State of Maharashtra v. Dada Nandram Korde — 1983 DIGILAW 200 (BOM)

JUDGMENT Shah, J. - The accused Dada Nandram Korde was found guilty of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing the murders of his wife Rukminibai and his child Suresh aged 1½ years by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Satara. The learned judge also sentenced the accused to death subject to confirmation by the High Court. The accused has challenged his conviction by filing the present appeal. Thus, both the reference for confirmation of death sentence and the appeal of the accused for quashing the conviction are before us. 2. The facts which have led to the prosecution are these. The accused is the eldest son of the complainant Pandaram Rama Korde (P.W. 3). Nandaram has five sons and three daughters. The sons are Dada, Dhananjay, Rustum. Ashok and Aba who is the youngest son. The daughters are Sinabai, Rangubai and Ranjana. Sinabai has taken sanyas and left the paternal home and is residing at the Landage Buva Maharaj Math premises in Phaltan. The second daughter Rangubai is married to one Babu Shinde of Phaltan and Ranjana is married in a family in Pune. Nandaram, his wife and sons are residing in a farm-house in the land Survey No. 410/2 within the limits of village Pharandwadi. This farm-house is at a distance of about 3 kms. to the western side of Phaltan town. The village Pharandwadi is nearer to Phaltan and lies at a distance of about two furlongs to the eastern side of the said land where the farm-house is situate. There is no other farm-house within the radius of about one km. of this farm-house. This land where the farm-house is located belongs to the family of Nandaram and is known as Tambmala. The accused who is a young man of about 35 years was first married to one Shevantabai. That marriage, however, broke down and ended in Shevantabai deserting the accused. From this wed-lock the accused got a male child which, (who sic) however, expired after about nine months of the birth. It appears that in the year 1977 Shevantabai had filed a complaint against the accused and her parents-in-law under Section 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The case, however, ended in acquittal on November 7, 1978. From this wed-lock the accused got a male child which, (who sic) however, expired after about nine months of the birth. It appears that in the year 1977 Shevantabai had filed a complaint against the accused and her parents-in-law under Section 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The case, however, ended in acquittal on November 7, 1978. The accused remarried Rukminibai about two years prior to the unfortunate incident which took place on September 9, 1981, at the farm-house of the family. From this marriage the deceased Rukminibai gave birth to a son by name Suresh about I years prior to the incident. It is the case of the prosecution that Rukminibai was pregnant at the time of the occurrence. Deceased Rukminibai belongs to a village known as Piparad which is not far away from Phaltan town. Her parents are alive. Her mother is Rangubai (P.W. 6.) Rukminibai's uncle Ramchandra Rau Borate (P.W. 7) who is also a resident of Piparad has a fire-wood depot at Phaltan. 3. The map (Exh. 21) drawn by the Circle Inspector, Vas ant Pandurang Mane (P.W. 1) shows the different portions of the farm house. One portion which is occupied by Nandaram, his wife and his sons other than the accused has Mangalore tiles roof. The accused along with his wife and the child was residing separately at the material time. It appears that he was demanding from his father the partition of the landed property and in view of the differences he was residing separately from the rest of the family in a room adjoining the aforesaid portion of the farm house occupied by Nandaram. These two portions have separate entrances, but have a common wall of a height of about 4 feet with some open portion upto the roof. The cattle shed adjoins the portion occupied by the accused. It is the case of the prosecution that the relations between the accused and his deceased wife Rukminibai were not cordial. There were frequent quarrels between them and the accused started beating and illtreating her after about a year of the marriage. On one occasion she got annoyed and left the abode of her husband and went to her uncle Ramchandra Rau Borate. There were frequent quarrels between them and the accused started beating and illtreating her after about a year of the marriage. On one occasion she got annoyed and left the abode of her husband and went to her uncle Ramchandra Rau Borate. It is alleged that this incident occurred when Suresh was about 4 or 5 months old and 2 or 3 Weeks thereafter the accused, his father and his brother-in-laws ultimately had to go to Piparad and request her family members to send Rukminibai back to the accused. It is the case of the prosecution that one of the members of the party from the side of the accused even touched the feet of Nandaram and then Rukminibai was sent to the house of the accused. According to prosecution the strained relationship between the accused and his wife led to the murder. 4. The evidence shows that about eight days prior to the incident the accused had himself brought his wife to her parents house at Pipared and left her there. It was then decided that after about 4 to 6 days she was to be taken back to the house of the accused. Accordingly, the accused came back to Rukminibai's house in order to take his wife back to his house. However, on account of the death of a close relative in the family of Rukminibai the departure of Rukminibai was postponed and the accused returned without her. Within a day or two on September 8, 1981, the accused again went to Piparad to bring back his wife. He stayed there overnight and the next day he brought her back to the farm house. It appears that on the way they had a cup of tea with Sinabai in the Monastery at Phaltan in the after-noon at about 2.30 p.m. and finally the accused along with his wife and the child reached the farm house in the evening at about 6 p.m. It is not necessary to give details at this stage, but suffice to say that admittedly the accused along with Rukminibai and the child were in the farm house till about 9 p. m. Nandaram, his wife and the youngest son Aba alone remained in their house since Nandaram's other sons i.e. Dhananjay, Rustum, and Ashok went to Phaltan at about 7 or 7.30 p.m. for the Ganapati festival. Nandaram his wife and son Aba went to bed around 8.l5 p.m. The accused with his wife Rukminibai and the child were in their house till 9. p m. as mentioned above. According to the prosecution, it was the accused who mercilessly assaulted Rukminibai with an axe causing her several incised injuries causing her death. It is also alleged that he throttled his child to death at the same time. It is, however, the case of the accused that half-an-hour earlier i.e. at about 9.30 p m. he left the house for work at the cattle shed of Nandraj Damodar Devale (P.W. 1) in Phaltan town. Both the accused and his father are mason. According to the accused be was required to go to Phaltan as the work of the flooring in the cattle shed of Nandraj was required to be urgently completed on that night itself. According to the accused, he completed the work of placing tiles on the flooring of the cattle shed at about 3.30 a m. and since it was raining on that night he slept there and returned to his house at about 6.30 a.m. and when he opened the door he was shocked to see the dead body of his wife and son in a pool pf blood and on seeing this horrible sight his mental condition was disturbed to an extent that he started behaving like a mad man and bewildered by the situation and finding that there was nobody in the house of his father, he returned to Phaltan and went to his sister Sinabai, and informed her about the murders of his wife and son. Later on, he was taken to the police station at about 9.30 a.m. As regards the movements of the parents of the accused it is the case of the prosecution that at about 10 or 10.15 p.m. Nandaram heard the cry, Aai Ca' (Oh mother) from the house of the accused and he could visualize that it was his daughter in-law Rukminibai who had cried and uttered the said words. He then woke up his wife and along with her came out of his house and both of them started shouting in the name of the accused. He asked the accused to open the door which was closed from inside. However, the door was not opened. He then woke up his wife and along with her came out of his house and both of them started shouting in the name of the accused. He asked the accused to open the door which was closed from inside. However, the door was not opened. Nandaram then tried to remove the chain which was put from inside by inserting his finger through the slit of the door planks. However, somebody pressed the door planks from inside with the result that his finger crushed. He felt that something untoward has taken place and, therefore, accompanied by his wife and Aba the youngest son aged about 5 years only went to Phaltan police station to report the incident reaching there at about 11.30 p.m. Further according to Nandaram he narrated the whole story to the police. However, the police station officer told him that since most of the police staff was engaged in Ganapati bandobust duty he should come back to the police station again at 3 a.m. He along with his wife and Aba then went to the house of his son-in-law Baburao Shinde and then again went to the police station at about 3 a.m. as directed by the police station officer. The police station officer, however, told him that since it was raining it would be difficult to take the police van to his farm house and