JUDGMENT (Per A.S. GADKARI, J.): 1. The appellant, original accused, has questioned the correctness of his conviction and sentence by the present appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 5th July 2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Raigad Alibag in Sessions Case No. 87 of 2010 thereby convicting the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/, in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months. The learned Sessions Judge, Raigad Alibag has acquitted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts which can be enumerated from the record, may briefly be stated thus: (i) PW1 Shivnath Jairam Bhoir was at his house at about 7 p.m. when he came to know that the dead bodies of a woman and a boy are lying at Bhoirwadi Bus stop. He immediately along with a member of Grampanchayat Shri Anil Bhoir went to bus stop and saw two dead bodies i.e. one of woman and another of a boy were lying by the side of Bhoir wadi cremation centre road. He immediately gave intimation to the police on phone. Pursuant to the same, PW8 Police Inspector Shri Rajendra Mokashi along with his staff went to the spot. PW1 Shivnath Bhoir lodged the first information report with the police station. The said first information report dated 4.3.2010 is at Exhibit 18. (ii) PW-8 Police Inspector Shri Rajendra Mokashi was attached to Karjat Police station since August 2009. After police station officer registered the present offence bearing CR No.21 of 2010, PW-8 Shri Mokashi carried out the investigation pertaining to the said crime. He immediately visited the spot of the incident and prepared spot panchanama. The spot panchanama is at Exhibit 27. He also effected the inquest panchanama of the dead bodies and sent those dead bodies to the hospital for conducting postmortem examination. After postmortem examination, both dead bodies were preserved for the purpose of identification. One dead body was of a Mohammedan lady. The photographs of both dead bodies were taken and same were published in the newspapers. The posters with the photograph of deceased lady was also published at Mumbai. After seeing the posters/pamphlets, the appellant and his father came to Karjat police station. One dead body was of a Mohammedan lady. The photographs of both dead bodies were taken and same were published in the newspapers. The posters with the photograph of deceased lady was also published at Mumbai. After seeing the posters/pamphlets, the appellant and his father came to Karjat police station. One adivasi lady namely Janabai (PW-2) had seen the deceased lady along with one person in sixseater rickshaw. PW-8 P.I. Shri Rajendra Mokashi recorded the statement of PW-2 Janabai and statements of other witnesses. The said PW-2 Janabai, an adivasi lady, had given the description of a man who was along with the lady, and on that basis a sketch of the man was prepared. The description given by the said adivasi lady (PW-2) was tallied with the description of the appellant and therefore Police Inspector Shri Rajendra Mokashi (PW-8) made enquiry with the appellant. During the interrogation, it was revealed to the Investigating Officer that the appellant has committed the said offence. The appellant came to be arrested. (iii) After the arrest of the appellant, identification parade was held wherein PW-2 Janabai identified the appellant. Thereafter the police custody of the appellant was sought. On 18.3.2010, when the appellant was in police custody, he made a statement that he has concealed the weapon and his clothes, shoes and sack at his house in Kalanagar, Antop Hill zopadpatti and expressed his willingness to produce the same. Accordingly, his memorandum was reduced into writing which is at Exhibit 33. Thereafter, the appellant led the police and the panchwitnesses to his house and took out a knife (Sura) which was concealed on the mezzanine floor of his house. The appellant had also produced a pant, shoes, and a sack/bag from the said place. The same were seized under panchanama. Blood stains were found on the said pant. Accordingly, recovery panchanama was drawn which is at Exhibit 34. (iv) On 20.3.2010, the appellant further expressed his willingness to show the spot where he committed the murder of his wife and son. Accordingly, a memorandum was prepared which is at Exhibit 42. In pursuance of the said memorandum, the appellant led the police to the spot at Karjat where he had killed his wife and his son. The said spot panchanama which was effected at the instance of the appellant in presence of panchwitness is at Exhibit 43. Accordingly, a memorandum was prepared which is at Exhibit 42. In pursuance of the said memorandum, the appellant led the police to the spot at Karjat where he had killed his wife and his son. The said spot panchanama which was effected at the instance of the appellant in presence of panchwitness is at Exhibit 43. (v) During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer collected the sample of blood of the appellant for DNA test. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses, collected the postmortem report and reports of the Chemical Analyzer. The Investigating Officer also requested the Circle Inspector of the area to prepare a map of the scene of offence. The said map is at Exhibit 46. During the course of the investigation, it was transpired to the Investigating Officer that the appellant was suspecting chastity of his wife and therefore he committed murder of his wife and son. (vi) After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the chargesheet in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karjat. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karjat committed the case as per Section 209 of Cr. P.C. to the Court of Sessions Alibag, Raigad. After committal of the said case, the learned Trial Court framed charge below Exhibit 12 i.e. for the offence punishable under Section 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The said charge was read over and explained to the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence of the appellant is of total denial. The appellant in his defence has stated that his wife and son were missing since 3.3.2010 and accordingly he lodged missing report at Wadala Police station and as soon as he received information about recovery of dead bodies, he approached Karjat police station. (vii) The learned Sessions Judge, Alibag Raigad, after recording the evidence and after hearing the parties to the said Sessions Case, has convicted the appellant and sentenced by the impugned judgment and order dated 5th July 2011 as stated herein above. 3. Heard Smt. Upadhyay, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Pai, learned APP for the respondent-State. We have carefully scrutinized the record and also the impugned judgment and order passed by the Trial Court. 3. Heard Smt. Upadhyay, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Pai, learned APP for the respondent-State. We have carefully scrutinized the record and also the impugned judgment and order passed by the Trial Court. The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is no evidence at all which would connect the appellant with the present crime. She has further contended that as the identification of the appellant could not be proved by the prosecution at the instance of PW2 Janabai, there is no other link or evidence which shows that the appellant was last seen together in the company of the deceased. She has further contended that in the absence of any other and further cogent and convincing evidence, conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained. Per contra, the learned APP has supported the impugned judgment and order and submitted that there is sufficient material which would unequivocally point the finger of guilt towards the appellant as the only accused person in the present crime and has further submitted that the present appeal may be dismissed. 4. The present case rests on circumstantial evidence. It is the settled position of law that in a case of circumstantial evidence the circumstances on which the prosecution relies must be consistent with the sole hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. In case of resting on circumstantial evidence, it is incumbent for the prosecution to prove each and every circumstance on which it proposes to rely. The circumstances so proved should be of conclusive nature i.e. they should have a definite tendency of implicating the accused. The circumstances so established should form a complete chain which should exclude every hypothesis of the innocence of the accused and unquestionably point towards the guilt of the accused. In other words the circumstances should be conclusive i.e. accused and the accused alone has committed the crime. 5. Circumstances which have emerged on record against the appellant from the evidence of the witnesses and documents, can be specifically mentioned as under: (i) Motive the appellant was demanding divorce from his wife and she was not allowing the same; (ii) Last seen together and the identification at the behest of PW2 in test identification parade wherein the said witness has identified the appellant. (iii) Lodging of a missing report by the appellant on 5.3.2010 at Mumbai with detailed description of the clothes of the deceased; (iv) Recovery of clothes of appellant and the weapon, with blood stains, at the instance of the appellant, which are supported by the report of the Chemical Analyzer. 6. Before we proceed to analyze the evidence available on record as against the appellant, thereby showing the undoubted complicity of the appellant in the present crime, it is necessary and useful to refer to the evidence of PW4 Pravin Bhandari, the Medical Officer. PW4 had conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of female i.e. wife of the appellant and the dead body of a small child i.e. son of the appellant. PW4 in his testimony has stated that he was attached to the Sub District Hospital at Karjat and was on duty on 4.3.2010 when the police had brought two dead bodies. He conducted postmortem on the dead body of a female. He noticed that there was incised wound encircling complete neck, deep into spinal cord “1” above sternal notch. He therefore opined that the cause of death was due to severe hemorrhage due to grievous injuries to vital structure in the neck, leading to neurogenic/haemorrhagic shock. The postmortem report of the said lady i.e. wife of the appellant is at Exhibit25. That on the same day he also conducted the autopsy on the dead body of a small child and found that, there was big incised wound from anterior of the neck to posterior neck skin. He therefore, opined that the cause of death was due to grievous injuries to vital structure in the neck leading neurogenic/haemorrhagic shock. The postmortem report of the said child is at Exhibit 26. Thus it is clear that the death of the said two persons was homicidal and unnatural death. PW-3 i.e. the father of the deceased Smt. Nasrin Banu had identified the dead bodies i.e. one lady and a small child as of his daughter and his grandson and therefore the identity of the said two persons is not in dispute. 