JUDGMENT 1. - Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment daed 29th May, 2003 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Ajmer, Camp at Kishangarh, in Sessions Case No. 10/2003, whereby Mahaveer appellant herein, was convicted and sentenced as under : U/s. 302 IPC To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. U/s. 376 IPC To suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and the fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. U/s. 201 IPC To suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the informant Hangami Lal Mali, resident of village Akodiya, made a written report to S.H.O. Police Station Madanganj (Ajmer), on December 13, 2000 at 7.45 a.m., wherein he reported that he along with his brother Panchu resided at Shivaji Nagar (Madanganj). His brother Pancnu had no issue so he used to keep unmarried daughter of his brother-in-law, named Kailashi with him. On the eve of death of his uncle, Panchu had gone to village Akodiya. So the daughter of informant Neeru, aged 9 year used to sleep with Kailashi. For last two days, his nephew Mahaveer was also coming to sleep in the house of Panchu. On 13.12.2000 in the morning at about 6.45 a.m. Tarachand came to his house and called from outside and told that some body had killed Kailashi and Neeru. Therefore, the informant along with Tarachand went to the house and saw blood lying in the front room. Kailashi and Neeru were lying dead and their clothes were smeared with blood and Mahaveer (appellant) was sleeping in the nearby room. On the basis of the above report, a case u/s. 302 IPC was registered and the investigation commenced. During the investigation, Post Mortem on the dead bodies was performed, memos were drawn, the accused was arrested, statements of witnesses were recorded and after completing the investigation the challan was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Ajmer, camp at Kishangarh. During the investigation, Post Mortem on the dead bodies was performed, memos were drawn, the accused was arrested, statements of witnesses were recorded and after completing the investigation the challan was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Ajmer, camp at Kishangarh. Charges u/s. 376, 302 and 201 IPC were framed. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses. Then the statement of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, he offered no explanation except that he was falsely implicated on account of enmity. No witness in defence, however, was examined. 3. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced before us and gave a close look to the material on record. 4. In the absence of any eye witness to prove its case the prosecution relied upon the following circumstances to connect the appellant with the offence alleged him: (i) Death of deceased Kailashi, aged 17 years and Neeru aged 9 years, was homicidal in nature; (ii) Accused Mahaveer was sleeping in the adjoining room to the deceased girls on the night the incident occurred; (iii) the conduct of the accused of falling in the feet of P.W.1 Hangami Lai and started shivering on the following morning of the incident; (iv) Blood stains were found on the pent of the accused; (v) On the following day of the incident on medical examination, blood clot was found on left heal of the accused; (vi) Human semen was found in the vaginal swab as well as from the underwear and salwar of Kaliashi (deceased) and also on the underwear of the accused Mahaveer vide F.S.L. Report Ex. P. 52; and (vii) Recovery of weapon of offence i.e. the blood stained axe and lathi from the house where incident had occurred. 5. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, before a person can be found to be guilty, it is essential that each one of the circumstances relied upon must be clearly established and the cumulative effect of such circumstances taken together must be such to exclude the possibility of innocence of the accused. 5. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, before a person can be found to be guilty, it is essential that each one of the circumstances relied upon must be clearly established and the cumulative effect of such circumstances taken together must be such to exclude the possibility of innocence of the accused. In Jaharlal Das V. State of Orissa A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 1388 , Hon'ble Apex Court had laid down as under : "It is well settled that the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain the conviction must satisfy three conditions: (i) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; (ii) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; (iii) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none-else, and it should also, be incapable 'of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused." 6. The death of Kailashi and Neeru was indisputably homicidal in nature. As per post mortem report (Ex.P.14) the following injuries were found on the person of Neeru : (1) Swelling 3 cm x 3 cm x 2 cm at middle of forehead. On dissection 2 cm x 2 cm x 1 an sub apmortic hematoma bone deep found. (2) Swelling 4 cm x 4 cm back of head. On dissecting subapmortic hematoma 3 cm x 2 cm found. (3) Injury on neck area to right up to area below it. Angle of mandible. In the opinion of Board the cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation. Nothing was suggestive of sexual assault on her. Time of death was found to be within 24 hours of death. Vaginal swab was taken for examination. Report about sexual assault, could be given after report of chemical and FSL examination. 