advised him to come back at about 7 a.m. They, therefore, went to Mahanubhava Monastery and went to the police station at 7 a.m. The Station Officer asked his son-in-law Baburao Shinde to go to farm house and to ascertain as to whether the door of the house of the accused is still opened or not. Accordingly, Baburao left the Police station for going to the farm house and thereafter the police took Nandaram, his wife and his son in a police van to Ambedker police chowkie and produced them before PS.T. Mulani (P.W.11) Nandaram told the P.S.I. as to what bad happened, in his farm house and then the P.S.I. accompanied by the complainant and his wife and child came to the farm house. The P.S.I. found the door of the house of the accused was latched from inside. The door was opened by removing the latch. On entering the house of the accused they noticed the two dead bodies lying in a pool of blood. The P.S.I. found the door of the house of the accused was latched from inside. The door was opened by removing the latch. On entering the house of the accused they noticed the two dead bodies lying in a pool of blood. The P.S.I. kept a constable for keeping a watch and returned along with the complainant to the police station. At the police station Nandaram's complaint (Exh. 28) was recorded P.S.I' s evidence shows that he had returned to the police station from the scene of offence around 8.15 a. m. and immediately thereafter he made inquiries with the complainant and started recording his complaint which in all took about 45 minutes to one hour. After recording the complaint the offence was registered at the police station. 5. According to P.S.I. Mulani at about 10 or 10.15 a m. he came to know that the accused was in the monastery. He then proceeded to the monastery and brought the accused to the police station. P.S.I.' s evidence further shows that Sinabai the sister of the accused (P.W.9) and Sampat Ramchandra Jadhay (P. W.5) had also accompanied them to the police station. The accused was arrested under a panchanama (Exh. 50). We may mention that the accused was found to have on his person only an underpant with stripes and was wearing a shirt. These clothes bad no blood stains. However, it was noticed that his left shoulder and right ribs had marks of assault and scratches. P.S.I. Mulani proceeded to the scene of offence after the arrest of the accused. Inquest over the dead bodies was held in the presence 'of panchas, one of whom is Ismail Babumiya Inamdlif (P.W.2). The inquest panchaoama (Exh. 23) was prepared. Thereafter, the panchanama of the scene of offence and its surroundings was also drawn - Under the panchanama .Exh. 24). by Dy. Superintendent of Police, Ashok Ganesh Dhiwar. Under the panchanama of the scene of offence several blood' stained articles found in the room including one bluish colour terricot pant which had several small and big blood stains were attached. Certain articles in the right pocket of the pant including a diary on the first page of which the name of the accused viz. Under the panchanama of the scene of offence several blood' stained articles found in the room including one bluish colour terricot pant which had several small and big blood stains were attached. Certain articles in the right pocket of the pant including a diary on the first page of which the name of the accused viz. Dada Nandaram Korde and on the back side a writing dated December 5, 1980, to the effect that Rukmini had left for per father’s house on being dissatisfied was found written. They were also seized under a panchanama. It was also attested by the same panchas viz. Shivaji Mahadeo Pisal and Ismail Babumiya Inamdar. After drawing the panchanama of the scene of offence (Exh. 24) Dy. S.P. Dhiware interrogated the accused in his police station. It is alleged that in the presence of the panchas the accused made a statement to the effect that he would produce the axe which he had concealed in the Nemtad bushes in Bhikar Mala. The memorandum of the statement of the accused (Exh. 26) was drawn and then the accused is alleged to have taken the police and the panchas to Bhikar Mala and there the accused produced the blood stained axe (article 14) from the Nemtad bushes in Bhikar Mala land. The axe (article 14) was then seized under the panchanama (Exh. 25). During the course of investigation statements of the witnesses were recorded by the Investigating Officer, Dy. S.P. Ashok Ganesh Dhiware. Amongst them the statement of Sihabai Guru Mukundraj Langade (P.W.9). was recorded the same date i.e. September 10, 1981. on the next day the statements of Ragulrai Maruti Borate (P. W.6), Ramchandra Rau Borate (P.W. 7) and Sadashiv Vasudeo Aphale (P.W. 4) who has deposed about the extra-judicial confession made by the accused in the morning of September 10, 1981, at the monastery were recorded by the police. Statements of Geetabi Landge (P.W. 10) and Sampat Ramcharidra Jadhav (P.W. 5) were recorded on September 12, 1981, and September 18, 1981, respectively. After the inquest the two dead bodies were sent for post-mortem examination. The post-mortem notes prepared by Dr. Prakash Kamble (P.W. 8) are at Exhs. 40 and 41. It appears from his deposition that he was not asked question about the particulars mentioned in Exhs. After the inquest the two dead bodies were sent for post-mortem examination. The post-mortem notes prepared by Dr. Prakash Kamble (P.W. 8) are at Exhs. 40 and 41. It appears from his deposition that he was not asked question about the particulars mentioned in Exhs. 40 and 41 as the same were admitted in evidence under the provisions of Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We may mention here that Mr. Chitnis did not advance any arguments on the admissibility of Exhs. 40 and 41 in view of the provisions of Section 294. Notwithstanding the admission of these documents under the provisions of Section 294 we asked him whether he still wanted to challenge the postmortem notes or cross-examine the doctor Mr. Chitnis, however, fairly contend that he did not desire to challenge the post-mortem notes in any manner and there was no need to cross-examine the doctor in that behalf. Same is the case with the report of the Chemical Analyser (Exh. 43) which is also admitted under Section 294 and no grievence about the admission of the report was made by the learned counsel. It may also be mentioned that the complainant Nandram was also sent for examination and treatment to the Medical Officer on September 11, 1981, Hill injury certificate (Exh. 42) describes the injuries noticed on his person. This certificate was also admitted under Section 294 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Here again no grievance about it was made before us. Since certain injuries were noticed on the person of the accused he was forwarded for examination by the medical officer. Dr. Kamble (P.W. 8) who examined the accused has produced the injury certificate (Exh. 45). His evidence shows that the accused was examined by him at 8 p.m. on the date of his arrest and the injuries are noted by him in the said certificate. 6. After completing the investigation Dy. S.P. Dhiware submitted the charge-sheet in the court of the judicial magistrate, first class at Phaltan on December 28, 1981. The accused was in due course on March 6, ‘82, committed to the Court of Sessions to stand his trial for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. Admittedly there is no eye - witness to the incident. The prosecution case, therefore, rests solely on circumstantial evidence. The accused was in due course on March 6, ‘82, committed to the Court of Sessions to stand his trial for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. Admittedly there is no eye - witness to the incident. The prosecution case, therefore, rests solely on circumstantial evidence. In support of its case the prosecution examined in all 12 witnesses before the learned judge. The circumstances relied .on by the prosecution before the learned trial judge were these. (1) There was motive for the accused to kill his wife since during the short duration of their marital life he used to assault and illtreat her and the deceased had even left her husband as above on one occasion and she was sent back only on the assurance given by the members of the family to her uncle. (2) Soon after the occurrence the accused made an extra-judicial confession about his guilt to Sadashiv Vasudeo Apbale (P.W. 4). (3) The deceased was last in the company of the accused at about 9.30 p.m. which was hardly about 1/2 hour prior to the incident. (4) Discovery of blood stained axe at the instance of the accused. (5) Injuries sustained by the accused and history given by him to the medical officer Dr. Itamble (P.W. 8) that these injuries were sustained by him at the hands of his wife at 10 p.m. which is the time of the incident. (6) Human blood of the same group being noticed both on the clothes of the deceased and on the pant of the accused found at the scene of occurrence. (7) The accused having taken a false defence of 'alibi'. The prosecution relied on the aforesaid prosecution evidence and the documentary evidence for proving all these circumstances. 