Allahabad High Court Judgement

Allahabad High Court Judgement

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice at
JUDGEMENT HEADLINE : Conviction U/s 302 I.P.C.-circumstantial Evidence Recovery Of Body And Cycle Of Deceased From The Appellant-witnesses Reliable-appeal Dismissed
JUDGEMENT TITLE : Babu Vs. State Of U.P. On 25/03/2010 By Allahabad High Court
CORAM : Hon'ble Vinod Prasad,J. And Hon'ble Vedpal,J.



State Of U.P...............................Respondent
Hon. Vinod Prasad J.
Hon. Ved Pal J.

( Delivered By Hon'ble Vinod Prasad J)

Challenge In This Appeal By Appellant Babu Is To His Conviction U/s 302 Read With Section 201 IPC And Sentences Of Life Imprisonment And Four Years RI Respectively On Both The Counts Recorded By Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, On 21.12.1983 ,in S.T. No. 221 Of 1982, State Vs. Babu And Others. Three Other Accused Lal Deewan, Bans Gopal And Beni However, Were Acquitted Of Those Charges By The Same Decision.
In Short, Prosecution Allegations Against The Appellant, As Is Contained In The Written Report, Ext. Ka 4, Are That Informant Girdhari, His Deceased Son Deen Dayal, Jag Mohan Lodhi And His Daughter Urmila Were Co Villagers Being Resident Of Village Dhamna, P.S. Rath, District Hamirpur. Appellant Babu R/o Village Karaundhi, P.S. Jaria, District Hamirpur Is The Husband Of Urmila. Girdhari Required Cement To Lay Down Lintier Of His Roof. Appellant Babu Had Volunteered To Make It Available To The Informant From His Native Village Karaundhi From Culvert Contractors. To Fetch Cement Appellant Came To The House Of The Informant And Took The Deceased With Him On A Cycle On Saturday 07.6.1980 But,since,cement Could Not Be Obtained Therefore, Deceased Returned Back To His House Following Day And Intimated The Informant That Cement Will Be Made Available By Tuesday. He Also Told That He Had Left His Cycle At The House Of The Appellant Because Of Rain. Next Tuesday,10.6.1980 At 10 A.m. Deceased Deen Dayal Left For Appellant's House Of Village Karaundhi To Collect Cement Informing Informant That, If Cement Will Be Available, He Will Transport It In A Bullock Cart. Deen Dayal Did Not Return By The Evening, Therefore Following Day Morning 11.6.1980(Wednesday) Informant Came To Village Karaundhi At Appellant's House In His Search But Could Not Find Either Of Them. Urmila, Appellant's Wife Blatantly Denied Deen Dayal Visiting Her House And Leaving His Cycle There. Informant Thereafter Searched Deen Dayal In His Relatives Abodes And In-laws House And Ultimately, Left With No Option, Lodged A Missing Report At P.S. Rath, Hamirpur On 16.6.1980 At 5 P.m, Which Was Registered At GD No. 15 By Const. Maharrir Babu Ram Pal, PW7, Vide Ext. Ka 12.
S.I.Kripal Kuril, PW 6, In Whose Presence Report Was Registered, Interrogated Informant And Came To Know That Appellant Resides In Village Dhamna And Therefore He Came To Village Dhamna But Appellant Was Not Traced Out. S.I. Stayed In Dhamna Village The Whole Night And Next Day Morning, Accompanied By Informant And Witnesses Kashi Prasad And Munni Lal Went To Appellant's Village Karaundhi, Where He Apprehended The Appellant, Whose Interrogatory Disclosure Statement Deciphered Deen Dayal's Murder, As Appellant Confessed That He Along With Lal Deewan Lodhi, Bansh Gopal Chamar, And Beni Kori (three Acquitted Accused), Had Annihilated Deen Dayal In The Intervening Night Of 10/11.6.1980, And Had Buried His Corpse In Bhairav Nala. I.O. Accompanied By Other Persons Including Village Pradhan, Karaundhi, Then, Came To Bhairav Nala, North Of Village Karaundhi, From Where Appellant Exhumed Corpse Of Deen Dayal Lie Buried Under Date Palm Branches And Mud. Informant, Munni Lal And Kashi Prasad Identified The Dead Body To Be That Of The Deceased. I.O. Prepared It's Recovery Memo Which Was Signed By The Informant As Well And He Has Proved His Signature Of The Said Memo Ext. Ka 3. Hands And Neck Of The Corpse Were Tied From Back With The Help Of A String. Being Sure That His Son Was Murdered By The Appellant And His Associates That The Informant Got The FIR, Ext. Ka 4 Scribed Through Kashi Prasad On 17.6.1980, Following Day Of The Recovery Of The Dead Body, Covered A Distance Of 11 Km., And Lodged His Written Report Ext. Ka 1 At P.S. Jaria, District Hamirpur At 7 P.m., Which Was Registered As Crime No. 78/80, U/s 302/201 IPC.
