the incident i.e. 28.09.2013 and the appellant was arrested at 8.10 p.m. on the same day. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses in order to prove its case. The defence of the appellant was of total denial.

5. By the judgment and order under challenge, the Sessions Court has found that although the present case is purely of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has been able to establish that the appellant alone was responsible for the death of his wife and minor daughter. The Sessions Court has placed emphasis on the fact that both the deceased were in his custody and they were living with him in the same tent and that the appellant had failed to give any explanation regarding the serious injuries suffered by the deceased. Apart from this, the Sessions Court has held the presence of blood stains on the clothes of the appellant as an incriminating circumstance pointing towards his guilt, particularly because the blood group of such blood stains was found to be group “A” while the blood group of the accused was found to be blood group “B”. According to the Sessions Court, these factors proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

6. Mr. S.D. Chande, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the prosecution had failed to bring on record chain of circumstances which proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and that mere presence of dead bodies outside the tent of the appellant was not a sufficient circumstance to hold against the appellant. It was further contended that the seizure of the clothes of the appellant was also doubtful and that the prosecution had failed in its duty to conclusively prove each link of chain of circumstances to prove the guilt of the appellant.

7. On the other hand, Mr. N.R. Rode, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State, submitted that the judgment and order of the Sessions Court was in tune with the law relating to cases of circumstantial evidence and that no fault could be found with the conviction and sentence impose