8. The defence of the accused is disclosed in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure and has also filed a written statement (Exh. 60). He examined one Nandraj Damodar Devale as a defence witness in support of his plea of alibi. The defence of the accused in a nut-shell is one of total denial and alibi. In short, his defence is that he loved his wife and son and there was no reason whatsoever for him to kill them. 60). He examined one Nandraj Damodar Devale as a defence witness in support of his plea of alibi. The defence of the accused in a nut-shell is one of total denial and alibi. In short, his defence is that he loved his wife and son and there was no reason whatsoever for him to kill them. He denied that he had illtreated his wife at any time, though he did not dispute that his wife had on one occasion got annoyed and left his house. According to him, some days prior to the incident he had taken his wife and son to the house of his father-in-law and returned to his village leaving them there. After a few days he had gone to the house of his father-in-law to bring his wife and son, but he could not do so on account of a death in the family of his father-in-law and had to return to his village without them. Thereafter, he again went to the house of his father-in-law to bring his wife and son and on the very next day i.e. on the date of the incident brought his wife and son with him to Phaltan from Piparad (the village of his father-in-law). They reached Phaltan at about noon and after visiting his sister Sinabai returned to his farm house at 6 p.m. He contended that his wife then prepared the meals and after taking the meals he left the house at about 9.30 p.m. as he had taken the contract of fixing shababad flooring at the cattle shed of defence witness Nandrai at Phaltan. Before he had left his house, his brothers had asked him whether he would accompany them to see the Ganapati festival in Phaltan town. He, however, expressed his inability to accompany them in view of the work undertaken by him. By that time his parents had gone to bed in their house. According to him, there was no quarrel between him and his wife before he left. At about 9 30 p.m. he left his house for going to Nandraj Devale for the said work in the cattle shed. By that time his parents had gone to bed in their house. According to him, there was no quarrel between him and his wife before he left. At about 9 30 p.m. he left his house for going to Nandraj Devale for the said work in the cattle shed. He contended that he was working in the cattle shed upto 3 a m. and thereafter since it was raining he slept in the cattle shed of Devale and went to his vasti in the morning at 600 or 6.30 a m. He contended that when he opened the door of his house he saw the dead bodies of his wife and son lying in a pool of blood. He was shocked to see this ghastly sight. He was mentally perturbed and in that condition he searched for his parents, but in vain He, therefore, went to his sister Sinabai at her monastery at Phaltan. He contended that in this state of confusion and shock he murmered in coherantly before Sinabai and Sadashiv Aphale that his wife and son are murdered and his marital life has come to an end and he is completely ruined; that he was instrumental in the murders of his wife and son because but for the fact that he had gone for the work at the cattle shed of Devale no such incident would have occurred and thus he is responsible for the murders of his wife and son. According to the accused, Sadashiv Aphale misunderstood him and felt that the accused himself had committed .the murders. The accused explained that since it was raining at night he went to the house of Devale only after wearing a shirt and under-wear and all his clothes including the blue pant (article 13) were left at his house. He also explained his defence by saying that he had sustained the injuries while carrying out a masonry work. He denied to have given any history of scufle with his wife to the medical officer. 9. On a consideration of the evidence led by the prosecution and the defence of the accused the learned trial judge held proved all the circumstances relied on by the prosecution. He held that the circumstances were of a clinching nature and were of such a nature that they could not be explained on any hypothesis other than that of his guilt. He held that the circumstances were of a clinching nature and were of such a nature that they could not be explained on any hypothesis other than that of his guilt. The chain of circumstances being complete and of an in criminatory nature he found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code with which he was charged. As regards the sentence the learned judge found that the ghastly crime cal1e-d for an extreme penalty prescribed under the law. The learned judge, therefore, convicted the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing the murder of his wife and son and sentenced him to death. Both the question of conviction and the nature of sentence are before us for our decision. 10. Mr. Chitnis submitted that the learned trial Judge bas grievously erred in holding the circumstances alleged against the accused are proved in this case. According to him, some of the findings of the learned Judge are based on mere conjunctures and not based on evidence. He submitted that the evidence led by the prosecution itself shows that the relations between the husband and wife were quite cordial at the material time and though there was some complaint about the attitude and conduct of the accused towards his wife in the past, for about 7/8 months prior to the incident, they had led a normal life and there was no complaint by the wife against his behaviour. He also submitted that the accused himself had reached his wife to her parents and had taken the trouble of making a couple of trips for bringing her and nothing had happened during his stay at the house of the parents-in-law or in his own farm-house which would indicate that the accused would have gone to the length of killing his wife and son. As far as the discovery of the axe is concerned, he submitted that the learned judge should not have believed the prosecution version about it particularly having regarded to the fact that the evidence showed that it was raining heavily on that night and in such a situation some earth or leaves would ordinarily have been noticed at the time of the discovery. He also submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the authorship of the concealment of the axe on the part of the accused and even if the prosecution evidence is believed it would at the most suggest that he had the knowledge about the axe which was kept at that place. He also pointed out that the same panchas were selected even though a considerable time had elapsed between the first panchanama and the last panchanama regarding the discovery of the axe, which indicated that the panchnama were under the obligation of or under the thumb of the police. As regards the extra-judicial confession it was his contention that the evidence of witness Aphale suffers from serious infirmities and no reliance can be placed on his evidence. Furthermore, Aphale's evidence itself shows that at some point of time the accused was found murmuring which indicated his shocked stage of mind and it is quite possible that the accused was misunderstood by the witness. He pointed out that the evidence of this witness is unnatural since he had not disclosed about the accused having made an extra-judicial confession to anyone in his office and his statement was recorded the next day i.e. on the 11th. In this connection he also took support from the fact that the accused had an attack of lunacy and the trial had to be postponed on that account. He submitted that no importance can be given to the injuries on his person which have been adequately explained by the accused and there is no reason to reject his explanation if regard be had to the fact that he had gone for masonry work on that night. Then he contended that there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to reject the testimony of the defence witness Nandraj Damodar Devale which establishes that the accused was not in his house at the time of the incident. Further, according to the learned counsel the circumstance of last seen together is not of any consequence in the facts of this case since the accused himself has admitted that he was in his house till about 9.30 p.m. and it was not unnatural for him to go for work which was urgently required to be done on that very night. Then as regards the circumstance of the blood stained pant of the accused being found in the house of the accused he submitted that this circumstance is of no consequence since his wife was mercilessly attacked with repeated axe blows and she was also lying in a pool of blood and considering the size of the room it is quite possible that the pant which was lying nearby might have been stained with human blood of the group of the accused. Then he submitted that the history of injuries of the accused recorded by Dr. Kamble is suspect and should not be relied on as a circumstance against the accused. 11. We may state at the outset that the fact that both Rukminibai and Suresh met homicidal death is not disputed before us. Indeed, the injuries as disclosed by the postmortem notes indicate that there are as many as 18 incised wounds all over her body. The nature of injuries clearly shows that she was brutally murdered. The injuries noticed on the person of the child show that he was throttled to death. 