Constable Moharrir Udai Pratap Singh, Recorded The Written Report, And PW 1 Lala Ram Sachan, Head Constable Had Prepared The Corresponding GD And Both Have Been Proved By PW1 As Ext. Ka 1. And Ext. Ka 2.
Initially Investigation Of The Crime Was Conducted By S.O. Kripal Kureel Of P.S. Rath, P.W. 6. According To His Deposition The Report Regarding Elopement Of The Deceased Was Lodged By The Informant On 16.6.1980at 5 P.m., Which Was Registered By C.P. Babu Ram Pal P.W. 7, Which He Has Proved As Ext. Ka 13. He Has Also Proved The Copy Of Said Exhibits As Ext. Ka 12. Kripal Kuril S.I., PW 6, After Registration Of Elopement Report Commenced The Investigation, Interrogated The Informant At The Police Station Itself. From The Said Interrogation, S.O. Came To Know That The Appellant Was Living In The Village Karaundhi, Therefore, Accompanied By Constable Pratap Singh Constable Ram Chandra Pal He, In The Govt. Jeep Driven By Bhoorey Lal, Came To Village Dhamna In Search Of Appellant But Came To Know That The Appellant Had Gone To Hamirpur. Because Of Fallen Night, S.O. Stayed In Village Dhamna Over Night And Following Day Came To Appellant's Village Karaundhi Accompanied By Informant Girdhari And Witnesses Kashi Prasad And Munni Lal, Where He Had Apprehended Appellant Babu, Who, During Interrogation, Confessed His Guilt And Informed That After Murdering The Deceased, He Had Concealed His Corpse In Bhairav Nala With The Help Of Three Acquitted Accused. Appellant Had Further Made A Disclosure Statement That He Can Get The Body Recovered From The Place Where He Had Buried It And Therefore He Was Taken In Custody And Accompanied By Village Pradhan Harnath He Took The Police Party To Bhairav Nala, From Where He Unearthed Deceased Corpse After Removing Mud, Branches Of Date Palm Tree. The Body Was Identified By The Informant And Other Witnesses And Recovery Memo Was Signed By The Informant, Which Was Prepared By The S.O. Kripal Kureel. Since The Recovery Was Done Within The Territorial Limits Of P.S. Jaria, P.W. 6, Asked The Informant To Lodge A Report At P.S. Jaria.
Station Officer Lal Bahadur Verma P.W. 5 Of P.S. Jaria Commenced Further Investigation On The Basis Of Registration Of FIR On 17.6.1980 At 7 .p. M. After Reaching The Spot On 18.6.1980, Next Day Morning, He Conducted The Inquest On The Dead Body From 6 A.m. To 9.30 A. M., Prepared The Report And Other Relevant Papers Ext. Ka 6 To Ext. Ka 8 And Thereafter Sealing The Dead Body Dispatched It For Autopsy Examination Through Constables Sukh Lal Gupta And Preetam Lal. P.W. 5 Had Also Collected Soil From The Spot Of Recovery And Had Prepared Its Recovery Memo Ext. Ka 9. He Had Proved Soil Containers As Material Ext. 2 And 3. Thereafter PW5, Interrogated The Informant Girdhari And Witnesses Kashi Prasad, Munni Lal, S.O. Rath Kripal Kureel, Constable Pratap Singh, Ram Chandra And Jeep Driver Bhoorey Lal And Then Had Prepared Site Plan Ext. Ka 10 After Finishing Spot Inspection. PW5 Had Also Interrogated The Appellant And, At His Disclosure Statement, Had Recovered Deen Dayal's Cycle, Material Ex.1, From A Parapet (Duchhatti) Inside Appellant's House And Had Penned Down It's Recovery Memo Ext. Ka 5 And Its Site Plan Ext. Ka11. Subsequent Investigation Was Conducted By Other Police Personnel And, Ultimately, Concluding It S.O. Mahaveer Prasad Chaudhary, On 22.9.1980, Laid Charge Sheet Ext. Ka 15, Against The Appellant, Which Charge Sheet Has Been Proved By P.W. 10, Constable Gani Bux Of P.S. Jaria , District Hamirpur.
Dr. A.K. Srivastava P.W. 9. Had Conducted Post Mortem Examination Of The Dead Body On 19.6.1980 At 2.45 P.m. And He Has Proved His Report Ext. Ka 14,according To Which Deceased Was Aged About Thirty Years And More Than 5 Days Had Lapsed Since His Death. Rigour Mortis Was Absent, Skin Peeled Off, Hair And Nails Were Loosened And Were Easily Pulled Off, Abdomen Had Burst Open. Neck And Hands Of The Corps Were Tied With The Help Of A String. Muscles Were Congested And Liquefied Blood Were Present In The Brain. Pleura, Larynx, Trachea And Bronchi Were Congested. Stomach And Large Intestine Were Empty. In Doctor's Opinion, Cause Of Death Was Asphyxia As A Result Of Strangulation Within Five Days Ago.
