JUDGMENT : This appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.04.2007 passed by Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, in Sessions Trial No. 128/2006 convicting the accused/appellant under Sections 302 twice for committing the murder of two children, and 201 IPC, and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 500/- u/s 302 and RI for seven years with fine of Rs. 500/- u/s 201 IPC, plus default stipulation. 2. Brief factual background leading to disposal of this appeal is that on 23.9.2006 the accused/appellant committed murder of his five year old nephew Mahendra and three year old niece Gitanjali. It is alleged that on that day when father of the deceased children namely Sadaram (PW-1) returned home, he found them missing and even after inquiry from his wife and brother followed by extensive search, their whereabouts remained un-noticed. During search operation of the deceased children, the absence of the accused/appellant in the village also came to be known who ultimately was traced near village Bandhatola. Thereafter, according to the case of the prosecution, the accused was brought back to the village and in presence of the family members and the villagers he was inquired about the deceased children but just the utter ignorance to the same flowed from him. However, after being slapped the accused straigh away took them towards the jungle and on the way made a disclosure of eliminating Mahendra and Gitanjali with the help of stone and also by pressing their neck. Ultimately, dead-body of Mahendra was found in Kalchua jungle and that of Gitanjali half a kilometer ahead. Thereafter setting the criminal law in motion merg intimations Ex. P-4 and P-5 were recorded at the instance of Santuram (PW-2) on 24.9.2006 followed by inquest Ex. P-9 and P-10, FIR Ex. P-3 against the accused/appellant under Section 302 IPC and then postmortem examination conducted by Dr. S.R. Mandavi (PW-6) who gave his reports Ex. P-15 and P-16. After completion of investigation, challan was laid by the police under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. Court below then framed the charge against the accused under Sections 302 twice and 201 IPC. 3. In order to prove the complicity of the accused/appellant in commission of crime in question, the prosecution has examined 11 witnesses in support of its case. After completion of investigation, challan was laid by the police under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. Court below then framed the charge against the accused under Sections 302 twice and 201 IPC. 3. In order to prove the complicity of the accused/appellant in commission of crime in question, the prosecution has examined 11 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the accused/appellant has also been recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the allegations made against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. 4. After hearing the parties the Court below has convicted and sentenced the accused/ appellant as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this judgment. 5. Counsel for the accused/appellant submits as under: (i) That though the accused/appellant has been convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence, not even a single circumstance has been proved by the prosecution as per the requirement of law so as to hold him guilty for the act attributed to him. (ii) That the main piece of evidence is the statements of the witnesses to extrajudicial confession namely Sadaram (PW-1), Santuram (PW-2) and Banshiram Mandavi (PW-5) but such evidence being weaker in nature cannot be made basis of holding one guilty. (iii) That though recovery of dead-bodies has been made at the instance of the accused/ appellant but the prosecution has not recorded either his memorandum or the recovery memo. 6. On the other hand counsel for the respondent/State supports the judgment impugned and submits that the Court below has been justified in recording the conviction on the basis of material available on record and there is no infirmity in the same. He submits that there is no hard and fast rule that conviction cannot follow on the basis of circumstantial evidence, and that in this case the witnesses to the extrajudicial confession before whom the accused/appellant had made a categorical disclosure of killing the minor children is quite trustworthy and there was no occasion for them to fall in the falsehood. Even non-recording of memorandum of the accused and non preparation of seizure memo, according to the State counsel is not fatal to the case of the prosecution particularly when there are witnesses clearly stating that the dead-bodies were recovered from a jungle at the instance of the accused. Even non-recording of memorandum of the accused and non preparation of seizure memo, according to the State counsel is not fatal to the case of the prosecution particularly when there are witnesses clearly stating that the dead-bodies were recovered from a jungle at the instance of the accused. State counsel further holds the conduct of the accused in leaving the village on the fateful day without telling anyone about the same, and even no satisfactory explanation for that has been given by him at the time of recording of his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 8. Sadaram Kachlang (PW-1) - the father of the deceased children has stated in his evidence that on the fateful day at about 12 noon when he returned from village Gotatola, his son and daughter (deceased children herein) were not in the house. Meanwhile, his wife also returned from the field and on being asked she told him that his niece Shanti had taken them to play. According to this witness, he along with the villagers made extensive search of the children till 8 in the night but all their efforts went in vain, and all along that period the accused/appellant was not in the house. Thereafter, search operation was launched in respect of the accused/appellant who ultimately was found near village Bandhatola. Having been brought back home he was questioned by the family members and the villagers already present there as to where he proceeded for without informing anyone and also about the absence of the children in the house but he expressed his complete ignorance about the same. Thereafter when