12. Now, we proceed to consider the evidence relating to the circumstances relied on by the prosecution in this case. On the aspect of motive the prosecution has examined two witnesses viz. Rangubai Maruti Borate (P. W. 6) and Ramchandra Rau Borate (P.W. 7). Now, the marital life between the accused and the deceased lasted hardly for a couple of years or so. The evidence of Rangubai the mother of the deceased shows till about a year after the marriage, relations between the accused and her daughter were cordial. However, after the birth of Suresh the accused started beating and illtreating the deceased. Then she has deposed as to the deceased having twice complained to her about the accused having illtreated and beaten her. Her evidence shows that when Suresh was 1¾ years old the deceased had come to her house and complained against the accused. The witness, therefore, did not send back the deceased to the house of the accused for a considerable time and ultimately the accused came with his father and brother-in-law Tambe to her house. The brother-in-law then touched her feet and promised her that there would be no further illtreatment to her daughter and he undertook the responsibility for the same. The witness, therefore, did not send back the deceased to the house of the accused for a considerable time and ultimately the accused came with his father and brother-in-law Tambe to her house. The brother-in-law then touched her feet and promised her that there would be no further illtreatment to her daughter and he undertook the responsibility for the same. It was on such promise and undertaking of the said brother-in-law that she sent the deceased to the house of the accused. Rangubai's evidence finds support in the evidence of her brother-in-law Ramchandra. According to his evidence also the relations between the accused and the deceased were cordial for about a year and thereafter the accused started beating and illtreating her. His evidence shows that on one occasion the deceased had come to his fuel depot after she was beaten by the accused. She then told him that on a quarrel between her and the accused, the latter had beaten her and, therefore, she had come to him. This incident, according to the witness, occurred when Suresh was about 5 months old. He has also fully corroborated the evidence of Rangubai regarding the visit of the accused, his father and his brother-in-law Tambe. He bas stated that the said brother-in-law of the accused touched the feet of Rangnbai and, therefore, the deceased was sent back to the house of the accused. According to this witness the deceased Rukminibai had complained to him twice or thrice of the illtreatment and beating at the hands of the accused. The overall impact of the testimony of witnesses Rangubai and Ramchandra is that on occasions there used to be quarrels between the accused and the deceased and at times he used to beat her. Now, it is true that for some months prior to the incident there was no complaint made by the deceased about the conduct of the accused or about her being illtreated or assaulted by him. Then it does appear that it was the accused who had brought the deceased to her parents about a week prior to the incident and had left her there. He had undertaken a couple of trips to bring her back and on the date of the incident both of them along with the child returned to the house of the accused. He had undertaken a couple of trips to bring her back and on the date of the incident both of them along with the child returned to the house of the accused. In the cross examination Ramcbandra has stated that during his last visit before her death he had accompanied the couple to Phaltan on the date of the incident, all of them went to a cloth shop and purchased a blouse piece for the deceased and thereafter both the accused and the deceased had a cup of tea and left for their residence in a happy mood. At this stage we may also point out that in his statement under Section 313 the accused has stated that on one occasion the deceased bad got annoyed with him and went to her maternal place. He did not beat her, but explained that since some amount was due from his father-in-law he had sent his wife to bring that amount. In the diary which belonged to the accused there is an entry dated December 5, 1980, to the effect that the deceased had gone to her father's house because of dissatisfaction. Notwithstanding the apparent conduct of the accused towards the deceased on the date of the incident and for a few months-earlier it cannot be said that all was well between the two. The incidents which we get from the evidence to some extent reflect on the temper of the accused and though one cannot say that this evidence affords a strong motive, overall effect of the evidence cannot be brushed aside and in any event it shows that he was an illtempered person and the relations between the two were not quite smooth. 13. We must make a reference to the evidence of the father of the accused. He has tried to show that the relations between the husband and wife were cordial all-through. His evidence on the point cannot be accepted in view of the evidence and circumstances discussed by us above. 14. We may now advert to the evidence about the discovery of the blood stained axe at the instance of the accused. The material evidence in that behalf is of two witnesses viz. panch Ismail Babumiya Inamdar (P.W.2) and Dy. S.P. Dhiware (P.W. 12). According to the panch witness two panchanamas (Exhs. 14. We may now advert to the evidence about the discovery of the blood stained axe at the instance of the accused. The material evidence in that behalf is of two witnesses viz. panch Ismail Babumiya Inamdar (P.W.2) and Dy. S.P. Dhiware (P.W. 12). According to the panch witness two panchanamas (Exhs. 21 and 24) were drawn at about 4 p.m. on that day i.e. on September 10, 1981. In his examination-in-chief he has stated that when he reached the police station the accused was in the custody of the police and he stated before him that 'he would point out and discover the axe.' After the above statement the police officer and the two panch as including the witness accompanied by him went to Satara Road in a vehicle. When the vehicle crossed a distance of 2 kms. from Phaltan the accused asked them to stop and then the accused took the party to a place near the brooklet which was one km. away from the road. They were then taken by the accused to the spot. He took out the axe which was beneath the Nemtad bush and produced the same. The witness has deposed that this tree or bush had thorns, leaves and stems. He has stated that the memorandum of the statement of t he accused as well as the panchanama regarding the discovery were drawn which are at Exhs. 25 and 26 respectively. Dy. S.P. Dhiware has also stated in his evidence that after drawing the panchanama of the scene of offence he interrogated the accused at the police station and then called two panchas. The accused then stated that he would discover and produce the axe which he had kept in Bhikar Mala'. This statement of the accused was recorded in memorandum (Exh. 26) and he testified it to be correct. He has further deposed that the accused then told them to follow him and, therefore, he along with the panch witness went in a jeep towards Satara side. After crossing a distance of about 2 kms. the accused asked them to halt and accordingly they got down from the jeep. Then the accused led them upto a distance of one km. inside towards northern side of the road. The accused then stopped them near one Nemtad bush and then took out the axe from that bush and produced it. the accused asked them to halt and accordingly they got down from the jeep. Then the accused led them upto a distance of one km. inside towards northern side of the road. The accused then stopped them near one Nemtad bush and then took out the axe from that bush and produced it. The axe was seized under a panchanama (Exh. 25, Now, the question is whether this discovery is reliable and whether it is admissible in evidence. It is true that the panch witnesses have not deposed to the accused having said that he had concealed the axe at a particular place. In other words the evidence of the panch witness does not disclose the authorship of the accused as far as the concealment of the axe is concerned. But the evidence of the panch witness does not stand alone. If we peruse the entire evidence on the contemporaneous record viz. the memorandum of the statement clearly refers to the fact that the accused was the author of the concealment. Moreover, we have also the evidence of the police officer whose evidence we do not see any reason to discard. He has clearly stated that the accused had made a statement that he had kept the axe at Bhikar Mala and he would point out and discover the same. We see no reason to reject the testimony of the police officer particularly having regard to the fact that it has been fully corroborated by the contemporaneous record viz. the memorandum (Exh. 26). The evidence of the panch and "Dy. S. P. Dhiware coupled with the recitals in the memorandum of statement of the accused read as a whole clearly establish that it was the accused who had concealed the axe. It was, however, contended by the learned counsel that the alleged discovery of the axe from the Nemtad bushes is suspicious because on that night there were heavy rains in Phaltan and it would be reasonable to expect some earth or leaves stuck up to the blade of the axe. The absence of any earth or leaves on the blade of the axe casts grave doubt as to the genuineness of the discovery evidence. 15. Admittedly, Phaltan town is about three kms. away from the place where the axe was recovered. The absence of any earth or leaves on the blade of the axe casts grave doubt as to the genuineness of the discovery evidence. 