Following Ante Mortem Injuries Were Detected On The Corpse:-

1.Ligature Mark 30 Cm X 2 Cm All Around The Neck. Fractured Of Underneath Hyoid Bone. On Cutting Neck Muscles Congested. Blood Was Present Underneath The Mark.
2.Contused Swelling 10 Cm X 3 Cm On Top Of Head. On Cutting Congestion Present."
On The Basis Of Charge Sheet Appellant Was Summoned By Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hamirpur And Finding His Case Triable By Court Of Sessions, Trial Was Committed To The Sessions Court On 27.7.1982.
Sessions Judge, Hamirpur Charged The Appellant U/s 302/34 And 201 IPC, On 17.9.1982 And, Since Appellant Abjured Those Charges, Trial Commenced Against Him.
Prosecution Examined Total Ten Witnesses To Bring Home Appellant's Guilt,out Of Whom Informant Girdhari P.W. 2, Munni Lal P.W. 3, Kashi Prasad P.W. 4 Are The Witnesses Of Fact. Rest Of Formal Witnesses Included Constable Lala Ram Sachan P.W. 1, S.O. Lal Bahadur Verma P.W. 5, S.O. Rath Kripal Kuril P.W. 6, Constable Babu Ram Pal Of P.S. Rath P.W. 7, Constable Sukh Lal P.W. 8, Dr. A.K. Srivastava Post Mortem Doctor P.W. 9 And Constable Gani Bux P.W. 10.
Informant Girdhari P.W. 2, Who Is The Father Of The Deceased Deen Dayal, Besides Corroborating His FIR Version Had Further Testified That On 7.6.1980 Appellant Had Came To His House And Had Called The Deceased To Make Cement Available To Him From Contractors Of Culvert And Accompanying Him On Cycle Appellant Had Left For His Village. His Further Testimony Is That When He Had Gone To The House Of The Appellant In Search Of His Son Appellant Was Absent And His Wife Urmila, Had Refused Deceased Visit To Her House And Leaving His Cycle There. He Could Muster The Courage To Lodge His Missing Report On 16.6.1980, When Munni Lal And Kashi Prasad Had Arrived And In Search Of Appellant S.O. Of P.S. Rath Had Came To His Village, But Not Finding Him There Had Stayed Over Night And Following Day Had Gone To Appellant's Village Accompanied By Him And Other Witnesses To Look For The Appellant Where He Was Apprehended. He Further Testified That Deceased Had An Extra Illicit Marital Relationship With Appellant's Wife Urmila, Which Lustrous Relationship Came To Be Known To Him From The Disclosure Made By The Deceased Wife When He Had Returned To His House After Searching His Deceased Son. He Had Deposed That Since He Did Not Believe Infidelity Of His Son, Therefore, He Did Not Lodge Any Report In That Respect. He Has Further Deposed Regarding Arrest, Disclosure Statement Made By The Appellant, And Recovery Of Dead Body At His Behest And Preparation Of Recovery Memo, Ext. Ka 3 And His Being A Recovery Witness And Signing It. He Has Proved His Written Report Lodged At P.S. Jaria As Ext. Ka 4. He Has Further Deposed That After 15 Or 20 Minutes Of Interrogation Appellant Had Confessed His Guilt And The Corpse Was Dug Out By Him From Underneath Mud, And Date Palm Branches In The Presence Of Village Pradhan. He Further Deposed That Post Mortem Was Concluded By 10 A.m. He Has Deposed Regarding Recovery Of Cycle By S.O. Of P.S. Jaria P.W. 5 . He Has Denied The Suggestion That His Deposition Was Untruthful.
Munni Lal And Kashi Prasad, PW3 And P.W. 4 Have Also Stated Those Very Evidences As Was Testified By PW 2, In All Its Material Aspects. They Were Subjected To Lengthy And Irksome Cross-examination But Without Much Success., Albeit, There Are Some Minor Contradictions, Regarding Distance And The Condition Of The Corpse, Which Are Totally Insignificant For The Out Come Of This Appeal. These Witnesses Have Stood Test Of Their Cross Examinations, On The Anvil Of Probability And Creditworthiness, Without Faultering.
Formal Witnesses Have Deposed Those Very Evidences As Has Been Recorded Herein Above And For The Sake Of Brevity We Eschew Repeating The Same.
