JUDGMENT J.S. Verma, J.—This judgment shall also dispose of The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sudama Prasad and another Criminal Appeal No. 878 of 1973. 2. Sudama Prasad has been convicted for two offences u/s 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment for each of them for the murder of his mother Mathurabai and wife Rukhamanibai. On such conviction for the main offence, no separate conviction for the other offence punishable u/s 201, Indian Penal Code hits been made. Sudama Prasad's cousin Shyam Sunder was a co-accused with him and the Court below has come to the conclusion that there is a grave suspicion also against Shyam Sundar but there being room for a blight doubt in his case, Shyam Sunder has been given the benefit and acquitted of these offences. Sudama Prasad has preferred this appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 404/73) against his conviction and sentence. The State has preferred the other appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 878/73) against acquittal of Sudama Prasad u/s 201, Indian Penal Code and acquittal of Shyam Sunder for both the offences. 3. Accused Sudama Prasad was apparently an affluent person who also happened to be the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat of that area till his removal from that office by an order of the Collector, Hoshangabad passed in January 1972. Sudama Prasad lived in his own house at village Dharmkundi, P. S. Seoni-Malwa, district Hoshangabad along with his wife Rukhmanibai and mother Mathurabai. Admittedly Sudama Prasad was also keeping a concubine, namely, P. W. Sahibi who was kept by him in a garden house owned by him in the same village. 4. On the night between 19th and 20th August 1972 Sudama Prasad's wife Rukhamanibai and mother Mathurabai died in mysterious circumstances in their house during the admitted presence of accused Sudama Prasad. The other accused Shyam Sunder is also alleged to have been present in the house that night. The presence of anyone else in the house that night is neither alleged nor proved. The other accused Shyam Sunder is also alleged to have been present in the house that night. The presence of anyone else in the house that night is neither alleged nor proved. On the morning of 20th August 1972 accused Sudama Prasad called some neighbours and it was given out by him that sometime earlier in the morning when he woke up and happened to pass through the passage between the room in which he was sleeping and the adjoining room in which the two dead ladies were sleeping, he saw some burning object in the other room and also found some foul smell coming from that direction; he then went into that room and saw that his wife and mother had been burnt to death in their sleep. Some neighbours are said to have come and put off the dying fire but both the bodies had been completely charred by then. The co-accused Shyam Sunder is then stated to have informed the police of these two deaths at which the police officers came to Sudama Prasad's house at about 10 or 11 A.M. on 20th August 1972 when the necessary Panchnamas were made and the dead bodies were sent for post-mortem which led to further action in the matter. Accused Sudama Prasad was then charged with the murder of his wife and mother as also of the offence of concealing the evidence of the crime and his cousin Shyam Sunder was made a co-accused with him. The trial of both these accused has resulted in the manner aforesaid, which led to the present two appeals. 5. There is no direct evidence of the crime and both the dead bodies were found completely charred with 100% burns of the sixth degree as proved by the evidence of post-mortem. Accordingly, the post-mortem conducted on the two dead bodies could not reveal whether the burns were ante-mortem or post-mortem. In these circumstances, the evidence against the accused was essentially circumstantial coupled with the admitted presence of accused Sudama Prasad in an adjoining room in the same house from early hours of the night of 19th August 1972 when the two women were alive till the next morning when their dead bodies were found wholly charred. In these circumstances, the evidence against the accused was essentially circumstantial coupled with the admitted presence of accused Sudama Prasad in an adjoining room in the same house from early hours of the night of 19th August 1972 when the two women were alive till the next morning when their dead bodies were found wholly charred. The learned Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion on the basis of circumstantial evidence present in the case as well as the admission made by accused Sudama Prasad that the charge of murder of these two women is found proved beyond doubt against him and even though grave suspision arises also against his cousin co-accused Shyam Sunder who was admittedly present at the place of occurrence at least on the morning of 20th August 1972 when he proceeded to give intimation of the incident to the police, yet he was entitled to be acquitted by giving him benefit of doubt. We have now to see in these two appeals whether there is any ground for interfering with the conviction of Sudama Prasad or with the acquittal of the co-accused Shyam Sunder. 