JUDGMENT : P.N. DESHMUKH, J. This appeal takes exception to the judgment dated 23/1/2017 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Buldana in Sessions Case No.50/2015 by which appellant/accused came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/and in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2. In brief, it is the case of prosecution that on 24/3/2015 at about 10.30 a.m. P.W.3 Gajanan Gadhave – complainant along with his wife was proceeding towards his field when he was informed by villagers that crowd had gathered in front of house of Vimal Gadhave whose house was latched from outside. Complainant accordingly visited the spot as Vimal Gadhave was his aunt and on entering in the house, found his aunt Vimal, Gita, wife of accused and Arti, daughter of accused, lying in a pool of blood having sustained head injuries. 3. It is the case of prosecution that accused was addicted to liquor and was in the habit of indulging into quarrel with his deceased wife Gita and used to beat her as well as deceased Vimal, his mother-in-law and due to such domestic quarrels, had committed assault on Vimal, his wife Gita and minor daughter Arti by spade on their heads and dropping the weapon used in the assault on the spot, ran away. On the basis of report lodged by P.W.3 Gajanan Gadhave, offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code came to be registered Crime No.51/2015. P.W.12 Vishal Padir, API attached to Chikhli Police Station, carried out part of investigation and visited the spot. He drew spot panchanama and seized blood stained spade and quilts under panchanama (Exh. 14). He also drew inquest panchanamas, which are on record (Exhs. 15, 16 and 17) and forwarded all the three dead bodies for post mortem vide requisition memo (Exh. 61). The muddemal articles seized from the spot were deposited with muddemal Clerk. On the same day, he recorded statements of some witnesses. Further investigation was carried out by P.W.11 Samir Shaikh, S.D.P.O, Buldana, who effected arrest of accused on 27/3/2015 under panchanama. During interrogation, accused made statement to discover his clothes, which were on his person at the time of commission of offence, which was reduced into writing as per memorandum (Exh. 32). Further investigation was carried out by P.W.11 Samir Shaikh, S.D.P.O, Buldana, who effected arrest of accused on 27/3/2015 under panchanama. During interrogation, accused made statement to discover his clothes, which were on his person at the time of commission of offence, which was reduced into writing as per memorandum (Exh. 32). In pursuance of that document, clothes of accused came to be seized and sealed vide Exh. 33 and were deposited with muddemal Clerk vide Exh. 47. After collecting blood sample of accused and forwarding seized muddemal articles to Chemical Analyser and on completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed before competent Court. The Chemical Analyser's reports are placed on record (Exhs. 49 to 57). In due course of time, case came to be committed to the learned Sessions Court. Charge was framed vide Exh.4 against accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence of the accused is of total denial and of false implication. 4. To establish charge against accused, prosecution in all examined 17 witnesses and commenced its evidence by examining P.W.1 Dnyaneshwar Gadhave, brother of deceased Gita, P.W.2 Gajanan Gaikwad, witness on spot panchanama and seizure of spade, P.W.3 Gajanan Gadhave – complainant, who proved his report (Exh. 25), P.W.4 Pratap Hade, another witness on spot panchanama, P.W.5 Laxman Kadam, President of Tanta Mukti Committee and P.W.6 Subhash Shinde, neighbour – both on strained relations between accused and deceased, P.W.7 Shriram Zore, witness on memorandum statement (Exh. 32) and seizure panchanama of clothes (Exh. 33), P.W.8 Ravindra Kakade, who had drawn sketch of scene of offence, P.W.9 Jisufkha Pathan, witness on circumstances, P.W.10 Dr. Mina Kasare, Medical Officer, who performed autopsy on dead bodies, P.W.11 Samir Shaikh, Investigating Officer, P.W.12 Vishal Padir, who had visited the spot, drew spot panchanama and seized spade and other articles from spot vide Exh. 14, P.W.13 Balaji Mahajan, P.S.I. who had received report (Exh.25) and registered Crime No.51/2015, P.W.14 Dr. Afsa Khan, Medical Officer, who had examined accused and collected his blood sample, P.W.15 Madhu Rao, Civil Judge, Senior Division, Chikhali, who had recorded confessional statement of accused, P.W.16 Mukhtarkha, witness on circumstances of strained relations between accused and deceased Gita and concluded evidence by examining P.W.17 Samir Shaikh, Investigating Officer, who on receipt of blood sample of accused, deposited it with muddemal Clerk. 5. 