(1.) THE Additional Sessions Judge. Chandrapur, on the basis of a circumstantial evidence, recorded a finding of conviction against the appellant-accused for having committed murder of his wife Bhadubai and son Santosh between the night of 13th and 14th January. 1994 at the residential premises at Ballarshah. District chandrapur. The learned Judge considered the crime as heinous and awarded capital punishment of death. Hence, reference is made vide Confirmation Case No. 2 of 1996. Both are heard together.
(2.) MR. Daga, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-accused, made a submission that the circumstances as brought on record are not clinching. They do not provide any irresistible conclusion that the accused along was responsible for homicidal death of two persons. The important aspect on which the learned counsel placed reliance is that the prosecution has not proved as a circumstance that the accused was present inside the house where two persons met with homicidal death. Hence, the chain of circumstances is not complete and it is, therefore, not safe to record a finding of conviction.
(3.) HAVING regard to the submission as made, we examined the material as placed on record. Undisputedly, deceased Bhadubai and Santosh are respectively wife and son of the appellantaccused. Undisputedly further, they reside together. Furthermore, the place where the crime took place, is a place of normal residence of all the three. There is no fourth person as inmate of the premises. P. W. 8. A. C. P. Petkar has deposed that at about 3. 58 A. M. , accused came to the Police Station and reported about the incident of death. With these facts on record, we safely presume that at the relevant time, the accused was also inmate of the premises. The incident leading to homicidal death took place while he was inside the house. T As a settled proposition, now the accused is responsible to examine the circumstances, which were prevailing at the time of death of two persons. The accused has, not offered any explanation in this regard. Omitting to offer any plausible explanation is fatal to the defence. At this stage, Mr. Daga has urged that there is a possibility that accused might have come from outside and he might have seen two persons injured and then he might have reported the matter to the police. However, according to the learned, counsel, it could not be conclusively taken that he was present at the place. Even this has not come by way of explanation from the accused. As such, we accept that the accused was present when the incident took place and he reported the matter to P. W. 8 A. C. P. Petkar.