15. Admittedly, Phaltan town is about three kms. away from the place where the axe was recovered. Now, the mere fact that there were heavy rains in Phaltan would not necessarily show that it had rained "at a distance of 3 kms. It is quite possible that either it may not have been rained at all at that place or that there might have been some light showers in that area. We see no reason to reject the testimony of Dy. S.P. Dhiware that although it was raining at Phaltan on that night there were no showers in the area from where the accused discovered the axe. Witness Dhiware came to Phaltan on receipt of a telephone message about the occurrence shows that he was in Satara on that night and he had no personal knowledge about the rains at Phaltan or nearabout places. Ho "Never, we do not thick it is difficult for a person visiting a particular area to infer as to whether it bad rained there some time before or on the previous night. Moreover, whether some earth or leaves should get stuck to the blade of the axe would depend on various factors. It appears that the axe was not burried in the ground, but was taken out from the bushes. Even if it had rained in that area it is not necessary that mud or leaves should get stuck to the blade of the axe. It would depend on where the axe is kept, the position in which it is kept, the nature of the soil and the manner in which and the place where it is found concealed. August 5, 1983: 16. Apart from the evidence of the panch witness who has proved the discovery panchanama there is clear evidence of Dy. S.P. Dhiware whose evidence finds full corroboration in the recitals in the panchanama. August 5, 1983: 16. Apart from the evidence of the panch witness who has proved the discovery panchanama there is clear evidence of Dy. S.P. Dhiware whose evidence finds full corroboration in the recitals in the panchanama. We have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has proved the statement of the accused about his having kept the axe in the bushes pursuant to which statement the axe was recovered by the accused; We see no merit in the contention that the evidence about the recovery is tainted merely because same panch has acted in all the three panchanamas On that day as also in the contention that the accused could have disposed of the axe by throwing it in a well at a short distance from the scene of offence. It is difficult to say how the accused would behave after committing such a ghastly murder. It is quite possible that he might have thought it desirable to conceal it at a place far way from the scene of offence. Merely because the same panchas were called for the three panchanamas it cannot be said that they were under the influence of the police. We find the evidence about the discovery of the axe at the instance of the accused quite reliable. The axe was sent to the Chemical Analyser for examination and opinion. The report shows that the axe was found stained with blood as well as the handle and the blood detected was of human origin. However, the blood group of the blood stains could not be determined. The prosecution has thus established that the said axe had human blood both on its blade and handle. 17. Then we may consider the evidence about the accused being last seen in the company of the deceased and the case of a1'mi set up by him. However, the blood group of the blood stains could not be determined. The prosecution has thus established that the said axe had human blood both on its blade and handle. 17. Then we may consider the evidence about the accused being last seen in the company of the deceased and the case of a1'mi set up by him. Now, it is not necessary for us to consider in detail the entire evidence about the movements of the accused and the deceased in the morning since we find that It is not disputed that the accused along with his wife and the child came 10 Phaltan from Pharandwadi at about 2.30 p m. Thereafter, all of them came to their farm house and were in the farm house in the evening Upto 9.00 p.m. Indeed the accused had admitted that he along with the victims was in his home till about 9.30 p.m. There was nobody else in his house at that time. The parents of the accused and his youngest brother were the other persons who were present in the adjoining part of the farm house. Now, what has to be decided is whether the accused left the farm house at 9.30 p.m. and returned back some time in the morning. It is the case of the accused that he was required to go to Phaltan town for night shift for carrying out some urgent repairs at the cattle shed of the defence witness Nandraj Damodar Devale and was there till early hours of the morning and thereafter returned to the farm house to find his wife and child lying dead in a pool of blood. In the circumstances we may safely hold that the accused was last seen in the company of the victims till 9.30 p.m. and the incident took place half-an-hour thereafter. The crucial question, therefore, is whether the case of alibi set up by the accused is proved or can be believed. It is well settled law that it is on the accused to substantiate his plea of alibi and make it reasonable and probable. (See State of Uttar Pradesh v. Sughar Singh1, Now we would deal with the story put forth by the accused in this regard. It is well settled law that it is on the accused to substantiate his plea of alibi and make it reasonable and probable. (See State of Uttar Pradesh v. Sughar Singh1, Now we would deal with the story put forth by the accused in this regard. According to him, some time before 9.30 p.m. his brothers had planned to go to Phaltan to witness Ganapati festival and they asked him whether he would accompany them. He told them that he had to attend the work of tile flooring on that- night and accordingly by 9.30 p. m. he went to the cattle shed of Nandraj for a night shift to do the said masonry work there and worked there till 3 or 3.30 a.m. It is further his case that since it was raining he slept there only and returned to his house by about 6 or 6.30 a.m. in the morning. When he opened the door he saw the dead bodies of his wife and son in a pool of blood. On seeing this horrible sight be was shocked and his mental condition was like a mad man. Bewildered by this situation be tried to find out his parents but they were not there. He, therefore, straightway proceeded to the monastery to see his sister Sinabai. On seeing such a ghastly sight he began to talk like a mad man in a bewildered State that his family was ruined, his wife and son were killed. He continued to talk in this manner for a considerable time. He was also saying that if he had not gone to work the incident could have been avoided and, therefore, be was responsible for the incident. All this mixed feelings came uppermost in his mind and he went to her while talking in this manner. He has further stated that while he was talking in this manner witness Aphale who came in the monastery must have heard whatever the accused was talking and misunderstood the accused as saying that he had himself killed his wife and son and, therefore, asked him to sit there only. It is his case that he was not in the house at the time of the offence. It is his case that he was not in the house at the time of the offence. It may be mentioned clear that the accused was wearing an under pant and a shirt when he carne at the monastery and both the underpant and the shirt were seized from his person at the time of his arrest. He was also found wearing a banian which was also seized by the police. It was contended before us that there was no justifiable reason for discarding the evidence of Nandraj Devale who has clearly supported the case of the accused. Before we turn our attention to the consideration of the evidence of witness Nandraj Devale we may mention a few other relevant facts as emerged from the evidence on record. It was urged that the evidence of Nandraj Devale shows that the accused had undertaken the work in the cattle shed of Nandraj Devale and the work was half done and since the accused absented both on September 8, 1981 and on September 9, 1981 Devale want to his farm house on September 9,1981, and told the mother of the accused that there was urgency about the work being done in his cattle shed as his she-buffalows were to deliver. He asked the mother of the accused to send him for work as soon as he returned back to the farm house. The mother is not examined in this case. The father has not stated anything about the visit of Nandraj Devale to the farm house. The accused has not specifically said anything about his mother having conveyed the message to the accused. The circumstances in this case render the story of Devale having gone to the farm house and asking the mother to send the accused to work as soon as he comes back quite improbable. According to Nandram, the father of the accused, he himself, his wife and son Aba took meals and went to bed in his house at about 8 or 8.15 p.m. He has further stated that at about 10 or 10.15 p.m. he heard somebody screaming as 'Aai ga' from the house of the accused. He is positive that it was the deceased Rukminibai who had screamed. He then woke up his wife and came out of his house and both of them started shouting in the name of the accused and calling him out. He is positive that it was the deceased Rukminibai who had screamed. He then woke up his wife and came out of his house and both of them started shouting in the name of the accused and calling him out. They asked him to open the door which was closed from inside. Since, however, the door was not opened he tried to remove the chain which was put from inside by inserting his fingers through the slit of the door planks. However, his fingers were crushed when somebody pushed the door planks from inside. He felt that something untoward had taken place and, therefore, he immediately proceeded with his wife to report the matter to Phaltan police station. It was submitted that it is quite possible that the mother of the accused might not have told his father about the visit of Devale and her talk with him and, therefore, the father might have been under a wrong impression that the accused was in the house since ordinarily at that point of time it is only the accused, his wife and their child who were expected to be in his house. It is difficult to accept this argument having regard to the case of Nandram that both of them came out of their house and started shouting in the name of the accused. If the mother had conveyed the message to the accused and knew that the accused would go to the house of Devale at that time she would have told her husband about the accused going to the town for the night shift for the masonry work of witness Devale. Nandram has stated in his first information report thus: "I returned to my house at 7.30 p.m. At that time Dada was in his house. My three sons, Danu, Rustum and Ashok took their meals at 8 p. m. and went to the town to see Ganapati. Thereafter, I myself my youngest son, Aba and my wife took meals and then slept. At about 10 p.m. my wife woke me up. I got up. Just then I heard a scream of my daughter-in-law Rukminibai 'Aaiga' from the house of Dada (accused). Thereafter, I myself my youngest son, Aba and my wife took meals and then slept. At about 10 p.m. my wife woke me up. I got up. Just then I heard a scream of my daughter-in-law Rukminibai 'Aaiga' from the house of Dada (accused). I and my wife, therefore, opened the door of our house and came out and proceeded to the house of Dada and repeatedly shouted in loud voice 'Dada open the door, Dada open the door' but the door was not opened. 