B P DHARMADHIKARI, J.

1. The judgment and order dated 26/4/2018 delivered by Sessions Judge, Nashik in Sessions Case No.189 of 2016 sentencing the accused to death under section 302 IPC form the subject matter of this confirmation case. Very same judgment is questioned by the convict Ramdas in Criminal Appeal No.735 of 2018. Criminal Application No. 901 of 2018 is taken out for dispensing with the affidavit of convict Ramdas who is in jail.

2. As per the case of prosecution, the incident of double murder has taken place in the night intervening 17th and 18th April, 2016. The FIR in relation to this double murder has been registered at 2.40 pm on 18/4/2016. PW 1 Kacharu Sansare is the reporter. Deceased Pallavi, aged about 34 years happened to be his wife and Vishal, aged about 6 years happened to be his son.

3. He was occupying Northern side ground floor portion on rent in the house of Rangnath Shinde. The tenanted premises are separated from remaining ground floor potion by East-West partition wall. The tenanted premises can be accessed through a door opening on the backside of ground floor. Front portion of ground floor is in the occupation of accused Ramdas who is son of Rangnath Shinde. Rangnath Shinde and his son Vinod reside on 1 st floor of this building. Ramdas was residing with his wife and children on ground floor.

4. On 17/4/2016 Kachru, his wife and son arrived back from the place called Taharabad. After taking some rest and food at about 6.40 p.m. Kachru went to attend his duty in the night shift. He came back at about 7.00 am on 18/4/2016 and found the door of his house locked from outside. He then went to the house of his sister to enquire about his wife and son and thereafter to the house of another sister. He could not get any information and hence, he came back. Vinod, son of landlord then enquired from him and also told him that light and fan in Kachru's house were on. As such the informant went to kitchen room of accused, he peeped into the tenanted portion through a cement window and found his wife and son sleeping. He tried to wake them up, but could not succeed.

5. Kachru therefore, went to his sister Satyabhama and returned along with her and nephew Rajendra. They broke the lock and entered the house. He found pool of blood on the floor and there were no cloths on the person of his wife. His wife and son both were dead. He informed Satpur police station at about 8.30 am on telephone and police came to his house. Thereafter he filed report at Exh. 26.

6. In the present mater, homicidal death of the deceased wife and son is not in dispute. There are no eye witnesses. The trial court has relied upon the circumstantial evidence and the learned APP has also relied upon these circumstances while respondent accused attempted to show that none of the circumstances are proved at all.

7. First circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is neighbour PW 5 Dipali, seeing accused Ramdas going towards the tenanted premises at about 10.45 pm. Second circumstance is phone calls and extra judicial confession by the accused to his friend PW 9 Subhash Rajput. Third circumstance is of recovery of the blood stained cloths of accused under section 27 of the Evidence Act, recovery of blood stained knife and a key from the accused under section 27 of Evidence Act only. Lastly learned APP has submitted that wife and children of the accused were not at home that night and hence, the accused was alone. He absconded after murder and was arrested at 2.05 pm on 19/4/2016 near one hotel. Accused also could not explain the blood on his cloths.

8. It is in this backdrop that we have heard Advocate Nikam for the accused and learned APP Smt. Shinde for the State.

9. By inviting attention to deposition of PW Kachru and spot panchanama Exh. 44, as also map of spot at Exh. 106, Advocate Nikam submits that the police initially had detained Kachru only as suspect and in late afternoon, they have recorded the FIR. The FIR has been recorded af