7. The circumstance (i) referred to in para 5 above, the motive, assumes much importance in a case which is based on circumstantial evidence. 7. The circumstance (i) referred to in para 5 above, the motive, assumes much importance in a case which is based on circumstantial evidence. Though PW-8 Rajendra Mokashi, Investigating Officer, in his examination-in-chief has stated that, during the course of the investigation it was transpired to him that the appellant was suspecting chastity of his wife and therefore the appellant committed the murder of his wife and a son. However, it appears from evidence of PW-3 Mohammad Shaikh, i.e. the father of deceased Nasrin Banu, that the appellant was not behaving well with his daughter. That the appellant was demanding money and was also asking for divorce. It appears from the evidence of PW-3 i.e. father of the deceased Nasrin Banu that his testimony has gone unchallenged, and therefore we are of the opinion that the prosecution has the motive at the behest of the appellant in the present crime. 8. The second circumstance mentioned in para 5 above, which the prosecution is relying upon is the last seen together i.e. the appellant was last seen together in the company of the deceased Nasrin Banu and his son Gulam and the identification at the behest of PW-2 Janabai wherein the said witness has identified the appellant. It is the case of the prosecution that PW-2 Janabai Waghmare has seen the appellant in the company of the deceased persons when she got down at the Bhoirwadi Bust stop. It is important to note here that this witness has admitted in her cross-examination that on the particular day, there was slight darkness when she got down from the rickshaw. She has further admitted that the person who was sitting in the auto rickshaw was having mustaches and beard and the lady was wearing burkha. She has further admitted that after the arrest of the appellant, the police had informed her that the appellant is the same person who has committed murder of the lady and a child. She has further admitted that on earlier day of hearing of this case, she attended the Court and police had shown her the appellant. She has further admitted that police had shown the appellant not only on the date of her leading evidence, but as well as on the previous day. She has further admitted that on earlier day of hearing of this case, she attended the Court and police had shown her the appellant. She has further admitted that police had shown the appellant not only on the date of her leading evidence, but as well as on the previous day. Taking into consideration the admission given by PW-2 Janabai we are of the opinion that her testimony pertaining to the identification of the appellant cannot be relied upon at all, as the police had before the test identification parade and also before the recording of her evidence had shown the appellant to her as the accused person in the said crime. We may note here at this stage that the Trial court in its impugned judgment at para 16 has also noted various lacunae and procedural lapses committed by PW-3 Shri Kotkar, the Naib Tahasildar, who had conducted test identification parade. The Trial Court after recording the various lacunae and the procedural lapses committed by PW-3 i.e. Naib Tahasildar, has held that the test identification parade was conducted by the said witness in a very casual manner and without following proper procedure. The Trial Court therefore has further observed in para 16 that it has no alternative but to exclude the entire evidence with regard to the test identification parade from consideration. We find merit in the said observations of the Trial Court and we exclude this circumstance no.(ii) i.e. last seen together from our consideration. 9. The third circumstance referred to above, which pertains to the conduct of the appellant, about lodging a missing report deliberately subsequent to the commission of the crime i.e. on 5.3.2010 at Mumbai with detailed description of the clothes of the deceased. PW-6 Suresh Shinde, Police Sub Inspector, then attached to Wadala TT Police station has in his testimony, stated that on 5.3.2010 the appellant lodged a missing report with Wadala TT police station and he recorded the statement of the appellant and registered the missing report. This witness has proved the extract of missing report dated 5.3.2010 recorded at 5.30 p.m. which is at Exhibit 37. This witness has proved the station diary entry at Exhibit 37. 10. This witness has proved the extract of missing report dated 5.3.2010 recorded at 5.30 p.m. which is at Exhibit 37. This witness has proved the station diary entry at Exhibit 37. 10. The learned APP has submitted before us that in the missing report dated 5.3.2010 which was registered at about 5.30 p.m. with the said police station, the appellant has stated that his wife namely Smt. Nasrin Banu along with a minor son namely Gulam has left her matrimonial house at about 9 p.m., without informing about her whereabouts to anybody from the house. The leaned APP has further submitted that in the said missing report the appellant has given detailed description of the clothes which were on the person of the deceased Nasrin Banu. The learned APP thereafter submitted that the dead body of Smt. Nasrin Banu was found at Karjat on 4.3.2010 along with dead body of a minor son by PW-1 Mr. Shivnath Bhoir, and at that time the deceased was wearing the same clothes as were described by the appellant in his missing report. The learned APP