18. In the cross-examination Nandram has stated that his sons, Rustum and Ashok asked the accused to join them to see the Ganapati festival at Phaltan, but the accused told them that he would not come since he had to go to Nandraj Devale of Phaltan for doing masonry work on that night. This evidence of Nandram in this regard cannot be accepted. If he knew that the accused was to go to Nandraj Devale for work he would not have called out for the accused. The fact that both Nandram and his wife were calling out accused shows that the story of accused going out for work has been put forth to support the plea of alibi. However, the plea of alibi set up by the accused depended on the evidence of Nandraj Devale. In his examination-in-chief he has stated that at the time of Ganapati festival of 1981, the accused was working with him for putting shahabad flooring in his cattle shed. After working till 4 p.m. the accused took advance amount of Rs. 20/- out of the total amount of Rs. 60/- agreed to be paid to the accused for the said work. The accused, however, did not come for future work on 8th and 9th of September 1981 and, therefore, he went to the Vasti of the accused at about 12 noon on 9th of September 1981. After going there he told the mother of the accused that there was urgency of the pavement in his cattle shed as his 'she buffalows' were to deliver and, therefore, the accused should be sent for the work as soon as he returns back to the vasti. After going there he told the mother of the accused that there was urgency of the pavement in his cattle shed as his 'she buffalows' were to deliver and, therefore, the accused should be sent for the work as soon as he returns back to the vasti. He further stated that the accused came to his house at 9 p.m. and was carrying out the work of pavement till 3.30 a.m. and thereafter since it was raining the accused slept in his cattle shed and he too went to bed. When the witness woke up at about 7.30 a.m. he did not find the accused in the cattle shed. Thus the urgency set up by him is on account of the delivery of 'she buffalows, He has come out with a different version in his cross-examination. Whereas in his examination-in-chief his case was of delivery of his she buffalows, in the cross-examination he stated that one of his cows (i.e. one cow and not she buffalows) being about to deliver a calf. He further stated in the cross-examination that he had purchased the cow in the month of July-August 1981 and at that time the said cow was pregnant of 8/9 months. According to him, the cow delivers after the pregnancy of 9 months and 9 days and his cow belonged to that catagory. Thus he first gave up his story of the impending of his she buffalows and instead came out with the story about a cow being delivered. The so called urgency appears to be clearly a make believable-a story to buttress the plea of alibi and nothing more. In his cross-examination he has further stated that the mother of the accused had told him that on the 8th of September 1981 the accused was working with some other person ad on 9th September he had gone to bring his wife He, however, admitted that he did not ask the mother of the accused as to when the accused was likely to return nor did she tell him after how many days he was likely to return. Surely, if the work was so urgent, Devale would not have taken the risk of waiting for the accused whose return from his father-in-law's village on the day was uncertain. Surely, if the work was so urgent, Devale would not have taken the risk of waiting for the accused whose return from his father-in-law's village on the day was uncertain. There is yet another important circumstance which shows, that he is not a truthful witness and has come just to support the case of the accused. In reply to a court question Devale has stated that the accused was wearing a pyjama, white shirt and cap when he had come to his house on that night for completion of the work. Now, the case of the accused is that he had gone to the monastery after his visit to the house in the morning and then he was wearing his usual dress including pyjama and shirt. The witness, therefore, wanted to be consistent with what the accused had said in his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is true that the accused was wearing a pyjama, white shirt and a cap when he had gone for work on that night it would follow he would be in the same dress when he returned to his house in the morning. It is not the case of the accused that he took out his pyjama and cap before proceeding to the monastery after witnessing the ghastly scene. He has not even stated that he stepped into the house. On the other hand it is his case that he was frightened and bewildered so much so that he behaved like a mad man and proceeded towards the monastery to his sister Sinabai. There is abundant evidence on record which shows that when he went to the monastery he was found wearing only an underpant and a shirt. Sinabai has stated in her evidence that when the accused came to her monastery he was found wearing a half pant and white shirt. To, the same effect is the evidence of witness Geetabai who was also present in the monastery at that time. Both these witnesses turned hostile on certain other aspects and were cross-examined by the prosecution. However, their evidence to the above effect in the examination-in-chief was not challenged in the cross-examination on behalf of the accused. Then there is also the evidence of Sadashiv Aphale whose presence in the monastery at that time is admitted by the accused. Both these witnesses turned hostile on certain other aspects and were cross-examined by the prosecution. However, their evidence to the above effect in the examination-in-chief was not challenged in the cross-examination on behalf of the accused. Then there is also the evidence of Sadashiv Aphale whose presence in the monastery at that time is admitted by the accused. Witness Sadashiv Aphale whose presence in the monastery at the material time is not disputed and has also stated that the accused was then wearing an underpant and a shirt. The accused was arrested within a couple of hours or so after his visit to the monastery. He was taken from the monastery starlight to the police station and a panchanama about his arrest was made. This panchanama also refers to the fact that at the time of the arrest the accused was wearing an underpant having stripes and a shirt. This circumstance shows that Devale is not a witness of truth. In this connection we may also usefully refer to the evidence of prosecution witness Sampat Jadhav who is himself a mason and undertakes contracts. Sampat has stated in his evidence that he knows Damoder Devale of Phaltan who resides in Budhwar Peth in Phaltan and has also categorically stated that no work of the construction of the house of Damodar Devale was going on cither prior to the occurrence or on the date of the occurrence. We may mention here that the prosecution asked questions in this regard to witness Sampat in view of the suggestions made on behalf of the accused to witness Nandaram in his cross-examination about the talk between his other sons and the accused regarding the refusal of the accused to accompany his other sons to Phaltan for the Ganapati festival on the ground of his being required to go to Nandaraj Devale for masonry work. It is under these circumstances that witness Sampat Jadhav being himself a contractor and was in a position to throw light on the question as to whether there was some work going on in the cattle shed of Devale that questions were put to him in his examination-in-chief in that behalf. It is under these circumstances that witness Sampat Jadhav being himself a contractor and was in a position to throw light on the question as to whether there was some work going on in the cattle shed of Devale that questions were put to him in his examination-in-chief in that behalf. Sampat Jadhav has stated in his evidence that he engages labourers for carrying out the contracts and 4 or 5 labourers are always engaged by him and the accused is one of them who works for him as a mason on daily wages. He further stated that the accused was working with him for some days and also with other person". Thus he was in a position to tell about the work done by the accused. Having regard to the nature of his own business it is quite possible that Sampat Jadhav would be in the know of the places in Phaltan where the works were going on, particularly having regard to the fact that