7. Vide Post Morden report (Ex.P.15) the following injuries were found on the person of Kumari Kailashi: (i) Wound in chop form 7 cm x 2 cm x 2 cm triangular on left side of forehead exposing deep bone of skull with bleeding. (ii) Lt. Black eye present. (iii) Lacerated wound 6 cm x 4 cm irregular shape, Lt. Tempro parietal area exposing bone. (ii) Lt. Black eye present. (iii) Lacerated wound 6 cm x 4 cm irregular shape, Lt. Tempro parietal area exposing bone. On dissection large hematoma found of Rt. Fronto pareital area of skull measuring 8 cm x 4 cm. Linear fracture present 6 cm long in upper part of frontal bone of It. Side (grievous). In the opinion of Board the cause of death was shock, haemorrhage as a result of head injury. Time of death was found to be within 24 hours of death. Vaginal swab was taken for examination. Report about sexual assault could be given after report of Chemical, F.S.L. Examination. 8. On reappraisal of other circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution it is revealed that as per the first information report, (P.W.1) Hangarni Lal had four brothers. His brothers Ranglal, Shag Chand and Sheoji lived in village Akodiya while he himself and Panchu (P.W.10) lived at Madanganj. Their houses were at a little distance. His brother Panchu (P.W.10) had no issue so he brought Kailashi, aged 17 years, daughter of his brother-in-law, to stay with him as the mother of Kailashi had expired in Family Planning Operation. Panchu had gone to village on account of the death of his uncle, who had expired on 8.12.2000, leaving behind Kailashi at his residence, so Neeru aged 7 years, daughter of Hangami Lal used to sleep with Kailashi in the night. It was under these circumstances the accused Mahaveer s/o Rang Lal (Nephew of P.W.1) Was made to sleep in the adjoining room for safety and security of the two girls as deposed by Panchu Lal as well as Hangami Lal. On the following morning of the night of the incident at about 6 a.m. (P.W.2) Tara Chand went to the house' of Panchu for milk. He went inside the main gate as the same was , closed and there was no response on calling from outside. On going inside, he found that half of the door of the room was made to slip from its place leaving the door half open and blood was flowing out. Then, he peeped from the window and saw one girl was lying on the cot with her neck dangling and the other girl was lying in the pool of blood on the floor. Then, he peeped from the window and saw one girl was lying on the cot with her neck dangling and the other girl was lying in the pool of blood on the floor. He also pushed the door of the adjoining room but it was bolted from inside and he felt that some body was sleeping inside. Then, he came out of the house and called Ram Swaroop Kumwat (P. W'.3), neighbor of Panchu, who also came on the spot. Then they called other persons from the neighbourhood, who gathered there. Thereafter, (P. W .2) Tara Chand along with Ram Swaroop went to inform Devi Lal. As per the testimony of Hangami Lal (P.W.1) he also reached to the place of occurrence on being informed by (P.W.3) Ram Swaroop. When Tara Chand (PW.2) returned back, he saw the accused having the quilt wrapped around himself so the people gathered around thought that accused was sick but on lifting the quilt. (P.W.2) Tara Chand found that the 'pent' of accused was stained with blood. This fact has been further corroborated from the testimony of P.W.1 Hangami Lal. Vide (Ex.P.37), the pent was recovered on 13.12.2000 by (P.W.15) Vikram Singh, S.H.O., Police Station, Madanganj, who found it to be stained with human blood and on examination vide F.S.L. Report (Ex.P.58), the presence of human blood was confirmed. 9. (P.W.2) Hangami Lal, who is uncle of the appellant and whose daughter Neeru was killed in the incident, along with Kailashi, has categorically deposed that when he reached at the spot, he found Neeru lying dead on the cot while Kailashi was lying dead on the floor. He further deposed that Mahaveer was in the adjoining room and he came out and fell down on his feet and he was shivering. His 'pent' was stained with blood. This witness has, not been cross-examined on the point and as such the testimony of this witness is natural and quite convincing on the point of conduct of the accused after the ghastly incident, which took place in the preceding night, while he was sleeping in the adjoining room for the safety and security of the two girls. 