therefore contended that even though it is claimed by the appellant that his wife Smt. Nasrin Banu along with their minor son Gulam left the house without informing to anybody, it was the appellant alone who was aware about the clothes which were on the person of the deceased Smt. Nasrin Shaikh on the day of her alleged missing from the house. The learned APP has further contended that it is only after the dead bodies of the deceased Smt. Nasrin Shaikh and minor child namely Gulam were found at Karjat, as an afterthought, the appellant lodged the said missing report on 5.3.2010 with the Wadala TT police station. We find that that there is force in the submission of the learned APP. We are of the confirmed opinion that the lodgment of the missing report by the appellant on 5.3.2010 at 5.30 p.m. is nothing but an afterthought and the said complaint was lodged only with a view to create evidence in his support. We therefore hold that this circumstance undoubtedly depicts the guilty conduct of the appellant. 11. We are of the confirmed opinion that the lodgment of the missing report by the appellant on 5.3.2010 at 5.30 p.m. is nothing but an afterthought and the said complaint was lodged only with a view to create evidence in his support. We therefore hold that this circumstance undoubtedly depicts the guilty conduct of the appellant. 11. The fourth circumstance, which according to us is an important circumstance against the appellant i.e. the recovery of the clothes of the appellant and the weapon used in the crime with bloodstains on them, at the instance of the appellant and which are supported by the report of the Chemical Analyzer. PW5 Dhananjay Joshi, is the panch witness to the memorandum which is at Exhibit 33 and the seizure panchanama which is at Exhibit34. PW5 Shri Joshi in his testimony has stated that on 18.3.2010 he was called by the Investigating Officer Shri Rajendra Mokashi at Karjat Police station. The appellant who was then in custody made a statement that he was ready and willing to produce the knife, full pant, shoes and sack. Accordingly, the memorandum statement was reduced into writing. The said memorandum statement of the appellant is at Exhibit 33. In pursuance of the said memorandum statement, the appellant led the police and panchwitnesses to his house which was situated at Kamala Nehru Nagar, Chana Galli, Wadala. The appellant thereafter produced one knife which was kept in a bag. The appellant also produced full pant from the mezzanine floor which was washed and ironed. However, this witness noticed some faint blood stains on it. The panchanama of seizure of the said articles was accordingly drawn which is at Exhibit 34. The said articles thereafter were sent to the Chemical Analyzer for analysis of blood. The blood of the appellant was also sent for determining the blood group. The report of Chemical Analyzer which is at Exhibit 47 discloses the blood group of the appellant as of “O” group. The knife and the full pant of the appellant which were seized at the instance of the appellant after effecting the seizure panchanama which is at Exhibit 43, were sent to the Chemical Analyzer as stated herein above. The report of Chemical Analyzer which is at Exhibit 47 discloses the blood group of the appellant as of “O” group. The knife and the full pant of the appellant which were seized at the instance of the appellant after effecting the seizure panchanama which is at Exhibit 43, were sent to the Chemical Analyzer as stated herein above. The Chemical Analyzer's report which is at Exhibit 48 discloses that the said two articles which are at serial nos.11 and 12 therein and it's analysis shows that there was blood stains on them which were having the origin of human blood, though the grouping was found to be inconclusive. It is to be noted here that the appellant has not offered any explanation about the finding of the bloodstains on his clothes and also knife which was discovered at his instance. 12. The circumstances so proved by the prosecution are of conclusive nature i.e. they have definite tendency of implicating the appellant. The circumstances so established are forming the complete chain which excludes every hypothesis of the innocence of the appellant and unquestionably point the finger of guilt towards the appellant. In our opinion, the circumstances which are emerging from the record are capable of drawing only one inference i.e. the appellant and the appellant alone has committed the present crime. The circumstances adverted to by us above, completes the chain of circumstances and the circumstances exclude every hypothesis of the innocence of the appellant and unquestionably point towards the guilty of the appellant. 13. In the circumstances mentioned herein above, according to us, thus the prosecution has proved the offence against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, in our opinion, the Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid and hence no interference in the present Appeal. 14. Consequently, this Appeal fails and is dismissed, by confirming the judgment and order dated 5th July 2011 passed by the Sessions Judge, Raigad Alibag in Sessions Case No. 87 of 2010, thereby confirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant. 15. Before parting with this judgment, we must record our appreciation for Advocate Smt. Sarojini Upadhyay who was appointed by the Legal Services Committee to represent the appellant in this appeal. We quantify total legal fees to be paid to her in this appeal by the High Court Legal Services Committee at Rs.5000/.