JUDGMENT : V.K. Tahilramani, J. 1. The appellant – original accused has preferred this appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 24th November, 2008, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No.832 of 2007. By the said Judgment and Order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘I.P.C.’) and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under:- Bhavarlal Ravatmal Singhi-PW.1 had the business of garments. His office was situated at Jaihind Building, First Floor, Room No.8 in Bhuleshwar, Mumbai. Eight persons were working with him as full time employees and two persons were working as part-time employees in his office at Mumbai. The names of the workers were Mangalkumar Zawar (deceased), Mohitkumar Duggad (deceased), Ramtilak Dhuria (appellant), PW.8-Vrushali Kurshna Bane, PW.9-Bhupendra Bhismide Pande, Rajendrakumar Parekh, Bajaranglal Kumavat and Pravinkumar Shah. The names of the part-time employees were Amitkumar Jain and Mrs.Suman Jain. The office timings were from 8.00 a.m. to 8.30 p.m. Some of the employees used to sleep in the office premises. The persons who were sleeping in the office premises were Rajendrakumar Parekh, Bajaranglal Kumavat, Mangalkumar Zawar, Mohitkumar Duggad and sometimes on Saturday and Sunday, the appellant also used to stay at night in the office. On 22nd June, 2007, Bhavarlal - PW.1 left his office at about 9.00 p.m. At that time only Mangalkumar and Mohitkumar were present in the office. On the next day in the morning at about 9.15 a.m., Bhavarlal received a phone call from the appellant. The appellant informed him that the office is closed and inspite of calls made by the appellant, no one was opening the office. Bhavarlal told the appellant to wait there and that he was coming to the office. Bhavarlal came to his office at about 10.15 a.m. The door of the office was closed. Thereafter, the office was opened with duplicate key. Bhavarlal noticed a foul smell coming from the office. He saw blood spread on the floor. He saw Mangalkumar and Mohitkumar lying in pool of blood. They had been murdered brutally with the help of sharp weapons. There were several injuries on the person of Mangalkumar and Mohitkumar. Bhavarlal then informed the police about these facts on telephone. Bhavarlal noticed a foul smell coming from the office. He saw blood spread on the floor. He saw Mangalkumar and Mohitkumar lying in pool of blood. They had been murdered brutally with the help of sharp weapons. There were several injuries on the person of Mangalkumar and Mohitkumar. Bhavarlal then informed the police about these facts on telephone. Within 10 to 15 minutes, police rushed to the spot. Thereafter, Bhavarlal lodged FIR (Exihibit-10). Thereafter, investigation commenced. The dead bodies of Mangalkumar and Mohitkumar were sent for postmortem. PW.10-Dr.Sachin Shivaji Sonawne conducted the postmortem on the dead bodies of Mangalkumar and Mohitkumar. According to Dr. Sonawne the cause of death in both the cases was due to ‘haemorrhage and shock due to multiple stab injuries and the death was unnatural'. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed. Charge came to be framed against the appellant under Sections 302 and 449 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 37(1) and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. His defence is that of total denial and false implication. 3. After going through the evidence adduced in this case, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the appellant under Section 449 of the I.P.C and under Section 37(1) r/w Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. However, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 302 of the I.P.C. Hence, this appeal. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.P.P for the State. We have carefully considered their submissions, Judgment and Order passed by the learned Sessions Judge and the evidence in this case. For the below mentioned reasons, we are of the opinion that the appellant committed the murder of Mangalkumar and Mohitkumar. 