5. The learned trial Judge after considering the evidence and documents on record convicted accused as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal. 6. Heard Shri Sable, learned Counsel for appellant and Smt. Deshmukh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent. 7. It is submitted by Shri Sable, learned Counsel for appellant, that no independent evidence is collected though according to the case of prosecution, many persons had gathered at the spot after the incident and since evidence of P.W.1 Dnyaneshwar Gadhave and P.W.3 Gajanan Gadhave relied by prosecution is of interested witnesses, said evidence needs to be excluded from consideration. It is then contended that there is no evidence to establish that accused was in the house on the night of incident nor there is any witness to establish that accused was found in the company of deceased at any time of night. It is, therefore, submitted that no case can be considered against accused as put forth by prosecution as there is no reason for him to commit murder of his minor daughter Arti or his wife Gita or motherinlaw Vimal. It is contended that after death of above persons, P.W.3 Gajanan Gadhave falsely implicated accused in this case. It is, therefore, prayed that appeal be allowed. 8. Smt. Deshmukh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that though there is no eye witness to the incident of assault upon deceased persons, from the circumstances proved beyond reasonable doubt, it can only be held that it is the accused alone, who had committed three murders having strained relations with deceased. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has, therefore, supported the impugned judgment and prayed that appeal be dismissed. 9. In view of case of prosecution and submissions advanced as aforesaid, perusal of evidence of P.W.3 Gajanan Gadhave would reveal that deceased Vimal was his aunt, deceased Gita was daughter of deceased Vimal and deceased Arti was daughter of deceased Gita. Accused is husband of deceased Gita, who used to reside with deceased Vimal at village Sawana as accused was in the habit of beating her under the influence of liquor. His evidence establishes that for this reason, deceased Vimal was reluctant in sending her daughter to the house of accused. Accused is husband of deceased Gita, who used to reside with deceased Vimal at village Sawana as accused was in the habit of beating her under the influence of liquor. His evidence establishes that for this reason, deceased Vimal was reluctant in sending her daughter to the house of accused. It has further come in his evidence that on 24/3/2015 in the morning hours when he was proceeding towards his field, he was informed by villagers that there was crowd gathered in front of house of Vimal and thus, he visited her house and found that out of two doors, one was latched from outside and one from inside and accordingly on opening the door latched from outside, he entered the house and found all the three females lying in a dead condition with blood stained iron spade next to them. He accordingly rushed to Police Station and lodged report (Exh. 25). He has deposed that on previous night of 23/3/2015, he was informed by deceased Vimal that there was quarrel between herself and accused, who had told her that she should not allow P.W.16 Mukhtarkha, Contractor to visit her house and on this count, had threatened to kill her. 10. Thus, from the evidence of complainant, it is established that relations between accused and his wife were strained and since he used to beat her, her mother deceased Vimal was reluctant in sending her to cohabit with accused and in this background, deceased Gita was residing with deceased Vimal at her house at village Sawana. Evidence of P.W.3 Gajanan Gadhave thus is of natural witness, who is also a resident of village Sawana, having knowledge of such relations between deceased and accused and happened to visit the house of Vimal on learning that some persons gathered in front of her house and noticed the dead bodies. P.W.3 Gajanan Gadhave has denied that prior to incident, deceased Vimal used to reside with her husband and that she was mentally disturbed after the death of her husband and also for the reason that her son was not residing with her. Nothing is elicited in the crossexamination of P.W.3 Gajanan Gadhave to doubt his version. There is no reason for P.W.3 Gajanan Gadhave to lodge false report against accused as he has also denied when he was suggested that he was on cross terms with accused. Nothing is elicited in the crossexamination of P.W.3 Gajanan Gadhave to doubt his version. There is no reason for P.W.3 Gajanan Gadhave to lodge false report against accused as he has also denied when he was suggested that he was on cross terms with accused. In fact, evidence of this witness about his receiving phone call from deceased Vimal on previous night informing him about quarrel between herself and accused and threats extended by accused to her to kill goes unchallenged. 