he slapped the accused and asked again, he straightaway took him and the villagers towards the jungle and confessed of having killed the children by causing injuries with stone and also by pressing neck, and then at his instance their bodies were recovered from Kalchua forest. In cross-examination also this witness stood firm to what he stated in the examination-in-chief barring a few minor contradictions. Santuram (PW-2) - the brother of Sadaram (PW-1) as also of the accused/appellant is the witness at whose instance the merg intimation and the FIR were recorded and before whom the accused/appellant made extra-judicial confession. In cross-examination also this witness stood firm to what he stated in the examination-in-chief barring a few minor contradictions. Santuram (PW-2) - the brother of Sadaram (PW-1) as also of the accused/appellant is the witness at whose instance the merg intimation and the FIR were recorded and before whom the accused/appellant made extra-judicial confession. According to him, after being brought back from village Bandhatola and questioned about the children, the accused/appellant informed to have killed both of them and then at his instance both the dead-bodies were recovered from the jungle. He has also proved the merg intimations Ex. P-4, P-5 and the FIR Ex. P-3. Banshiram Mandavi (PW-5) - another witness to extra-judicial confession has stated that after the accused/appellant was brought back from village Bandhatola by Sadaram (PW-1) he was asked by Santuram (PW-2) about the children on which he disclosed that they were in the jungle. Thereafter, when he along with others went to the jungle, dead-bodies of both the children were recovered from the shrubs. Jeevnath Singh (PW-3) is the witness to inquest Ex. P-9 & P- 10, spot map Ex. P-11 and arrest memo Ex. P-12. Shiv Prasad (PW- 4) - the witness to inquest though turned hostile, he has stated that the bodies of the children were found in the jungle. Dr. S.R. Mandavi (PW-6) is the witness who conducted postmortem examination on the two dead-bodies and gave his reports Ex. P-15 and P-16. In the postmortem report Ex. P-15 pertaining to deceased Mahendra, it is stated that rigor mortis was absent, black brown mark present in front of neck, curved, cresentric mark (abrasion) present in chest, lacerated wound present in head over frontal bone and abrasion present in head over occipital bone. Likewise, in postmortem report Ex. P-16 pertaining to deceased Gitanjali it is stated that rigor mortis absent, tongue protruded between teeth, abrasion present in vault and multiple abrasions present in front of the neck. Cause of death in both the reports has been stated to be asphyxia due to throttling and death has been opined to be homicidal in nature. Mahesh Kumar (PW-7) and Jhabbulal Sahu (PW-10) are the police constables who assisted in the investigation. Cause of death in both the reports has been stated to be asphyxia due to throttling and death has been opined to be homicidal in nature. Mahesh Kumar (PW-7) and Jhabbulal Sahu (PW-10) are the police constables who assisted in the investigation. Indra Kumar (PW-8) has stated that just before Navratri festival the accused/appellant had come to his house and stayed there for a night and that on the next day his brother had also been there in his search and taken him back. G.D. Maarkande (PW-9) is the Patwari who prepared spot map Ex. P-6. Chandra Shekhar Dhruw (PW-11) is the investigating officer who has duly supported the case of the prosecution. 9. We have undertaken an arduous exercise of going through the entire material collected by the prosecution as also the evidence of the witnesses while deciding the fate of this appeal. Testimony of the witnesses makes it explicit that bodies of both the deceased children namely Mahendra and Gitanjali were recovered from the jungle that too on the basis of information provided by the accused/appellant himself. Of course, the memorandum of the accused leading to recovery of the dead-bodies has not been drawn by the prosecution but in the light of the evidence of the witnesses who had accompanied the accused/appellant to jungle where the dead-bodies were found, case of the prosecution does not fall on the back-foot. Further, there are three witnesses being PW-1, PW-2 and PW-5 to the extra-judicial confession who have unequivocally and unflinchingly stated that after being brought back from village Bandhatola and on being questioned about the whereabouts of the children, the accused/appellant made a categorical disclosure to have killed Mahendra and Gitanjali by causing injuries with stone and also by pressing their neck. No doubt, the evidence of extrajudicial confession is fragile in nature but once it is established that such confessional statement was voluntary and gets corroboration from the other surrounding circumstances, it regains the credibility of being made basis to arrive at a particular conclusion. Here in this case also nothing has been elicited by the defence that the extra-judicial confession made by the accused was not voluntary or that the witnesses before whom it is said to have been made nurtured any bias or inimical relationship as an indication of motive on their part of attributing an untruthful statement against the accused. Here in this case also nothing has been elicited by the defence that the extra-judicial confession made by the accused was not voluntary or that the witnesses before whom it is said to have been made nurtured any bias or inimical relationship as an indication of motive on their part of attributing an untruthful statement against the accused. In addition to this, conduct of the accused in leaving the village on the fateful day without explaining any logical reason in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also smacks of his involvement in the brutal killing of two tender-age children. 10. Thus in the aforesaid view of the matter this Court is of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the Court below do not suffer from any legal flaw warranting inference in this appeal. Resultantly, the appeal being without any force is liable to be dismissed and it is dismissed as such with the affirmation of the judgment impugned. As the appellant is already reported to be behind the bars, no further order for arrest etc is necessary.