5. There is no eye-witness in the present case and the case is based only on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances briefly stated against the appellant and the witnesses who have deposed on that aspect, are as under:- (i) Last seen – PW.5–Pankajkumar Ashok Sen and PW.6-Netaji Maruti Jadhav. (ii) Extra Judicial Confession – PW.18–Dr. Shivaji Narayan Daund (iii) Recovery of knife (article-10) and blood stained clothes of the appellant. PW.4-panch witness Manohar Bhiku Shinde. (iv) Knife (article-10) purchased by the appellant from the vendor just two days prior to the incident. (ii) Extra Judicial Confession – PW.18–Dr. Shivaji Narayan Daund (iii) Recovery of knife (article-10) and blood stained clothes of the appellant. PW.4-panch witness Manohar Bhiku Shinde. (iv) Knife (article-10) purchased by the appellant from the vendor just two days prior to the incident. PW.14-Vendor, Sabanali Sorablali Shah, (v) Motive – PW.8-Vrushali Kurshna Bane and PW.9-Bhupendra Bhismide Pande. (vi) When the appellant was examined on 24th June, 2007, five minor injuries were found on his person. PW.18–Dr.Shivaji Narayan Daund. 6. In relation to the first circumstance, we would like to advert to the evidence of PW.1- Bhavarlal Ravatmal Singhi. Bhavarlal had the business of garments. His office was situated at Jaihind Building, First Floor, Room No.8 in Bhuleshwar, Mumbai. Eight employees were working with him as full time employees and two persons were working as part-time employees in his office at Mumabi. The names of the workers were Mangalkumar Zawar (deceased), Mohitkumar Duggad (deceased), Ramtilak Dhuriya, PW.8-Vrushali Kurshna Bane, PW.9-Bhupendra Bhismide Pande, Rajendrakumar Parekh, Bajaraglal Kumavat and Pravinkumar Shah. The names of the part-time employees were Amitkumar Jain and Mrs.Suman Jain. The office timings were from 8.00 a.m. to 8.30 p.m. Some of the employees used to sleep in the office premises. The persons who were sleeping in the office premises were Rajendrakumar Parekh, Bajaraglal Kumavat, Mangalkumar Zawar, Mohitkumar Duggad and sometimes on Saturday and Sunday, the appellant- Ramtilak Dhuria, also used to stay at night in the office. On 22nd June, 2007, Bhavarlal - PW.1 left his office at about 9.00 p.m. At that time only Mangalkumar and Mohitkumar were present in the office. On the next day in the morning at about 9.15 a.m., Bhavarlal received a phone call from the appellant. The appellant informed him that the office is closed and inspite of calls made by the appellant no one was opening the office. Bhavarlal told the appellant to wait there and that he was coming to the office. Bhavarlal came to his office at about 10.15 a.m. The door of the office was opened with duplicate key. Bhavarlal noticed a foul smell in the office. He saw blood spread on the floor. He saw Mangalkumar and Mohitkumar lying in pool of blood. They had been murdered brutally with the help of sharp weapons. There were several injuries on the person of Mangalkumar and Mohitkumar. Bhavarlal then informed the police about these facts on telephone. Bhavarlal noticed a foul smell in the office. He saw blood spread on the floor. He saw Mangalkumar and Mohitkumar lying in pool of blood. They had been murdered brutally with the help of sharp weapons. There were several injuries on the person of Mangalkumar and Mohitkumar. Bhavarlal then informed the police about these facts on telephone. Within 10 to 15 minutes, police reached to the spot. Thereafter Bhavarlal lodged FIR (Exhibit-10). 7. Thus, the evidence of Bhavarlal Singhi shows that both the deceased used to sleep in his office and on weekends the appellant also used to stay at night in the office. 8. PW.5–Pankajkumar Ashok Sen was working as a watchman at Jaihind Building. He has stated that on 22nd June, 2007, he was on night duty. At about 11.30 p.m., another watchman PW.6-Netaji Maruti Jadhav, came on duty. At the same time, the appellant came there. Pankajkumar and Netaji enquired with the appellant, whereupon the appellant told them that he was going to his office to sleep. Pankajkumar and Netaji knew that the appellant was working in the office of PW.1 – Bhavarlal Singhi. The office was situated on the first floor. PW.5- Pankajkumar has stated that in the morning, he and PW.6 saw the appellant coming out of his office. He had a cloth bag in his hand. The evidence of PW.6-Netaji is on similar lines as that of PW.5 – Pankajkumar. Thus, the evidence of PW.5-Pankajkumar and PW.6-Netaji shows that the appellant in the night met PW.5 and PW.6 and on enquiry told them that he was going to the office to sleep. In the morning both these witnesses saw the appellant coming out of the office with a cloth bag in his hands. This shows the presence of the appellant in the office. Soon thereafter the dead bodies of Mangalkumar and Mohitkumar were found. The evidence of PW.10-Dr.Sachin Shivaji Sonawne shows that the death had taken place 24 to 72 hours prior to the postmortem. The postmortem of Mangalkumar was conducted on 24th June, 2007, between 11.30 to 12.30 a.m. The postmortem of Mohitkumar was conducted on 24th June, 2007 from 12.30 to 1.30 p.m. If these timings are taken into consideration as well as the evidence of PW.10-Dr.Sonawne, then it becomes clear that the death has occurred in the night between 22nd June and 23rd June, 2007. The evidence of PW.5 and PW.6 shows that the appellant was in the office during this period. 