Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has upheld the conviction of a man accused of murdering his two minor sons by throwing them into a well following a quarrel with his wife. The court noted that the man failed to offer any explanation as to what he did with the children after he left the house.
A bench of Justices RG Avachat and Neeraj Dhote of the Aurangabad bench dismissed the appeal filed by Santosh Walunje against the life sentence awarded by the trial court.
“Since the children were too small, it is for him to explain what he did with them or when he parted their company. The appellant offered no explanation in that regard. The only conclusion, therefore, that could be drawn is that the appellant and none else dropped his children in the well with an intention to kill them or knowing fully well the consequence thereof would be death of his children,” the bench said.
On December 28, 2018, Walunje left home with his two minor children following a domestic altercation. Their bodies were found floating the next day in a well belonging to a local farmer in Savarkhed village in Nanded.
Based on the well owner’s report, a case of unnatural death was registered. The investigation revealed that Walunje had roamed around with his children, visited relatives, stayed overnight at one relative’s house, and was later seen with the children by multiple witnesses.
The children were eventually found dead in the well and post mortem reports confirmed death due to drowning. The sessions court convicted Walunje and sentenced him to life in prison, which he challenged before the HC.
Walunje’s counsel argued that the case was based solely on circumstantial evidence. He contended that the well had no protective parapet wall and the children might have fallen into it accidentally.
He argued that there was delay in recording statements of the witnesses, including that of his wife. Moreover, no identification parade was held, considering that many prosecution witnesses were strangers. It was further argued that the wife had reasons to falsely implicate him due to ongoing marital discord.
The HC, however, rejected the arguments and upheld the conviction noting: “It is reiterated that his wife has no reason to testify against her husband at the cost of her marital future. As such, the fact that the appellant after quarreling with his wife left with his two children, gets proved.”