6. The post-mortem on the dead bodies was conducted by Dr. Morchhale (P. W. 14) on 21-8-1972. The post-mortem reports of deceased Mathurabai and Rukhamanibai are Exs-P-22 and P-23 respectively. Dr. Morchhale (P. W. 14) on post-mortem of the two dead bodies found as follows: Mathurabai (mother of accused Sudama Prasad) : It was a body of a female aged about 50 years. Both the upper arms were flexed and left lower limb was flexed. The right limb was charred, burnt and separated from the body. There was no smell of kerosene oil. I found the following burns on the body: (i) Burns over the face : Superficial skin and muscles were destroyed. Both the ears and nose were destroyed. (ii) Burns over the head : Hair, skin and muscles were destroyed. Bones were exposed. (iii) Burns over the neck : Muscles and skin were destroyed. (iv) Burns over the chest: Skin and muscles were destroyed. Ribs, cartilages and underlying viscera were destroyed. (v) Burns over the abdomen: Skin, muscles and underlying Viscera were destroyed and charred. (vi) Burns over the left limb : Skin and muscles were destroyed (vii) Burns over the right limb : Muscles and skin were destroyed. Bones were charred. (iv) Burns over the chest: Skin and muscles were destroyed. Ribs, cartilages and underlying viscera were destroyed. (v) Burns over the abdomen: Skin, muscles and underlying Viscera were destroyed and charred. (vi) Burns over the left limb : Skin and muscles were destroyed (vii) Burns over the right limb : Muscles and skin were destroyed. Bones were charred. (viii) Burns over the back: Skin and muscles were destroyed, (ix) Burns over the right arm : Skin and muscles were destroyed. Bones were charred. (x) Burns over the left arm : Skin and muscles were destroyed. Wounds, bruises and marks of ligature could not be ascertained due to advanced degree of burns. Hairs of the skull and skin were burnt and skull bone was exposed. Membranes and brain were liquified. Skin and muscles of the thoracic wall were burnt and destroyed. Pleura was destroyed. Lyranx and traches were burnt. Both the lungs were burnt and had become pulpy. Perceardium and burnt was destroyed. Heart had burnt and became pulpymass. Large vessels were burnt. Skin and muscle of the abdomen were burnt and destroyed. Peritonium was burnt. Mouth, oesophagus and pharynx were burnt. Stomach and its contents were burnt and charred Small intestines and large intestines were burnt and charred. Liver, spleen and kidney were burnt and became pulpy mass. Bladder was burnt. Uterus was present. Injuries to the muscles and bones, disease, fracture and dislocation could not be ascertained due to advanced degree of burns. Neither the mode nor the cause of death could be ascertained due to advanced degree of burns. Whether the burns were ante-mortem or post-mortem could not be ascertained as there was no healthy skin or Vacication was present. The burns were 100 per cent. Rukhamanibai (wife of accused Sudama Prasad): It was a body of a female, aged about 25 years, face was burnt, hairs of the head were burnt. Eye-sockets were empty. Body had burnt pieces of clothes. Gunny bag and rope of cot. There was no smell of kerosene The following burns were present: (i) Burns over the face: Skin and muscles of the face were destroyed. Bones were charred. Nose and both the ears were destroyed. (ii) Burns over the head : Skin and hairs of the head were destroyed. Skull bones exposed. (iii) Burns over the chest: Skin, muscles and cartilages were destroyed. Bones (ribs) were burnt and destroyed. Bones were charred. Nose and both the ears were destroyed. (ii) Burns over the head : Skin and hairs of the head were destroyed. Skull bones exposed. (iii) Burns over the chest: Skin, muscles and cartilages were destroyed. Bones (ribs) were burnt and destroyed. Underlying viscera were burnt and had become pulpy mass. (iv) Burns over the abdomen: Skin, muscles and Viscera were burnt and had become pulpy mass. (v) Burns over the right limb : Skin and muscles were destroyed. Tibia, fibula and lower one-third of femur were burnt and charred. (vi) Burns over the left limb: Skin, muscles were destroyed. Tibia, fibula and lower two-third of femur burnt and charred. (vii) Burns over the back : Skin and muscles were destroyed. (viii) Burns over the right arm: Skin and muscles were destryed. Bones were burnt and charred. (ix) Burns over the left arm : Skin and muscles were destroyed. Bones were burnt and charred. (x) Burns over the neck : Skin and muscles were destroyed. Wounds, bruises and marks of ligature could not be ascertained due to extensive burns. Hair