11. In the background of above evidence, evidence of P.W.1 Dnyaneshwar, brother of deceased Gita is found materially corroborating to the version of P.W.3 Gajanan Gadhave on the point of strained relations between accused and deceased persons when he has deposed that after marriage of Gita with accused, she was always subjected to beating by him as there used to be frequent quarrels between them since accused was addicted to liquor and was not doing any work. He has deposed that accused was in the habit of extracting money from his wife for consuming liquor and on this count, used to beat her. According to his version, he was aware of these facts as same were narrated to him by deceased Gita. In his crossexamination, nothing has come to doubt strained relations as deposed by him though he admits to have personally not filed any complaint about illtreatment to deceased Gita by accused. However, this admission by itself is not sufficient to discard his evidence on the point of illtreatment by accused as deposed by him. He has denied all the material suggestions to the effect that relations between accused and Gita were cordial as they were on good terms and that he is deposing falsely that accused used to harass and beat her under the influence of liquor. He has also denied that he is deposing falsely due to death of his mother and sister Gita. In that view of the matter, evidence of P.W.1 Dnyaneshwar further substantiates the case of prosecution on the point of strained relations between accused and deceased. 12. Similar is the evidence of P.W.16 Mukhtarkha, who can be termed to be an independent witness and being resident of same village Sawana was knowing deceased Vimal, to whom he used to visit and was also knowing deceased Gita and her daughter Arti. 12. Similar is the evidence of P.W.16 Mukhtarkha, who can be termed to be an independent witness and being resident of same village Sawana was knowing deceased Vimal, to whom he used to visit and was also knowing deceased Gita and her daughter Arti. He has deposed that deceased Gita along with her daughter Arti used to reside with deceased Vimal as accused was in the habit of demanding money from her to satisfy his lust of consuming liquor. He has stated that on previous night of incident at about 8 o'clock when he had visited house of deceased Vimal, he found accused abusing her and also extending threats to assault her by spade and on the following day in the morning, as he noted persons to have gathered near the house of Vimal and, therefore, visited the spot and came to know about the incident. In view of evidence of P.W.16 Mukhtarkha, independent witness, it has come on record that on the previous night, accused on inviting quarrel with Vimal had extended threats to kill her. Nothing has come on record from his crossexamination to doubt his version except for admitting that there is no mention of spade in his statement recorded by Police. This cannot be said to be a material omission as his evidence of accused having quarrel with deceased on the previous night of incident and of extending threats remains unshaken so also there appears no substance when it is suggested to this witness that relations between deceased Vimal and complainant Gajanan Gadhave, who is her cousin, were strained and there was quarrel between deceased Vimal and Gajanan Gadhave inasmuch as had there been such relations between informant and deceased Vimal, there was no reason for him to lodge complaint. 13. Another witness whose evidence is found material to be considered is P.W.5 Laxman Kadam, who at the material time was President of Tanta Mukti Committee of village Sawana and had accompanied P.W.3 Gajanan Gadhave to the spot where he found all the three deceased lying in a pool of blood in a dead condition. 13. Another witness whose evidence is found material to be considered is P.W.5 Laxman Kadam, who at the material time was President of Tanta Mukti Committee of village Sawana and had accompanied P.W.3 Gajanan Gadhave to the spot where he found all the three deceased lying in a pool of blood in a dead condition. As per his evidence, he knows accused, who is soninlaw of deceased Vimal and as President of Tanta Mukti Committee was aware of strained relations and frequent quarrels between accused and his family members, who in fact, had requested him to look into matter and persuade accused and though he had made an attempt to make accused understand, since accused was addicted to liquor, was adamant. 14. Evidence of P.W.6 Subhash also establishes strained relations between accused and deceased and as a neighbour of deceased Vimal, speak of quarrel between accused, Vimal and Gita under the influence of liquor. As per his evidence, quarrel took place in the night of 23/3/2015. This piece of evidence is corroborated on the material particulars from evidence of another independent witness, namely, P.W. 16 Mukhtarkha. In fact, in his crossexamination it has come on record that his house is situated near the house of deceased Vimal in new Basti and since last 15 years, he was residing in that house. 15. Having considered above discussed evidence, it is, therefore, amply established by prosecution on record that on the day and prior to incident, relations between accused, his wife and mother-in-law were strained for the reasons as aforesaid for which he committed such brutal act. 16. From the evidence of P.W.2 Gajanan Gaikwad, prosecution has established fact of seizure of spade having blood strains from the spot, which came to be seized and sealed vide panchanama (Exh. 14) along with other articles including quilts. His evidence is corroborated by P.W.12 Vishal Padir, Investigating Officer, who has drawn the said document, upon which P.W.2 Gajanan Gaikwad has acted as a witness and is further found corroborated by the evidence of P.W.4 Pratap Hade, who was present as attesting witness along with P.W.2 Gajanan Gaikwad. 