The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of proving the chain of circumstances in a case based on circumstantial evidence, and the consideration of the accused's conduct in relation to the crime.

JUDGMENT :

Milind N. Jadhav, J.

1. This Appeal questions the legality of Judgment and Order dated 27th March 2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge – 4, District Nashik in Sessions Case No. 142 of 2012, convicting Appellant (original accused) under Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “Cr.P.C.") for offences punishable under Section 302 read with 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life for committing the murder of his wife Sangita and two minor sons Shiva (2½ years) and Chotu (7 months) and to destroy evidence and cause disappearance of their murder by throwing/disposing their dead bodies in the banks of Godavari river and Padolmala canal.

2. Prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. The gist of the prosecution facts which emerge for consideration are as under:-

2.1. Appellant and deceased were married on 22.04.2009. After marriage, Sangita went to stay with Appellant at Nashik but Appellant sent her back to Bisapur (U.P.). Appellant meted ill-treatment to Sangita hence, PW-9 Amitkumar Jayaprasad Pal, brother of deceased Sangita lodged complaint against Appellant about ill-treatment to Sangita at Bisapur Thana – Hussainganj, Dist. Fattepur (U.P.). Appellant was summoned to the police station at Hussainganj by police Authorities and was told not to ill-treat Sangita. Pursuant thereto on 27.12.2011, Appellant brought Sangita back to Nashik along with their two sons.

2.2. PW-9 – brother of Sangita regularly kept in touch with Sangita and made enquiry of her well being on the mobile phone of Appellant. Sangita used to tell him about ill-treatment by Appellant. On 18.01.2012, PW-9 and younger sister of Sangita called her on the mobile phone of Appellant and had conversation with her. Sangita informed them that on that day, they were moving out from their rented house and hence she was packing the household articles.

2.3. Thereafter, PW-9 and his sister were not able to speak to Sangita and establish any contact with her. Hence on 24.01.2012, they contacted Lavlesh Dharmpal, maternal brother of Appellant and asked him to enquire about Sangita’s well being. Lavlesh contacted Appellant on phone but was unable to speak to Sangita. On 29.01.2012 Appellant informed Lavlesh on phone that she had eloped from their matrimonial house along with the two sons. Hence, on 31.01.2012 Lavlesh reached Nashik to meet Appellant but Appellant did not meet him as he was in Uttar Pradesh. Lavlesh accordingly informed PW-9.

2.4. On 03.02.2012, PW-9 met Appellant in Bisapur and made enquiry about Sangita and her two sons. Appellant informed that Sangita had run away from their house along with the two sons and he did not know her whereabouts. On 28.02.2012 PW-9 reached Nashik and lodged a missing report of Sangita and her two sons at Panchavati Police Station. PW-9 also expressed apprehension about Appellant’s conduct; police authorities therefore summoned Appellant for enquiry. On 28.02.2012 Appellant gave evasive answers to police, hence on 29.02.2012, Appellant was once again subjected to enquiry by police authorities, during which he confessed about having killed Sangita by strangulating her neck and his two sons Shiva and Chotu and disposed their bodies on the banks of Godavari river beneath Indraprastha bridge and into the Nala beneath the canal at Padolmala road near Makhmalabad road.

2.5. Appellant led police to the aforementioned places for recovery and seizure. One plastic gunny bag tied with rope was recovered from beneath Indraprastha bridge on the banks of Godavari river; the gunny bang was opened in the presences of pancha witnesses; one decomposed dead body of female was found inside the gunny bag; PW-9 identified that the dead body was of Sangita on the basis of saree; so also Appellant identified before the police that the dead body was of Sangita; thereafter, accused led police to the Nala beneath the canal at Padolmala road where