of head, skin and muscles were burnt. Skull was intact. Sutures were separated. Membranes and brain were liquified. Walls of chest, cartilages were burnt and destroyed. Fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh and twellth right ribs were destroyed, and all the left ribs were burnt and charred. Larynx and trachea were burnt. Both the lungs were burnt, charred and became mass. Pericardium was burnt. Heart was burnt and had become mass. Large vessels were burnt. Abdominal walls, peritonium mouth, oesophagus and pharynx were burnt. Stomach was burnt and charred and became pulpy mass. Small intestines and large intestines were burnt and charred and had become pulpy mass. Liver, spleen were burnt and had become pulpy mass. Kidneys were not present. Bladder was burnt. Uterus was present. Injuries to the muscles and bones, disease or deformities, fracture or dislocation could not be ascertained due to advanced degree of burns. Whether the burns were ante-mortem or post-mortem could not be ascertained as neither the superficial skin nor the Vasication was present. The mode and cause of death could not be ascertained due to advanced degree of burns. Burns were 100 per cent. 7. Whether the burns were ante-mortem or post-mortem could not be ascertained as neither the superficial skin nor the Vasication was present. The mode and cause of death could not be ascertained due to advanced degree of burns. Burns were 100 per cent. 7. The doctor was further of the opinion based on his past experience of numerous burn cases that both the bodies had burnt simultaneously and for similar duration. He further stated that because of the very high degree of burns of both the bodies no symptoms could be detected to show whether the burns were ante-mortem or post-mortem. For this reason, the doctor could not give any opinion on the basis of the post-mortem whether the death of these two women was accidental, suicidal or homicidal. He further stated that even if the cot on which the dead body of Mathurabai was found and the cradle in the same room on which the body of Rukhmanibai was found were burnt along with the beddings and clothes of these women, such extensive injuries found an the dead bodies could not be caused. In view of the fact that no definite opinion about the cause of death could be given by the doctor on the basis of post-mortem conducted by him on the two dead bodies, on account of the extensive burns destroying all the possible indications in the body, the first question to be determined is whether the death of these two women was homicidal. 8. The learned Sessions Judge after an elaborate discussion of all the material present and the circumstances beyond controversy has come to the conclusion that the death of both these women was neither accidental nor suicidal but was definitely homicidal. On a reappraisal of the entire material present on record, we have come to the conclusion that this finding reached by the learned Sessions Judge does not suffer from any infirmity and must be accepted as correct. We shall briefly give our reasons for affirming this finding. 9. The dead body of Mathurabai was found lying face upwards on a cot in one of the living rooms of accused Sudama Prasad's house, the body being totally charred. The dead body of Rukhamanibai was similarly found lying in a cradle in the same room separated by a distance of about 2 feet from the cot on which the dead body of Mathurabai was found. The dead body of Rukhamanibai was similarly found lying in a cradle in the same room separated by a distance of about 2 feet from the cot on which the dead body of Mathurabai was found. The only other person whose presence is proved and is admitted, on the fateful night in that house was accused Sudama Prasad, There was nothing material found in that room where the dead bodies were lying on a cot and a cradle when persons went into the room on coming to know of the death of these two women from Sudama Prasad. A small kerosene oil lamp alone is said to have been found in that room at some distance. No other possible source of fire in that room is even suggested. 10. The suggestion of the defence counsel Shri Datt is that the flame from the burning kerosene oil lamp must have set the fire resulting in the death of the two women in this manner by accident. The other suggestion is that the two women may have been disgusted for some reason with their lives or, may be, with the wayward ways of accused Sudama Prasad and, therefore, they may have decided to commit suicide together. To our mind, both these suggestions are too preposterous to be accepted as even possible much less probable. 