9. Thus the evidence of PW.1, PW.5 and PW.6 shows that only the deceased and the appellant were in the office on the night between 22nd June and 23rd June, 2007. In the night of 22nd June, 2007 both Mangalkumar and Mohitkumar were alive. The appellant was seen coming out of the office where Mangalkumar and Mohitkumar used to sleep in the morning of 23rd June, 2007. Soon, thereafter the dead bodies were found in the office. The death had occurred some hours prior. Looking to all these facts, we are of the view that Section 106 of the Evidence Act will come into play. The evidence on record shows that the appellant and the deceased were in the office at the time of the incident. In such case, the accused has to explain how the deceased sustained injuries and died. In this connection, we may refer to Section 106 of the Evidence Act. Section 106 of the Evidence Act provides that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. In several recent decisions, the Supreme Court has held that the principle which underlies Section 106 of the Evidence Act can be applied in similar cases. In the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Kashi Ram, (2006)12 SCC 254 : AIR 2007 SC 144 the Supreme Court has observed that if the accused fails to offer an explanation on the basis of facts within his special knowledge, he fails to discharge the burden cast upon him by Section 106 of the Evidence Act. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of the burden placed on him, that itself provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him. Section 106 does not shift the burden of proof in a criminal trial, which is always upon the prosecution. It lays down the rule that when the accused does not throw any light upon facts which are specially within his knowledge and which could not support any theory or hypothesis compatible with his innocence, the Court can consider his failure to adduce any explanation as an additional link which completes the chain. 10. It lays down the rule that when the accused does not throw any light upon facts which are specially within his knowledge and which could not support any theory or hypothesis compatible with his innocence, the Court can consider his failure to adduce any explanation as an additional link which completes the chain. 10. The next circumstance against the appellant is that he made extra judicial confession to PW.18–Dr. Shivaji Narayan Daund. Dr.Daund has stated that on 24th June, 2007, the appellant was brought to him for examination. At that time the appellant gave history that he had killed two persons on 23rd June, 2007 at 3.30 a.m. with a knife and during the said act he sustained some injuries on his body. The evidence of Dr. Daund shows that he found five injuries on the person of the appellant. The same are as under:- 1. Incised wound at the base of left thumb palmer surface 1.2 cm in length, skin deep. 2. Abrasion below injury No.1, size of a grain. 3. Superficial linear abrasion on left wrist central aspect 1.5 cm in length. 4. Superficial oblique and linear abrasion on anterior axillary fold of left axilla. 5. Contusion with swelling of right dorsum of hand tender. 11. Dr. Daund has stated that the injury nos.1 to 3 can be caused by sharp edged weapon, injury no.4 can be caused by human finger nail and injury no.5 can be caused by a blunt trauma. The age of the injuries were 36 to 46 hours, which is consistent with the prosecution case that the incident took place in the night between 22nd June to 23rd June, 2007. It is pertinent to note that no explanation has been furnished by the appellant for the injuries found on his person by PW.18-Dr.Daund. It appears that all these injuries occurred while the appellant was assaulting both the deceased. From the evidence on record it further appears that the appellant assaulted both the deceased after they were fast asleep. Hence, there was not much scope for their resistance. The evidence on record shows that both the deceased had consumed heavy amount of alcohol. This also can be the reason to sleep soundly and offer least resistance. 