17. From the evidence of P.W.7 Shriram, fact of recovery of blood stained clothes of accused at his instance is established as according to him, in his presence, memorandum statement of accused was recorded on 29/3/2015 by P.W.11 Samir Shaikh, Investigating Officer vide Exh. 17. From the evidence of P.W.7 Shriram, fact of recovery of blood stained clothes of accused at his instance is established as according to him, in his presence, memorandum statement of accused was recorded on 29/3/2015 by P.W.11 Samir Shaikh, Investigating Officer vide Exh. 32 and in pursuance of that document, accused discovered his clothes having concealed near one tree near temple, which came to be sealed and seized in the presence of panch witness under panchanama (Exh. 33). From his further evidence, it has come on record that during the course of investigation, all the seized muddemal articles were forwarded for their analysis to Chemical Analyser along with blood samples of accused. 18. According to evidence of P.W.10 Dr. Mina Kasare, on 24/3/2015 while she was attached to Rural Hospital, Chikhli, she had performed autopsy on dead body of Vimal and noted following injuries : (i) Lacerated wound on head left side of frontal area of size 2 inch x 1 inch x ½ inch. (ii) Lacerated wound on left parietal area of skull of size 2 inch x 1 inch x ½ inch with fracture parietal bone skull. (iii) Lacerated wound on parietal area on back side just lateral to midline of size 1 inch x ½ inch. (iv) Lacerated wound on forehead right side of size 2 inch x 1 inch x ½ inch with fracture of bone. (v) Lacerated wound on forehead just below (iv)th injury on right side of size 1 inch x ½ inch with fracture bone, horizontal in direction. She also noted laceration of scalp with haemorrhage under the scalp, fractured frontal bone of skull on both sides with fractured parietal bone on left side. Membrane was torn, brain matter was ruptured. She has opined that cause of death of Vimal was due to injury to brain and issued postmortem report (Exh. 41). She also noted laceration of scalp with haemorrhage under the scalp, fractured frontal bone of skull on both sides with fractured parietal bone on left side. Membrane was torn, brain matter was ruptured. She has opined that cause of death of Vimal was due to injury to brain and issued postmortem report (Exh. 41). On the same day, she performed autopsy on dead body of Gita and noted the following injuries : (i) Lacerated wound on head left side frontal area in midline upto right parietal area of size 3 inch x 1 inch x ½ inch with fracture frontoparietal bone and brain matter came out, (ii) Lacerated wound parietal area of skull in midline of size 1/2 inch x 1/2 inch with fracture parietal bone, (iii) Lacerated wound on right side of the face with fracture maxilla bone of size ½ inch x ¼ inch, (iv) Lacerated wound on forehead just lateral to right eyebrow of size ½ inch x ¼ inch. She also noted following internal injuries : “Lacerated wound under scalp frontoparietal area with haemorrage under scalp, fracture frontal bone and both parietal bones of skull. Membrane was torn, brain matter ruptured and came out through fracture side.” She opined that cause of death of Gita was due to shock due to injury to vital organ like brain. She also performed autopsy on dead body of Ku. Arti and noted the following injuries : (i) Lacerated wound on head left parietal region on back side of size 4 inch x 1 inch x 1/2 inch with fracture parietal bone. (ii) Lacerated wound on head right parietal area on back side of size 2 inch x 1 inch x 1/2 inch with fracture parietal bone of skull and brain matter came out through fracture side. She also noted following internal injuries : “Laceration of scalp on parietal area with haemorrage under scalp, fracture of right and left parietal bones of skull, membrane was torn, brain matter ruptured on right side and came out through fracture side.” She opined that cause of death of Arti was shock due to injury to vital organ like brain. All the injuries are stated to be possible by hard and blunt object and all these documents go to establish that death of Vimal, Gita and Arti was homicidal, which aspect, even otherwise, is not disputed by defence. 19. All the injuries are stated to be possible by hard and blunt object and all these documents go to establish that death of Vimal, Gita and Arti was homicidal, which aspect, even otherwise, is not disputed by defence. 19. Evidence of P.W.1 Dnyaneshwar Gadhave also establishes that accused was residing with deceased when incident took place and P.W.1 Dnyaneshwar was telephonically informed that accused had committed murder of his mother-in-law, wife and daughter. It has also come in the evidence of P.W.3 Gajanan Gadhave that as accused was in the habit of beating deceased Gita under the influence of liquor, deceased Vimal was not allowing her to go to her conjugal home and for this reason, accused was also residing in the house of deceased Vimal at village Sawana. There is no challenge to this evidence or other evidence, which is brought on record to establish that on the day of incident or prior to that accused was residing with deceased. In fact, from the evidence of P.W.6 Subhash Shinde, presence of accused in the house of deceased Vimal in the night of 23/3/2015 is established when he being neighbour of deceased Vimal, heard quarrel between accused and deceased on that night. His evidence is found materially corroborated by another independent witness, namely, P.W.16 Mukhtarkha when he has deposed that on his visiting the house of deceased Vimal at 8 p.m. on earlier night he found accused abusing her and extending threats to kill her, due to which he left her house and on the next day morning, on visiting her house, found her lying dead along with her daughter Gita and grand daughter Arti. 20. From the evidence as aforesaid, prosecution is, therefore, found to have established beyond reasonable doubt that accused was present in the house of deceased Vimal on fateful night and thus, accused was required to explain as to how death of not one, but as many as three female members with whom he was residing on fateful night took place. No explanation is offered by accused on this aspect, which is one of the strong circumstances against him in view of provisions of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which provides that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. No explanation is offered by accused on this aspect, which is one of the strong circumstances against him in view of provisions of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which 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 principles, which underlie Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 can be applied in cases where certain facts are especially within the knowledge of a person. In the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Kashi Ram (2006) 12 SCC 254 ), 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 Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 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. 21. Apart from above, another circumstance, which remains unexplained by accused is about his clothes having blood stains of deceased Gita. According to Exhs.49 to 51, no poison is detected on conducting chemical test of viscera. While according to Exh. 54, blood group of Vimal is `B', as per Exh. 55, blood group of Gita is `AB', and as per Exh. 56, blood group of Arti is `B'. As per Exh. 57, no group of blood of accused could be determined. As per Chemical Analyser's report (Exh. 52) article 2 spade and articles 3 and 4 quilts seized from the spot are certified to have human blood of group `AB'. Similarly, article 5 saree, article 6 blouse and article 8 petticoat of Vimal are found stained with human blood of group `AB'. As per Chemical Analyser's report (Exh. 52) article 2 spade and articles 3 and 4 quilts seized from the spot are certified to have human blood of group `AB'. Similarly, article 5 saree, article 6 blouse and article 8 petticoat of Vimal are found stained with human blood of group `AB'. Similarly, article 7 saree and article 9 blouse of Gita are certified to have human blood of `AB' group. Similarly, articles 10 top, 11 legging and 12 underwear are stated to be stained with human blood. However, blood group on articles 10 top and 11 legging could not be determined while article 12 underwear is stained with blood of group `AB'. It is material to note that as per Chemical Analyser's report, article 13 full shirt and article 14 full pant of accused are both found stained with blood of group `AB'. Though no blood group of accused could be determined, blood found on his clothes of group of his wife deceased Gita goes to establish that he was present at the time of incident and this fact is further substantiated when accused fails to explain satisfactorily as to how such blood is found on his clothes, which according to the evidence on record are sealed and seized in the presence of panch witness at his instance during the course of investigation. In that view of the matter, finding of blood stains of blood group of deceased Gita on the clothes of accused cannot be doubted. Considering above evidence, this also is a strong circumstance, which establishes involvement of accused as assailant of deceased persons. 22. In view of above evidence and as on some articles though presence of human blood is detected, of which no blood grouping could be determined, we find it useful to refer to the case of Gura Singh vs. State of Rajasthan { (2001) 2 SCC 205 wherein Supreme Court has observed as under : “In view of the authoritative pronouncements of the Court in Teja Ram's case (supra), we do not find any substance in the submissions of the learned Counsel of 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 and Chemical Examiner has found it that the Chadar (sheet) 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 this circumstance as proved beyond doubt against the appellant.” Similar view is taken by the Supreme Court in the cases of : (i) R. Shivaji vs. State of Kerala, reported in 2013 (14) SCC 266 ; (ii) Molai and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 1999 (9) SCC 581 ; (iii) Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in AIR 1991 SC 1853 . 23. Having considered above discussed evidence, prosecution is found to have established the case based on circumstantial evidence as all the circumstances, when considered together, lead to only conclusion that it is only the accused, who has committed said brutal murders. We, therefore, find no merit in the appeal and hence, the same is dismissed.