11. In our opinion, the manner in which the charred bodies of these two women were found lying on the cot and cradle in the same room completely excludes the possibility of their death either by an accidental fire or suicide. It is impossible to believe that the flame of the small kerosene oil lamp could have simultaneously ignited either the clothes or the bed of both these women when they were lying in two separate beds separated by a distance of at least 2 feet as has been proved by evidence. Even assuming that the bed or clothes of any one of them were ignited accidently in this manner, that does not explain the setting of fire to the clothes and bed of the other woman. Rukhamanibai was a young woman in her late twenties and Mathurabai too was not very old being only about 50 years in age Neither of these two women was infirm or disabled in any manner. Rukhamanibai was a young woman in her late twenties and Mathurabai too was not very old being only about 50 years in age Neither of these two women was infirm or disabled in any manner. There is absolutely no reason why even that woman whose clothes or bed may have caught lire could not get up from the bed and rush for help and the other woman would not come to her rescue leaving her own bed. Even assuming the improbable that the clothes or bed of both of them simultaneously caught fire, neither their clothes nor bed comprised of any highly inflammable substance so that the flames could spontaneously engulf them completely. At any rate, even in that situation, they would not remain lying coolly in the bed to let the fire consume their bodies in the manner they were found next morning. The suggestion of an accidental fire catching both or either of them is impossible to accept. On his own admission accused Sudama Prasad was the first person to enter that room and to find both the bodies totally charred and almost wholly consumed by fire. He does not say that any article was removed from that room or anything therein had been interfered with. It must, therefore, be assumed that the room was in the same condition as it was found next morning, if the fire commenced accidentally. The contents of the room and the condition in which it was found wholly excludes the possibility of any accidental fire to explain the burning of the bodies of both these women. We may reiterate that in case of an accidental fire catching these women, their bodies would not be found lying in the bed as they were discovered next morning. 12. In our opinion, the theory of suicide by these two women is also to be ruled out for obvious reasons. In the first place there is nothing to indicate the immediate cause for such an action on the part of these women. The wayward ways of accused Sudama Prasad had gone on for several years in the past and he had also been keeping a concubine for some years. In the first place there is nothing to indicate the immediate cause for such an action on the part of these women. The wayward ways of accused Sudama Prasad had gone on for several years in the past and he had also been keeping a concubine for some years. Moreover, even if for any reason accused Sudama Prasad's wife Rukhmanibai were to be incensed by the act of her husband keeping a concubine, that cannot be treated as a cogent reason for Sudama Prasad's mother Mathurabai committing suicide and that too in this manner. Unless there was a suicide pact entered into by these two women as a result of which they decided to end their lives at the same time, the result which ensued cannot be envisaged. According to the medical opinion, the period for which the two bodies were burning was nearly the same and both the dead bodies were found in almost similar condition. If it were a case of suicide, something else would have been found in the room to suggest the mode of committing suicide and in our opinion the only article, namely, a small kerosene oil lamp could not have been used for that purpose. According to the doctor, no smell of kerosene oil was found in either of the two bodies so that committing suicide by sprinkling kerosene oil over their bodies must be ruled out. Even assuming that suicide was committed in any other manner, it is impossible to accept that both these women lay down coolly in their beds and then allowed their bodies to burn in the manner in which they were found. Moreover, if any other mode of committing suicide was adopted, there would be no occasion or need to burn their bodies thereafter. 13. If they were alive when their bodies caught fire, the ordinary human reaction would have been to resist fire which would at least not leave their burnt bodies lying flat face upwards in their respective beds. If the two women had committed suicide in some other manner and not by burning their bodies, then their bodies would not be found lying in the bed to enable being burnt by themselves in some manner thereafter. Viewed at from any angle, it is impossible to accept that these two women met their end either as a result of an accidental fire or suicide. Viewed at from any angle, it is impossible to accept that these two women met their end either as a result of an accidental fire or suicide. The only conclusion logically possible is that the death of both these women was homicidal and neither accidental nor suicidal. 