The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on circumstantial evidence, including bloodstains on the accused's clothing matching the victims' blood groups, to establish guilt in a murder case.

JUDGMENT :

Shrikant D. Kulkarni, J.

1. Feeling dissatisfied by the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed in Sessions Case No.302/2010 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, the Appellant / original Accused has preferred this appeal by taking aid of Section 374 of Cr.P.C.

2. The prosecution story in brief is as under-

The Appellant / Accused Rajeshkumar Bhadoriya was residing with his wife Sangita, two daughters namely Tanishka aged 5 years and Aayushi aged 16 years in Flat No.1/103, Anamitra, B Wing, Prakruti Park, Bramhand, Ghodbandar Road, Thane. On 30 March 2010, PSI Rajendra Gujar (P.W.2) received phone call from Police Constable Bartad (P.W.10) attached to Thane Nagar Police Station deputed in the Civil Hospital Police Chowki Thane who informed that Sangita (wife of Appellant / Accused) was brought by her husband Rajeshkumar in the Civil Hospital Thane for medical treatment, with a case history that his wife Sangita sustained head injury due to fall of cupboard. The Medical Officer on duty, declared her dead. On that basis, PSI Rajendra Gujar took entry in the station diary vide ADR No.23/2010 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. at Kasarwadavali Police Station, Thane. He informed such fact to his senior officers. He then rushed to Civil Hospital alongwith WPC Divar. On making inquiry with the Medical Officer of Civil Hospital Thane, PSI Gujar came to know that deceased Sangita was brought dead. Accordingly, PSI Gujar prepared panchanama of the dead body of Sangita in presence of two panch witnesses. He noticed that there were several head injuries on the corpse of Sangita coupled with other injury marks. He therefore requested Medical Officer to issue advance death certificate and Post Mortem notes. In the meanwhile, PSI Gujar also came to know that daughter of Appellant / Accused namely Tanishka has also sustained serious injuries and she has been admitted in Lok Hospital. Accordingly, PSI Gujar lodged FIR on behalf of State with Kasarwadavali Police Station and on that basis Crime No.83/2010 under Section 302 and 307 of IPC came to be registered against the Appellant and criminal law was put in motion for further investigation.

3. The investigation was entrusted to Sr. PI Pramod Khade (P.W.15). On the very day, injured daughter Tanishka succumbed to serious injuries in Lok Hospital Thane. The dead body of Tanishka was sent to Civil Hospital, Thane for post mortem examination and report.

4. The Appellant / Accused came to be arrested. The panchanama of the scene of offence came to be prepared and muddemal articles were seized from the scene of offence. On the basis of disclosure statement given by the Appellant, iron pestle (lokhandi batta) and blood stained clothes of Appellant/ Accused were recovered and seized under panchanama. Sr. PI Khade recorded statement of witnesses and found sufficient incriminating evidence against the Appellant / Accused during the course of investigation. After receiving the post mortem report and cause of death, Sr. PI Khade filed chargesheet against the Appellant / Accused in the concerned Court of JMFC at Thane. The learned JMFC committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Thane for trial, according to law.

5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thane framed charge against the Appellant / Accused vide Exh.5. The trial was commenced. The prosecution agency has examined in all 16 witnesses and also produced documentary stock of evidence.

6. While completing the exercise of recording statement of Accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. an opportunity was extended to Appellant / Accused to explain about unfortunate death of his wife and small daughter. He defended that he is not the author of crime. It was a case of attempt of robbery in his flat in the early morning when he was away for morning walk. He defended that he was falsely implicated by police machinery. However, he did not chose to examine any defence witness.

7. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thane after appreciating the ev