12. Next circumstance against the appellant is that the knife and blood stained clothes were recovered at the instance of the appellant. Hence, there was not much scope for their resistance. The evidence on record shows that both the deceased had consumed heavy amount of alcohol. This also can be the reason to sleep soundly and offer least resistance. 12. Next circumstance against the appellant is that the knife and blood stained clothes were recovered at the instance of the appellant. PW.4-panch witness Manohar Bhiku Shinde has deposed on this aspect. He had stated that the appellant made the statement that he would hand over the knife and clothes. Thereafter the appellant took the police and panchas to his house. The lock was opened by the appellant. They went inside the house. The appellant then produced one pant, one shirt, underwear and one knife. The knife was concealed in upper portion in a loft. All these articles were seized under the panchanama (Exhibit-18). 13. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the evidence of PW.4-panch witness Shinde shows that the lock of the house was opened by the appellant with the key which was given by the ‘police’. He submitted that in such case no importance can be given to such recovery. As far as this aspect is concerned, the evidence of PW.17-P.I., Deepak Jayram Patil (Investigating Officer), shows that key of the lock was seized from the accused under search panchanama that is under the panchanama (Exhibit-15) of personal search of the appellant at the time of the arrest, bundle of four keys, one purse and one cell phone were seized. PW.17-P.I. Patil had stated that the appellant was taken to his house. The keys were taken from the Malkhana and station diary regarding taking the key was made in the station diary as well as in the Muddemal Register. Thus, it was in these circumstances that when the police and panchas went to the house of the appellant the key was handed over by the police to the appellant to open the door of his house. In any event, the evidence of PW.4-panch witness Shinde shows that the knife had been hidden by the appellant in a loft, hence, it would not have been easily found by the police. Nothing has been elicited in the cross examination of PW.4-panch witness Shinde to dislodge his evidence. We find his evidence to be totally reliable, truthful and trustworthy. 14. Nothing has been elicited in the cross examination of PW.4-panch witness Shinde to dislodge his evidence. We find his evidence to be totally reliable, truthful and trustworthy. 14. The knife (article-10) along with clothes of the appellant which were recovered at the instance of the appellant were sent to the Chemical Analyser. The C.A report shows that on the shirt and banian of the appellant, blood of ‘B’ Group was found and on the knife, human blood was found. The blood group of Mohitkumar was ‘B’ group and the blood group of Mangalkumar was ‘O’ group. Whereas the blood group of the appellant is ‘A’ group. Thus, finding of blood of ‘B’ group on the shirt and banian of the appellant is another circumstance against the appellant. So also finding of human blood on the knife (article-10) is a circumstance which would go against the appellant. In this connection, we may usefully refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case Gura Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2001) 2 SCC 205 wherein it has been observed as under : "In view of the authoritative pronouncement of this Court in Teja Ram Case (1999) 3 SCC 507 we do not find any substance in the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellant that in the absence of the report regarding the 'origin of the blood, the trial Court could not have convicted the accused. The Serologist & Chemical Examiner has found that the chadar seized in consequence of the disclosure statement made by the appellant was stained with human blood. As with lapse of time the classification of the blood could not be determined, no bonus is conferred upon the accused to claim any benefit on the strength of such a belated and stale argument. The trial Court as well as the High Court were, therefore, justified in holding the circumstance as proved beyond doubt against the appellant.” Similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court in the cases of R. Shaji Vs. State of Kerala, (2013) 14 SCC 266 Molai & Anr. Vs State of Madhya Pradesh, 1999(9) SCC 581 and Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1991 SC 1853 . It is pertinent to note that the appellant has not given any explanation for the presence of blood of ‘B’ group on his clothes or Human blood on the knife. 