14. We shall now advert to the question whether the conviction of Sudama Prasad can be upheld on the basis of circumstantial evidence appearing against him and whether a case for reversal of the acquittal of the other accused Shyam Sundar is made out 15. Apart from the two deceased, namely, Mathurabai and Rukhamanibai, the presence of accused Sudama Prasad in an adjoining room in the same house on the night of murder is adequately proved and is expressly admitted by this accused. Accused Sudama Prasad admits that he returned home after taking a few drinks with his friends and his dinner at the residence of his concubine early on the night of 19th August 1972. The fact that his mother Mathurabai and wife Rukhamanibai were then present in the house and were alive is also not in dispute. The only other member of their family living with them was a minor daughter Shilabai (P. W. 9). According to Shilabai (P. W. 9), she was away from her own house that night and was staying with her mother's sister Shantibai (P. W. 8) that night. Accused Sudama Prasad's version is also the same. The presence of any other person in that house is not proved. Thus it was only the two dead women Mathurabai and Rukhamanibai and the accused Sudama Prasad who were present in that house on the fateful night. Accused Sudama Prasad, according to his own version, was in the room adjoining that in which the two dead bodies were found on the morning of 20th August 1972. Thus, accused Sudama Prasad was present in that house when both these women were killed and burnt in the manner aforesaid. The version of accused Sudama Prasad is that he went to sleep in the adjoining room immediately on reaching home and got up for the first time only on the morning of 20th August 1972 when he discovered the two dead bodies in a charred state. The version of accused Sudama Prasad is that he went to sleep in the adjoining room immediately on reaching home and got up for the first time only on the morning of 20th August 1972 when he discovered the two dead bodies in a charred state. It is obvious that accused Sudama Prasad had the requisite opportunity to commit the murder of these two women or to participate in or actively connive at the same when it was committed. It is impossible to believe that the two women would have offered no resistance or raised no alarm when they were done to death and burnt and further that their shrieks could not be heard even by a person who was in the adjoining room where accused Sudama Prasad claims to have been King. It has come in evidence that even mild alarm calls or cries of anyone emanating from the room in which the two dead bodies were found were distinctly audible to persons who were present in the adjoining room where accused Sudama Prasad admits to have been present that night. It is obvious that these two women must have raised greater alarm and shouted much louder to seek help when they were done to death. The explanation of accused Sudama Prasad that he was fast asleep in the adjoining room and did not wake up or hear anything unusual till the early morning to attract his curiosity or attention is palpably false and cannot be accepted. This false explanation of accused Sudama Prasad is itself a further circumstance against him. In the circumstances of the case, we have no doubt that being admittedly present in the same house and according to his own version in the adjoining room, accused Sudama Prasad had a duty to explain the death of his mother and wife and he has attempted to do so merely by giving this obviously false explanation which it is impossible to accept as a reasonable or plausible explanation. The admitted presence of accused Sudama Prasad in the adjoining room at the relevant time leaves no doubt that the murder of these two women was impossible without his active complicity in the crime. 16. It is in evidence and is not in dispute that the room in which the two dead bodies were found had three doors. One of these doors opened towards the road. 16. It is in evidence and is not in dispute that the room in which the two dead bodies were found had three doors. One of these doors opened towards the road. There is nothing to show that this door was kept open during the night. It is also only reasonable to accept that this outer door leading to the road must have been closed at night and that too when the occupants of the room are alleged to have been only these two women. That leaves two other doors. Both these remaining doors opened into portions inside the house. One of these remaining doors connected the kitchen, and the other opened into a small passage connecting the adjoining room through another door. Access into the room in which the two dead bodies were found was possible through either of these two inner doors from any remaining part of the house including the room in which accused Sudama Prasad claims to have been lying. An attempt was made on behalf of the defence to suggest after some of the prosecution witnesses had been examined that the door opening into the passage had been bolted from inside and was in fact broken by accused Sudama Prasad for effecting an entry into the room where the two dead bodies were found. Apart from such a statement made by accused Sudama Prasad himself and such a suggestion being also made to some prosecution witnesses who did not support the prosecution case, there is no other evidence to prove this fact on which a belated reliance was placed on behalf of the defence. It may also be mentioned that no such suggestion was made during the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer or even the Patwari who prepared the site plan. It is significant that no one has spoken about the alleged breaking of this door from personal knowledge and the best that has been done is to get from some of the convenient witnesses that they found the hinges of that door in such a shape which indicated that it may have been forced open. Apart from this, no attempt has been made even to show what was the condition of that door when it was later seen after discovery of the dead bodies. Apart from this, no attempt has been made even to show what was the condition of that door when it was later seen after discovery of the dead bodies. It is reasonable to assume that in case the explanation of accused Sudama Prasad is reasonable or probable, he would have raised a hue and cry on suspecting something foul when he got up on the morning of 20th August 1972, so as to attract the attention of his neighbours whose houses were at a distance of only a few feet and that he would have sought the help of his neighbours for the purpose of forcing an entry into the room in these circumstances. Admittedly, no such thing was done by accused Sudama Prasad and the very first person who came to the house on being called by Sudama Prasad on the morning of 20th August 1972 had found both the inner doors open. It has also not been said that the other inner door leading to the kitchen and through which also entry could be made into the room where the two dead bodies were found had been closed. 17. No doubt the burden on the accused is only to give a reasonable explanation of his conduct and if there is any particular fact relied on by him supporting the defence, then the burden of proving that fact is very light and not the same as that on the prosecution to prove a relevant fact, yet the fact remains that for the purpose of proving his defence that he had to break open one door for effecting entry into that room, some cogent evidence howsoever light should have been led by the accused to prove that fact and it was also necessary for him to show that all the doors of that room were bolted from inside so that entry could not be effected except by breaking open one of the doors. We may also mention that the story of all the doors of that room being bolted from inside cannot be accepted unless the theory of suicide or accidental fire is plausible. We have already indicated that both these possibilities are definitely ruled out and the death of both these women was homicidal. We may also mention that the story of all the doors of that room being bolted from inside cannot be accepted unless the theory of suicide or accidental fire is plausible. We have already indicated that both these possibilities are definitely ruled out and the death of both these women was homicidal. That being so, the defence version of breaking open one of the inner doors to effect entry into that room must be rejected as palpably false for this reason also, there being admittedly no other way for the murderer to leave that room except through one of these doors. 18. We have absolutely no doubt that this part of the version of accused Sudama Prasad of breaking open one of the inner doors for effecting forcible entry into the room is definitely false and it being so this too is a circumstance which weighs against accused Sudama Prasad. This version of accused Sudama Prasad is a deliberate lie for the obvious purpose of diverting the accusing finger away from himself. We might add that even if some of the hinges of the door were later found bent as stated by some of the convenient prosecution witnesses on a suggestion made to them on behalf of the defence, that is quite consistent with this evidence having been created by accused Sudama Prasad himself before he went out of the house to call some of the neighbours to show the charred dead bodies of the two women. That would merely be an attempt on his part to mislead people and to create evidence of a circumstance which would be in his favour. There is no reason why the Investigating Officer who visited the spot soon after and prepared the Panchnama as well as the Patwari who later prepared a site map would not be put the necessary questions for eliciting this fact in case accused Sudama Prasad had really been forced to break open one of the inner doors for effecting entry into that room. It is also significant that Sudama Prasad does not appear to have told any of the persons coming to his house soon after discovery of the dead bodies that he had to force his entry into the room by breaking open one of the doors of the room. It is also significant that Sudama Prasad does not appear to have told any of the persons coming to his house soon after discovery of the dead bodies that he had to force his entry into the room by breaking open one of the doors of the room. He does not say even now that all doors were bolted from inside and so he had to break open one door. Moreover, as pointed out earlier, this version is wholly inconsistent with the finding of homicide already reached by us. We have no hesitation in rejecting this part of Sudama Prasad's explanation as a clear fabrication and falsehood. 19. Soon after discovery of the burnt bodies of the two women on the morning of 20th August 1972, while preparing the Panchnama, it was found that some inner walls of that room appeared to be stained with blood and similar stains were found in a part of the roof. The floor below that part of the roof appeared to have been freshly white-washed. Near the stairs-outside that room similar stains were found in the earth on the floor. Accordingly scrappings from those places were taken and the stained portion of the roof was also cut off and sent to the Chemical Examiner. The Chemical Examiner in his report, Ex. P-45, has found blood stains on large parts of all these articles. This conclusion was reached on the basis of spectrographic examination. On account of disintegration the blood stains were unsuitable for examination by the Serologist. For this reason, the origin of the blood could not be proved. The fact, however, remains that on the walls, floor and a part of the roof of the room in which the dead bodies were found as well as a place near the stairs outside that room, large blood stains were found at that time. 20. Learned counsel for the defence contends that this could not be treated as an incriminating circumstance because those blood stains were not proved to be of human origin by the Serologist. No doubt this would have been a strong incriminating circumstance if the blood stains were proved to be of human origin but the question is whether it is of no evidentiary value in the present case. No doubt this would have been a strong incriminating circumstance if the blood stains were proved to be of human origin but the question is whether it is of no evidentiary value in the present case. In our opinion, even though this cannot by itself be treated as an incriminating circumstance, yet it cannot be rejected outright as being of no evidentiary value. By itself this circumstance may not be sufficient but it can be used to lend assurance if the other circumstances found proved point towards the fact that the murder of these two women was committed in that very house and indicate accused Sudama Prasad as the murderer. For this reason we rely on this circumstances only to this limited extent for the purpose of lending assurance in case we find that the other circumstances are such as to suggest that accused Sudama Prasad committed the murder of his mother and wife. Ratan Gond Vs. The State of Bihar, 21. The fact that accused Sudama Prasad had extravagant habits and was a person of loose morals is beyond doubt. He himself admits being in the habit of drinking regularly and keeping a concubine for several years. No doubt the fact of his keeping a concubine for several years may have to-some extent impelled his wife and mother to reconcile to this situation but continued friction for this reason is not difficult to visualize. The concubine P. W. 10 Sahibi herself says that accused Sudama Prasad was spending about Rs. 1,200 per month on her upkeep and that she was being kept in a garden house in the same village belonging to accused Sudama Prasad. Even though there is no evidence of any recent quarrel to suggest the immediate cause for these murders but this background cannot be overlooked for the purpose of deciding whether accused Sudama Prasad could have committed these murders. Thus even though evidence of any strong motive to commit these murders is not present against accused Sudama Prasad, yet it is obvious that there was no love lost between accused Sudama Prasad and these two ladies. It was only natural for the mother Mathurabai to have drawn close to her young daughter-in-law Rukhamanibai who was being ignored and treated shabbily by accused Sudama Prasad who was infatuated by the concubine P. W. 10 Sahibi. 22. It was only natural for the mother Mathurabai to have drawn close to her young daughter-in-law Rukhamanibai who was being ignored and treated shabbily by accused Sudama Prasad who was infatuated by the concubine P. W. 10 Sahibi. 22. The circumstances proved beyond doubts in the present case coupled with the exclusion of any possibility of an outsider committing the murder and the fact that accused Sudama Prasad has given false explanation and tried to fabricate a false defence to save himself lead us to the inevitable conclusion that the murder of these two women was committed by accused Sudama Prasad either alone or with the assistance of some other unknown persons. So far as the other accused Shyam Sundar is concerned, the learned Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that even though grave suspicion arises against him, yet he is entitled to the benefit of doubt The presence of the other accused Shyam Sundar in that house on the morning of 20th August 1972 at the time of discovery of the two dead bodies in a charred state is not in dispute. However, there is no reliable evidence to safely hold that he too was present earlier in that house during the night when the murder was committed. At any rate, the learned Sessions Judge having held that he is entitled to benefit of doubt, we do not think that this is a fit case for reversing his acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. The view taken by the learned Sessions Judge in respect of accused Shyam Sundar cannot be ruled out as not plausible. For this reason alone, we decline to interfere with his -acquittal. 23. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the main circumstances which are proved against accused Sudama Prasad and support his conviction made by the Court below are summarised as under: (1) The death of Smt. Mathurabai and Smt. Rukhmanibai was homicidal and neither accidental nor suicidal. (2) Accused Sudama Prasad was admittedly present within the same house in an adjoining room at the relevant time when the two women were killed and had the requisite opportunity to commit the murders. (3) These murders could not have been committed without the active participation or connivance of accused Sudama Prasad. (4) The total exclusion of the possibility of an outsider alone committing the murders. (3) These murders could not have been committed without the active participation or connivance of accused Sudama Prasad. (4) The total exclusion of the possibility of an outsider alone committing the murders. The undisputed facts clearly show that the crime was committed only by some one who was inside the house and had full opportunity without any possible interference to readjust the scene of crime to remove all possible clues. (5) Accused Sudama Prasad could not have missed to notice the foul smell emanating as a result of the burning of two dead bodies in an adjoining room, even if he missed to notice the excessive heat generated. However, he waited till the morning and let both the bodies be consumed by fire. (6) Even then, instead of exhibiting the normal reaction of shouting to call his neighbours for help, he called them only to show the charred bodies. (7) Total absence of any reasonable or plausible explanation of his unusual conduct during the fateful night and deliberately false explanation given that he knows nothing having been asleep in the adjoining room throughout the night. (8) Deliberate attempt to mislead and divert the accusing finger away from himself by setting up a false story of breaking open one inner door to force entry into the room. (9) Presence of blood stains on the wall, floor and roof of the room where the two dead bodies were found and the stairs outside that room. Absence of any explanation by accused Sudama Prasad who was an inmate of that house. (10) The extravagant and wayward life of accused Sudama Prasad who was also keeping a concubine at considerable expense which must have been a cause of constant friction with the deceased. 24. In our opinion, the above main circumstances found fully proved against the accused Sudama Prasad, in the back ground of this case, leave absolutely no doubt that accused Sudama Prasad is guilty of the murder of his mother Mathura Bai and wife Rukhamani Bai. These circumstances are wholly incompatible with his innocence. We have no hesitation in upholding the conviction of accused Sudama Prasad for both these murders. In view of this conclusion, no separate conviction or sentence u/s 201, Indian Penal Code is called for. These circumstances are wholly incompatible with his innocence. We have no hesitation in upholding the conviction of accused Sudama Prasad for both these murders. In view of this conclusion, no separate conviction or sentence u/s 201, Indian Penal Code is called for. As earlier stated, we do not consider it safe to reverse the acquittal of the other accused Shyam Sundar, even though grave suspicion arises also against him that he too was an accomplice of Sudama Prasad in this crime. 25. Consequently, both these appeals fail and are hereby dismissed.