10. The next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution to connect the accused with the crime pertains to the fact that vaginal swab of Kailashi (deceased) collected at the time of post mortem by (P. W.19) Dr. 10. The next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution to connect the accused with the crime pertains to the fact that vaginal swab of Kailashi (deceased) collected at the time of post mortem by (P. W.19) Dr. Smt. Saroj Vijavyargiva, was found containing human semen as per FSL Report (Ex.P.52). Likewise, the underwear and salwar found on the person of deceased Kailashi and recovered vide (Ex.P.12) and the underwear of the accused Mahaveer recovered vide Ex.P.40 by the S.H.O., Mandanganj (P.W.15) Vikram Singh were found stained with human semen vide FSL report Ex.P55 and it shows that Kailashi (deceased) was subjected to rape before she was put to death. Thus the incident of twin murder of the girls is indicative of the probability that Kailashi being young and matured, was subject to rape but the other girl woke up, so she was also put to death by strangulation as per the Post Mortem Report (Ex.P.14) conducted by Medical Board. The fact that both the girls were put to death is indicative of the fact that the assailant being a known person was afraid that his identity could be disclosed by the girls if they were not put to death. Therefore, these circumstances taken cumulatively are indicative of the fact that the accused Mahaveer, who was sleeping in the adjoining room for the safety and security of the two girls, being in close relations as a member of the same family, within all human probability was the person and none else, who could have committed this ghastly crime. 11. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that accused being a young person of 20 years age and there being no symptoms of sexual intercourse on his person, only on the basis of semen being found on his underwear, he should not be connected with the ghastly crime: This argument advanced on behalf of the appellant is not of much avail in the facts and circumstances of the case in view of the chain of circumstances found connected with the crime. Though, semen could be found on the underwear of a young person even without being engaged in sexual activity but in the facts and circumstances of the case, this fact is relevant by way of additional link so as to connect the rest of the closely knitted circumstances which lead to the irresistible conclusion that it was the accused Mahaveer and none else, who could have committed this ghastly act of twin murders as well as the rape. 12. The next incriminating circumstance to connect the accused with the crime pertains to recovery of weapons of offence i.e. axe and lathi, vide (Ex.P.7) and (Ex.P.8), respectively. From the evidence. adduced on the point, it is revealed that axe was recovered on the following morning of the incident at 10 a.m. on 13.12.2000 from the house of Panchu (P.W.1), lying behind a cot in the western side of his boundary wall inside the house and the same was found stained with blood even up to some part of he wooden handle of the axe. Likewise, a blood stained lathi was recovered from the nearby 'chappar' of the room, where Kailashi and Neeru were found dead and both these articles were further confirmed to be stained with human blood vide F.S.L. Report (Ex.P.58). At this juncture, it may be noted that these articles were found at the time when the S.H.O. (P.W.15) Vikram Singh reached at the spot and inspected the site and prepared the site inspection memo though by then the accused Mahaveer was not arrested as revealed from the testimony of (P. W.15) that accused Mahaveer was admitted in the Govt. Hospital, Kishangarh on 13.12.2000 and the clothes from his body were recovered while he was admitted at Bed No. 4, in Male Surgical Ward vide (Ex.P.39) and (Ex.P. 40). (P. W . 17), Dr. Mahendra Jain also deposed in this regard that on 14.12.2000, he was posted as Assistant Professor (Psychiatric Department), J.L.N. Hospital, Ajmer, and there Mahaveer was brought for examination and he was not found with any symptoms of any mental disease and he made entry to this effect in his report (Ex.P.49) and accordingly he decided to hand over the accused to the police. Therefore, under these circumstances the recovery of the weapon of offence effected from the house of Panchu, where the ghastly crime was committed is indicative of the fact that there could be none else from outside the house who could have committed this ghastly crime. This provides a further link unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. 13. The aforesaid circumstances found to be established against the appellant form a complete chain of evidence as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the hypothesis of the innocence of the appellant but on the contrary the same are conclusive nature consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the appellant and condusively lead to irresistible conclusion that the appellant alone and none else had committed rape and murder of Kailashi and also murder of Neeru. However, the offence u/s. 201 IPC against the appellant is not found proved. 14. From the evidence discussed herein above, it is satisfactorily and conclusively proved that all the links in the chain are complete and do not suffer from any infirmity. 15. For these reasons, the appeal preferred by the appellant Mahaveer for the offences under Sections 302 and 376 IPC, being devoid of merit stands dismissed. His conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 201 IPC is set aside. The judgment of the trial court stands modified accordingly.Appeal dismissed. *******