Phaltan is not too big a town. If the circumstances and the background in which the said material was elicited in the evidence of Sampat Jadhav, we do not think that any importance can be given to the witness not disclosing these facts known to him ill his statement before the police. We see no reason to reject his testimony. On a careful consideration of the evidence of the defence witness Nandraj Devale and the circumstances appearing on record we have no hesitation in rejecting the testimony. Consequently, we also hold that the accused has failed to prove his plea of alibi, In our view, the accused has set up a false plea of alibi merely with a view to show that he was not in his house at the time of the incident, since his presence in the house would point out to the accused as the probable assistant with reasonable certainty. In Deonandan Mishra v. State of Bihar2, it has been laid down that - "In the case of circumstantial evidence where the various links have been satisfactorily made out and the circumstances point to the accused as the probable assailant with reasonable definiteness and in proximity to the deceased as regards time and situation and he offers no explanation, which if accepted, though not proved, would afford a reasonable basis for a conclusion on the entire case consistent with his innocence, such absence of explanation or false explanation would itself be an additional link which completes the chain." We will take into consideration this circumstance of raising a false plea of alibi in conjunction with and in the light of the other circumstances proved by the prosecution. 19. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused confessed about his guilty (sic) to witness Sadashiv Aphale. This witness was at the material time working as a clerk in the court of civil judge (junior division) and J.M.F.C. Phaltan. He was residing in a quarter of the monastery of Mahanubhav Panth at Phaltan. He himself is a follower of Mahanubhav Panth for over 12 years. His evidence shows that according to his daily routine on September 10, 1981, he went to Abasaheb temple at about 8 or 8.15 a.m. and after offering his prayer he went to Landage Math (Monastery where Sinabai is residing) and there he offered his prayers. While be was about to leave the monastery he saw Sinabai weeping. Out of curiosity he asked her as to the reason why she was weeping. He then noticed the accused by her side and since Sinabai did not reply to his questions he asked the accused as to what the matter was. The accused then told him "I have killed her". He then asked the accused as to where his wife was. The accused then told him that" I killed her". The witness further asked the accused as to where his son was. The accused told him that he had also killed his son. The witness has further stated that apprehending that the accused may run away he caught hold of his hand and took him into a room of the monastery by pushing him inside the room and then latched the door from outside. The accused told him that he had also killed his son. The witness has further stated that apprehending that the accused may run away he caught hold of his hand and took him into a room of the monastery by pushing him inside the room and then latched the door from outside. He then advised Sinabai to immediately inform the police and also hand over the accused in the custody of the police. As far as this extra-judicial confession is concerned both Sinabai and Geetabai who were admittedly present then did not support the prosecution and were cross-examined by the prosecution. The question is whether the testimony of the said witness Sodashiv Aphale is acceptable. The evidence of the witness was assailed mainly on the ground that since the accused was murmering and talking incoherently like a mad man he must have been misunderstood by the witness and wrongly felt that the accused was saying that the accused had killed his wife and child. It was also submitted that the subsequent conduct of the witness is not natural. It was submitted that till the statement of this witness which was recorded the next day i.e. on September 11 81, he had not disclosed the fact that the accused had confessed his guilt to him. After giving our anxious consideration to the testimony of this witness and the circumstances appearing from the record we are unable to accept the submissions of the learned counsel. It is true that in the cross-examination tl1e witness has admitted that at some stage the accused was murmering something, but then the witness is positive about the conversation between him and the accused as set out above. All that he has stated in the cross-examination is that the accused was murmering something, but he did not pay any attention to them. To the question as to why he did not pay attention to tile murmering of the accused he replied that he became frightened on account of the disclosure of the grave crime and since he was an employee of judicial department he did not pay any attention to the murmering of the accused. He also stated that the accused was behaving at the time of the confession as if he were a little bit mentally disturbed about the incident. He also stated that the accused was behaving at the time of the confession as if he were a little bit mentally disturbed about the incident. It is quite possible that the accused would be disturbed on account of his own act, but that does not mean that he would not be in a position to answer coherently or give clear replies to the queries put by the witness. The murmering as stated by the witness might have followed after the conversation between the witness and the accused. The evidence of the witness regarding his conversation with the accused is clear and unambiguous. The witness had no animus against the accused and had no reason to falsely implicate the accused in such a serious crime. It seems that the witness being in Government service, may be disinclined to get involved in the process of investigation of the case. This probably explains his conduct in not disclosing the extra-judicial confession to others till his statement was recorded by the police. Moreover, there were other persons admittedly present when the confession was made to him by the accused. The witness has stated that he did not inquire nor did he come to know as to what further action was taken against the accused after he had put him in the room in the monastery. This is only consistent with the attitude of the witness to remain aloof and not get involved. The statement of this witness was recorded the very next day after the complaint was lodged. The mere delay of one day in recording the statement cannot be a ground for rejecting his testimony. There is no reason why the witness who seems to be a God fearing man and regularly goes to the temple and absolutely unconnected with the accused before, should think of falsely involving him in such a serious offence. The witness bas categorically denied the suggestion that the accused had simply said that his wife and child are murdered and that by drawing some inference he gave his statement the next day before the police and was deposing falsely at their instance. We are of the view that the extra-judicial confession deposed to by the witness is expressed in clear, unambiguous and unequivocal terms. The evidence is of an independent and disinterested witness. We are of the view that the extra-judicial confession deposed to by the witness is expressed in clear, unambiguous and unequivocal terms. The evidence is of an independent and disinterested witness. We have, therefore, no hesitation in relying on his testimony regarding the extra judicial confession made by the accused to him and rejecting the defence of the accused that the witness had misunderstood what the accused was murmering. 20. Admittedly, the accused had sustained injuries on that night. According to the accused, on September 8, 1981 i.e. a day previous to the Incident he had fallen down from a supporting ladder at the height of eight feet while he was carrying on construction work and thus he had sustained the injuries. This is belied by the evidence of Dr. Kamble who had examined him on September 10, 1981, at 8 p.m. According to him, he gave the age of the injuries as within 24 hours. The witness was not cross-examined on this aspect. Moreover, Dr. Kamble has stated that the accused gave the history of the assault which has been noted known by him in the medical certificate. The history noted down is assault by hands and feet by his wife on 9/9/1981 at about 10 p.m. All that has been brought out in the cross-examination of this witness is that the history given by the accused is not recorded in his own words and language but by translating it into English. It is not suggested that the witness is not wellversed with Marathi language. The statement is not so complicated as to give rise to some mistake. This history which is noted down by the doctor would go to show that at about the time of the incident the accused was present in his house and there must have been some scuffle between him and the deceased in the course of which the accused was assaulted by her. 21. The prosecution also relies on the circumstance that the pant of the accused had blood stains both in the front and back-side. It was of 'o' group of blood which was admittedly the blood group of the deceased. This is proved by the report of the Chemical Analyser. 22. 21. The prosecution also relies on the circumstance that the pant of the accused had blood stains both in the front and back-side. It was of 'o' group of blood which was admittedly the blood group of the deceased. This is proved by the report of the Chemical Analyser. 