15. Vs State of Madhya Pradesh, 1999(9) SCC 581 and Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1991 SC 1853 . It is pertinent to note that the appellant has not given any explanation for the presence of blood of ‘B’ group on his clothes or Human blood on the knife. 15. The evidence of PW.14-Vendor, Sabanali Sorablali Shah, shows that the knife was purchased by the appellant from him on 20th June, 2007 at about 10.00 a.m. PW.14-Shah has identified the knife (article-10) as the same knife which was purchased by the appellant from him on 20th June, 2007 at about 10.00 a.m. This shows that the appellant had made a plan to do away with Mangalkumar and Mohitkumar, hence, he had purchased a knife. 16. The motive for the appellant to do away with Mangalkumar and Mohitkumar is brought on record through the evidence of PW.8-Vrushali Kurshna Bane. She was working in the office of PW.1- Bhavarlal at Bhuleshwar as Computer Operator. She has stated that the proprietor of the Company is Bhavarlal Ravatmal Singhi and in the Company Mangalkumar and Mohitkumar were dealing with filing work and collecting cheques. The appellant was working as a peon in the office. Mangalkumar and Mohitkumar used to sleep in the office in the night time. The appellant also used to stay in the office whenever there was work. The evidence of PW.8-Vrushali shows that there was some kind of love affair between her and the appellant. Vrushali had stated that on 28th April, 2007 it was her birthday, hence the appellant had presented her a dress material on account of their friendship. She had further stated that Mangalkumar and Mohitkumar used to sit near her and just out of fun and mischief they used to pat her and fight with her. Once or twice the appellant had instructed Vrushali not to give latitude to the deceased to touch her even out of fun or to tease her. The appellant told Vrushali not to allow the said persons to sit near her. The appellant was furious with the said persons i.e. deceased. Vrushali had stated that there was rumour in the office that she and the appellant were having a love affair but she did not know who had spread the said rumour. The appellant had suspicion that the rumour was spread by Mangalkumar and Mohitkumar. The appellant was furious with the said persons i.e. deceased. Vrushali had stated that there was rumour in the office that she and the appellant were having a love affair but she did not know who had spread the said rumour. The appellant had suspicion that the rumour was spread by Mangalkumar and Mohitkumar. On account of defamation Vrushali was to quit service but no other job was available and poverty did not allow her to quit the job. Thereafter, quarrel used to often take place between the appellant, Mangalkumar and Mohitkumar. Thereafter, the appellant had informed Vrushali that he also wanted to quit the job, but before that he will teach a lesson to Mangalkumar. This statement was made by the appellant about 20 to 25 days before the murder of Mangalkumar and Mohitkumar. Vrushali has further stated that 7 to 8 days prior to the incident there was a quarrel between the appellant and Mangalkumar and at that time the appellant informed her that he will quit the job but before that he will teach a lesson to Mangalkumar. 17. PW.9-Bhupendra Pande was also working in the same office where the appellant, Vrushali and the deceased were working. Bhupendra had stated that Mangal Zawar informed him that the appellant and PW.8-Vrushali talked very often with each other and that the appellant accompanies PW.8- Vrushali upto the railway station. Thus, if the evidence of PW.8 and PW.9 is taken together, it shows the motive for the appellant to commit the murder of Mangalkumar and Mohitkumar. 18. We are of the opinion that the above mentioned circumstances form a complete chain so as to rule out the possibility of any other person committing the murder of Mangalkumar and Mohitkumar. Thus, we do not find it necessary to advert to any other evidence. On going through the record, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that it was the appellant who committed the murder of Mangalkumar and Mohitkumar. 19. In view of the above, we find no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed.