JUDGMENT (B.R. Gavai J.) 1. The appeal takes an exception to the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Wardha in Sessions Trial No.157/2008 thereby convicting the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is as under: The accused along with his father, mother, wife and daughter used to reside at village Chandewani. On the date of incident, father and mother of the accused had gone for labour work. The accused had also gone for the labour work but returned in the afternoon. In the evening hours, it was found that the wife and daughter of the accused were lying dead in a pool of blood in the house of accused, while accused was present there. On the basis of confession given to some villagers, an F.I.R. came to be registered. The police arrived on the spot of incident and arrested the accused. After completion of the investigation, the chargesheet came to be filed for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of his wife Harsha and daughter Meena. Since the case was exclusively triable by the learned Sessions Court, it was committed to the said Court. The charge was framed for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence as could be seen from the answers to questions 14 and 30 was that the accused had not returned to home and was not present on the spot of incident. At the conclusion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge recorded the finding of conviction, as aforesaid. Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeal. 3. Shri Deshpande, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/accused, submits that the present case is a case purely based on circumstantial evidence. In a case of circumstantial evidence, it is necessary for the prosecution that each and every incriminating circumstance should be proved beyond all reasonable doubts and further the chain of the said circumstances should be so established that it leads to no other conclusion than the guilt of the accused. In a case of circumstantial evidence, it is necessary for the prosecution that each and every incriminating circumstance should be proved beyond all reasonable doubts and further the chain of the said circumstances should be so established that it leads to no other conclusion than the guilt of the accused. The learned counsel submits that firstly, the prosecution has failed to prove the incriminating circumstances against the accused and further failed to establish the link of chain which would lead to no other conclusion than the guilt of the accused. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the appeal deserves to be allowed. 4. Shri Ghodeswar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State/respondent, submits that the prosecution has proved all the incriminating circumstances against the accused. He submits that the accused has made extrajudicial confession to Baban (P.W.1) and Gulab (P.W.2). The learned APP further submits that the evidence of Dudhram (P.W.6) would reveal that the accused had returned along with said witness at around 12 noon and gone to his house. He further submits that the motive has also been established in the evidence of Bebibai (P.W.5). The learned APP further submits that the clothes which were seized from the accused at the time of his arrest and the weapons used in the crime have been found with the blood of group ‘A’, which is the blood group of deceased Harsha and Meena. He further submits that on a memorandum under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act the weapons used in the crime i.e. axe and iron rod have been also seized. He further submits that the medical evidence corroborates with the injuries sustained by the deceased, which were possible with the weapons seized from the accused. The learned APP, therefore, submits that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts and as such the appeal is without any merits and deserve to be allowed. 5. It can be seen from the evidence of Baban (P.W.1), who was working as Peon in a Grampanchayat, that when he was proceeding towards Grampanchayat, he met Gulabrao Gadge and Gangaram Kamble. He stated that Gulabrao gave him a call and told him that they should go to the house of Gangaram. He further stated that all the three including Gangaram, the father of the appellant, went to the house of Gangaram. He stated that Gulabrao gave him a call and told him that they should go to the house of Gangaram. He further stated that all the three including Gangaram, the father of the appellant, went to the house of Gangaram. He stated that Gulabrao and Gangaram entered into the house of Gangaram and he stood at the door of that house. He saw that inside the chhapari of the house of Gangaram, the wife and daughter of accused were lying dead in a pool of blood. There were various injuries on the person of those two victims. He further stated that Gulabrao told him that Maroti was sitting in a corner of that chhapri. He then entered that chhapri. He as well as Gulabrao asked the accused as to why he had killed them. Accused Maroti told him that his wife did not provide him meal and therefore, he had killed them by means of axe. Then he came out and gave a call to Murlidhar Kamble. Thereafter he and Murlidhar Kamble entered the house and found both the victims to be dead. Though this witness has been thoroughly cross-examined, nothing damaging has come on record. 6. The evidence of Gulab (P.W.2) corroborates the evidence of Baban (P.W.1). Gulab (PW.2) also states that on the date of incident at around 5.30 p.m. he was present at his house. His brother-in-law Gangaram came to him and asked him to go to his house. While going to the house Gangaram and Baban Ingle met him on the way. He stated that they took him to the house of Gangaram. He stated that in the chhapri of that house, he found Harsha and Meena lying there in a pool of blood in dead condition. He further stated that there were injuries on the head of Harsha while injury on the side of face of Meena. He further stated that the accused was present at the corner of the next room of his house. He further stated that when Gangaram came to his house, he told him that accused killed his wife and daughter. On seeing accused, he asked him as to why he did it. Accused told him that his wife did not provide him food and therefore, he killed them. He then asked his son Mukunda to make a phone to police. He further stated that when Gangaram came to his house, he told him that accused killed his wife and daughter. On seeing accused, he asked him as to why he did it. Accused told him that his wife did not provide him food and therefore, he killed them. He then asked his son Mukunda to make a phone to police. He stated that thereafter Mukunda made a phone call to the police and as such police arrived at village. He stated that thereafter he went to the police station and lodged the F.I.R. Nothing damaging has come on record in the evidence of this witness. It is further to be noted that this witness is closely related to the appellant and as such there is no reason as to why he should falsely implicate the present appellant. 7. Bebibai (P.W.5) is mother of the deceased Harsha. She has stated in her evidence that Harsha used to tell her that the accused used to doubt the character of Harsha and used to beat her. She also stated that Harsha used to tell her that the daughter was not of him. This witness has also been cross-examined and nothing damaging has come on record in her evidence. 8. Dudhram (P.W.6) stated that he along with accused had gone to the field of Pandurang Mankar for doing the work of removing mud from the well. He stated that as the other labourers were required and since they had not come, they were freed by their master at 12.00 noon and thereafter he along with accused did not take food there and returned together and then they returned to their respective houses. 9. From the evidence of Prakash (P.W.7) Investigating Officer, it can be seen that the accused came to be arrested immediately and while arresting him his blood stained clothes were also seized. The arrest panchanama at Exh.48 is duly proved by the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer has also proved the disclosure statement at Exh.56 thereby disclosing that the accused had kept the axe used in the crime in the kitchen of his house below the quilt i.e. wooden bench and that he had kept the iron rod in a chhapri hidden behind the fan. The seizure memo of the weapons used in the crime has also been proved by the Investigating Officer below Exh.57. 10. The seizure memo of the weapons used in the crime has also been proved by the Investigating Officer below Exh.57. 10. The Chemical Analyzer's Report which is at Exh.66 shows that the blood, which was found on the blood stained clothes of the accused and on the weapons used in the crime, is of group ‘A’ which is the blood group of the deceased Harsha and Meena. 11. Dr. Shakil Ahemad (P.W.3), who has performed the postmortem of deceased Harsha and Meena, has noticed the following injuries on the person of the deceased Harsha. “(1) Incised wounds over neck, three in number. Two wounds at right postero lateral site, (a) size 1½ x ½ x 1 and (b) size 1 x ½ x ½ , third wound on posterior side (back side) of neck, having size 1 x ½ x ½”. (2) Incised wound over scalp at occipital region right side, size 3 x 1 x deep to bone, situated obliquely. (3) Incised wound over scalp at left occipito parietal region, size 2½ x ½ x deep to skull cavity. (4) Incised wound over scalp at occipital region just below No.2 injury, size 3 x 1 x deep to cavity, situated obliquely. (5) Incised wound over scalp just below No.4 injury, size 2 x ½ x deep to bone.” The injuries sustained by Meena are thus : “(1) Incised wound over left cheek just lateral to mouth angle, just below left ear, horizontally, size 2½ x ½. (2) Incised wound at lower lip and both part of chin, size 3½ x ½ x through and through. (3) Incised wound over back just below neck horizontally, size 41/2 x 1 x 1.” Doctor Shakil Ahmed (P.W.3) in his evidence stated that death of Harsha was due to injury to vital organ brain with hemorrhagic shock with cardio respiratory arrest. The death of Meena was due to injury to spinal cord with neurogenic shock with multiple injuries with hemorrhagic shock with cardio respiratory arrest. This witness has further stated in his evidence that the injuries which were caused to the deceased, were possible with the weapons which were seized from the accused. 12. It will be appropriate to refer to the following observations of the Apex Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarada V/s. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622 . “151. 12. It will be appropriate to refer to the following observations of the Apex Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarada V/s. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622 . “151. Before discussing the cases relied upon by the High Court we would like to cite a few decisions on the nature, character and essential proof required in a criminal case which rests on circumstantial evidence alone. The most fundamental and basic decision of this Court is Hanumant v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 1952 SCR 1091 : ( AIR 1952 SC 343 ). This case has been uniformly followed and applied by this Court in a large number of later decisions up-to-date, for instance, the cases of Tufail v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1969) 3 SCC 198 and Ramgopal v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1972 SC 656 . It may be useful to extract what Mahajan, J. has laid down in Hanumant's case (at pp.345-46 of AIR) (supra): "It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused." 152. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established : (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or should be proved' as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793 : ( AIR 1973 SC 2622 ) where the following observations were made: "certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions." (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” 13. Taking into consideration the evidence, which we have discussed aforesaid, we find that the prosecution has proved the following circumstances beyond all reasonable doubts. (i) From the evidence of Baban (P.W.1) and Gulab (P.W.2) the prosecution has proved that the accused was found in a room with deceased Harsha and Meena lying dead a pool of blood. (ii) An extra-judicial confession was given by the appellant/accused to the above two witnesses. (iii) From the evidence of Bebibai (P.W.5) the prosecution has proved the motive behind the crime i.e. the accused used to suspect the character of his wife Harsha and also suspect that the daughter Meena was not born from him. (iv) The immediate arrest of the accused. (v) Seizure of blood stained clothes at the time of arrest. (vi) Seizure of weapons used in the crime i.e. axe and iron rod on a memorandum under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. (iv) The immediate arrest of the accused. (v) Seizure of blood stained clothes at the time of arrest. (vi) Seizure of weapons used in the crime i.e. axe and iron rod on a memorandum under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. (vii) The Chemical Analyzer's Report finding blood on the clothes seized from the accused and the weapons used in the crime having blood group ‘A’ which is the blood group of the deceased Harshaand Meena. (viii) From the evidence of Dr. Shakil Ahmed (P.W.3) the prosecution has proved injuries which were sustained by the deceased were possible by the weapons used in the crime seized from the accused i.e. axe and iron rod. 14. We find that all the aforesaid incriminating circumstances against the accused are proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts. We further find that the chain of said incriminating circumstances has been so established by the prosecution that it excludes every hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the accused and only points out towards the guilt of the accused. 15. Apart from that, the evidence of Vasant (P.W.4) and Dudhram (P.W.6) would also fortify the prosecution case. The defence taken by the appellant/accused is of total denial as is seen from the answer to questions 14 and 30 suggesting that he had never returned from the labour work and was not present on the spot of incident. No doubt, a false explanation of an accused cannot be used to complete the chain of incriminating circumstances. However, when the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts, the circumstance of false explanation can very well be used to fortify the prosecution case. Reliance in this regard could be placed on the judgment in case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarada V/s. State of Maharashtra (supra) wherein in paragraphs 158 and 159 it is held that:- 158. However, when the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts, the circumstance of false explanation can very well be used to fortify the prosecution case. Reliance in this regard could be placed on the judgment in case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarada V/s. State of Maharashtra (supra) wherein in paragraphs 158 and 159 it is held that:- 158. It will be seen that this Court while taking into account the absence of explanation or a false explanation did hold that it will amount to be an additional link to complete the chain but these observations must be read in the light of what this Court said earlier, viz., before a false explanation can be used as additional link, the following essential conditions must be satisfied : (1) various links in the chain of evidence led by the prosecution have been satisfactorily proved, (2) the said circumstance point to the guilt of the accused with reasonable definiteness, and (3) the circumstance is in proximity to the time and situation. 159. If these conditions are fulfilled only then a Court can use a false explanation or a false defence as an additional link to lend an assurance to the Court and not otherwise. On the facts and circumstances of the present case, this does not appear to be such a case. This aspect of the matter was examined in Shankarlal's case ( AIR 1981 SC 765 ) (supra) where this Court observed thus : “Besides, falsity of defence cannot take the place of proof of facts which the prosecution has to establish in order to succeed. A false plea can at best be considered as an additional circumstance, if other circumstances point unfailingly to the guilt of the accused.” 16. Taking into consideration the aforesaid principle laid down by the Apex Court and the evidence placed on record, we find that that the prosecution has proved the above circumstances beyond all reasonable doubts. 17. In that view of the matter, we find that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts. Firstly, the prosecution has proved all the incriminating circumstances against the accused and secondly, those incriminating circumstances lead to no other conclusion than the guilt of the accused. 17. In that view of the matter, we find that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts. Firstly, the prosecution has proved all the incriminating circumstances against the accused and secondly, those incriminating circumstances lead to no other conclusion than the guilt of the accused. We further find that the false explanation given by the accused can be used to fortify the case of the prosecution, which is proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts. 18. In that view of the matter, we find that the appeal is without any merits and as such it is dismissed. The fees of the learned counsel appointed for the appellant/accused is quantified at Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand Only).