22. What emerges from the above discussion is that the mantal life of the accused with the deceased which lasted for only about two years did not prove to be a happy one. On one occasion some months prior to the incident in question the deceased had left her husband's house out of sheer annoyance and there was complaint of beating and illtreatment at the hands of the accused and the accused and his relations had to apologize for the incident and assurance of good treatment in future was given. As indicated above though for a few months prior to the murder there was no particular incident of beating or assault at the hands of the accused It does appear that the accused was intemperate by nature and even a small incident was likely to provoke him. He had even noted down in his diary about the deceased having left his house out of annoyance. The fact that the accused told Dr. Kamble that the injuries on his person were on account of assault by hands and feet by his wife shows that at that time i.e. at about 10 p.m. there was scuffle over some matter between the accused and the deceased in his house. 23. The evidence of Dr. Kamble shows that the accused had the following three injuries: Two abrasions above the left clavicle (Lat part of c1avic1e) and size ½" X ¼' and ½" x ¼”. They are oblique directly downwards and outwards. Abrasion over the right chest at the level of 4th right intercostal space of size ½" x ¼" oblique directly downwards and outwards. Contusion over the right scapular region of size 2" x ¼" oblique directing downwards and outwards, dark reddish in colour. 24. We see no reason to doubt the correctness of the history recorded by Dr. Kamble when he examined the accused. From this circumstance it would be reasonable to infer the assault on the deceased was preceded by a scuffle between the accused and the deceased. We have already rejected the evidence of the defence witness Nandraj Devale. 24. We see no reason to doubt the correctness of the history recorded by Dr. Kamble when he examined the accused. From this circumstance it would be reasonable to infer the assault on the deceased was preceded by a scuffle between the accused and the deceased. We have already rejected the evidence of the defence witness Nandraj Devale. The above evidence of Dr. Kamble also falsifies the case of the accused that he had sustained the injuries while he was carrying on construction work on September 8, 1981. The history recorded by Dr. Kamble on the information given by the accused himself would negative the defence of the accused that he left house at 9.30 p.m. The incident in this case took place at about 10 p.m. which would show that the injuries were sustained by the accused just prior to or at the time of the assault on the deceased. Apart from the fact that we find the evidence of the defence witness Nandraj Devale unreliable, the history recorded by Dr. Kamble would show that the accused was in the house at the time of the incident of murder. 25. We have already held that the blood stained axe was discovered at the instance of the accused and t he blade and handle were found to be stained with human blood. The axe was produced by the accused from a place at a fairly long distance from the house of the accused the very next day at about 4 p.m. After the incident the accused was seen only in the morning in the monastery. The accused had thus ample opportunity to dispose of the axe in the bushes from where it was discovered at the hands of the accused. 26. We have found the evidence of witness Sadashiv Aphale to be credible and trustworthy. His evidence establishes that the accused made an extra-judicial confession to him in the morning at the monastery. Sadashiv Aphale is an independent and disinterested witness. We find that he has given evidence in a straight forward manner. The conversation between this witness and the accused deposed to by him is clear and unambiguous and leaves no scope for any error on the part of the witness in understanding what the accused was saying. Sadashiv Aphale is an independent and disinterested witness. We find that he has given evidence in a straight forward manner. The conversation between this witness and the accused deposed to by him is clear and unambiguous and leaves no scope for any error on the part of the witness in understanding what the accused was saying. As held by the Supreme Court in Piara Singh v. State of Punjab3 law does not require that the evidence of an extra judicial confession should in all cases be corroborated. If the extra judicial confession is proved by an independent witness who bore no animus against the accused and his evidence about the extra-judicial confession is in clear and unambiguous terms, in our view, the evidence of such a witness can be accepted even without corroboration. Even if corroboration is called for, in the present case we find that it comes forth from other circumstantial evidence such as discovery of the blood stained axe at the instance of the accused, the evidence of last seen together, presence of the accused at the time of the incident just before or at the time of the incident and a false plea of alibi being set up by him. 27. The principles governing the appreciation of evidence in a case dependent upon circumstancial evidence are that each circumstance relied upon by the prosecution must be established by cogent, succinct and reliable evidence; that the circumstance relied upon must be such as cannot be explained on any hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. In other words, the circumstance must be of an incriminating character. All the proved circumstances must provide a complete chain, no link of which must be missing and they must unequivocally point to the guilt of the accused and exclude any hypothesis consistent with his innocence. 28. In our view, the prosecution has established the abovementioned circumstances by cogent and reliable evidence. These circumstances proved by the prosecution are of an incriminating character and cannot be explained on any hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. There is no missing link and the proved circumstances establish a complete chain which unequivocally point to the guilt of the accused and are wholly inconsistent with the innocence claimed by him. These circumstances proved by the prosecution are of an incriminating character and cannot be explained on any hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. There is no missing link and the proved circumstances establish a complete chain which unequivocally point to the guilt of the accused and are wholly inconsistent with the innocence claimed by him. Considering the human conduct as also the probabilities of the case it was not expected that the husband whose wife and child have returned back from the maternal place only few hours back would go to work in the night time. The only evidence led by the accused to prove alibi is that of Nandraj Devale which is proved to be wholly unreliable. This would be an additional circumstance against the accused and raises a strong inference that if the accused was not in fact where he said he was, then in all probability he was where the prosecution said he was. In any case, the fact that such a plea of alibi having been taken up and found to be false can be taken into consideration in judging the complicity or otherwise of the accused. In the circumstances of the case this circumstance assumes importance that ordinarily at night time the accused was expected to be in his house. All the above circumstances thus held proved in this case establish beyond all reason able doubt that the accused and none else was responsible for the murder of his wife and son. The trial court has, therefore, rightly found the accused guilty and convicted him under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 29. While upholding conviction we do not think that the facts of this case justified imposition of extreme penalty of death. The case rests purely on circumstancial evidence. The evidence shows that the accused was illtempered and of and on there were bickerings going on between the accused and his wife. We do not have the exact circumstances which led the accused to kill his own wife and child. We are not aware as to how the incident started, but from the history of the case deposed to by Dr. Kamble it is clear that the incident was preceded by a scuffle or quarrel which led to the assault with hands and feet by the wife. We are not aware as to how the incident started, but from the history of the case deposed to by Dr. Kamble it is clear that the incident was preceded by a scuffle or quarrel which led to the assault with hands and feet by the wife. It is quite possible that in the process the accused got excited and lost his temper and picked up the axe killing his wife and also throttling his son to death. This does not appear to be a case of pre-planned or pre-meditated murder. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused, there was no strong motive to undertake such a venture and at any rate we find no motive to kill the child. The record shows that the accused had a sick mind and even during the trial he had to be admitted to mental hospital for treatment. Having regard to these extenuating circumstances we think that this case cans for the lesser sentence of life imprisonment. In the result, Criminal Appeal No. 187 of 1983 filed by the accused against his conviction stands dismissed. However, as regards sentence we reject the reference and sentence the accused to suffer imprisonment for life. Appeal dismissed but sentence altered. 1. A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 191 2. A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 801. 3. A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 2274.