In His Statement U/s 313 Cr. P.C. Appellant Has Denied Incriminating Circumstances Appearing Against Him In The Prosecution Evidences And Took The Plea Of Denial. He Examined Ramadhar DW1 As A Defence Witness, Who Had Deposed That Body Of The Deceased Was Discovered When He Was Sitting With The Village Pradhan And After The Discovery Of The Dead Body That The Informant Was Intimated. He Has Denied The Suggestion That He Was Deposing Falsely Because Of The Relationship With The Appellant.
Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, Believed Prosecution Witnesses And Finding Guilt Of The Appellant Established Beyond All Reasonable Doubt, Convict Him U/s 302/ 201 IPC And Sentenced Him For Life Imprisonment And Four Years RI Respectively. Hence This Appeal.
We Have Heard Sri Akhilesh Singh Learned Amicus Curie In Support Of This Appeal And Sri K.N. Bajpai Learned AGA In Opposition.
Learned Amicus Curie Criticised Impugned Judgement By Submitting That It Is Case Of Circumstantial Nature And Prosecution Has Failed To Establish Its Charges, As It Failed To Complete The Chain Of Events By Cogent And Reliable Evidences. Sri Singh Further Submitted That Body Of The Deceased Was Earlier Discovered And Then Informant Was Summoned And A False Case Was Cooked Up To Falsely Implicate The Appellant Because Of Unfounded Apprehension Of Illicit Relationship With Urmila. Sri Singh Further Argued That No Recovery Was Made At The Pointing Out Of The Appellant Either Of The Dead Body Or That Of The Cycle,which Never Belonged To The Deceased, And These Facts Remains Disproved. Allegations Of Purchasing Cement Is Totally False And After Thought And The Same Was Developed Only To Implicate The Appellant Falsely Learned Counsel Contended. It Is Next Submitted That The Appellant Was Apprehended, Beaten And Thereafter A False Confession Was Recorded, Although The Body Was Already Discovered Much Earlier. It Was Further Argued That The FIR Regarding Missing Of Deceased Was Lodged At PS Rath Only To Implicate The Appellant When , According To Prosecution Version Itself, Crime Was Committed Under Jurisdiction Of Police Station Jaria. Concludingly, It Was Submitted That The Prosecution Has Miserably Failed To Bring Home The Guilt Of The Appellant, Who Is Liable To Be Acquitted And Appeal Deserves To Be Allowed.
Conversely, Learned AGA Submitted That The Chain Of Circumstances Is Complete And The Prosecution Has Successfully Proved The Charge And The Appeal Deserves To Be Dismissed. It Was Argued That The Prosecution Witnesses Had No Animus To Falsely Implicate The Appellant, Who Is The Son-in-law Of A Co-villager In Absence Of Any Previous Enmity And It Will Be Preposterous To Cogitate That Without Any Ill Motive Pws Will Depose Falsely Against The Appellant. Recovery Of The Dead Body And That Of The Cycle At The Pointing Out Of The Appellant Being Admissible U/s 27 Of The Evidence Act Points Out Unerringly Towards Appellant's Guilt In Conjunction With Last Seen Evidence. It Was Argued That Entire Prosecution Evidences Taken Together Has Established Complete Chain Of Murder Leaving Only One Hypothesis That It Was Appellant Alone Who Had Participated In The Murder Of The Deceased And Therefore His Conviction And Sentence Does Not Require Any Interference By This Court And Appeal Be Dismissed Being Devoid Of Any Merit.
We Have Considered Raised Submissions From Rival Sides And Have Scanned Trial Court's Record Ourselves.
Some Of The Non Disputed Circumstances Of The Appeal Are That The Informant, Appellant's Wife Urmila And Her Father Jagmohan Lodhi, Were Co-villagers. Defence Itself Got The Story Of Lustrous Relationship Surfaced From PW 1 To Contend That Because Of The Said Reason Appellant Was Implicated In A False Case But At The Same Time This Temerity Must Have Rankled The Appellant And Gave Him A Very Strong Motive To Do Away With The Deceased. Further Both Deceased And Urmila Being Co Villagers, Their Infatuation For Each Other Is Very Probable. Deposition By The Informant That The Said Illicit Relation Unbeknown To Him Till Informed By Deceased Wife After His Return To His House From Deceased Search Is Also Very Natural, As Our Heuristic Experiences Informs Us That In Our Society Wives Always Endeavour To Secret Their Husband's Extramarital Relationships. Purpose Of Deceased Accompanying Appellant Is Mentioned In The FIR Itself And Testimony Of P.W. 1 On This Aspect Is Convincing And Unblemished. Informant Has Made A Categorically Deposition That It Was The Appellant Who Had Approached The Deceased To Make Him Available The Cement From The Contractor Of The Culvert. It Is Not Unknown That Such Types Of Clandestine Sale Transactions Do Happen. Defence Has Failed To Point Out Any Circumstance To Reject It And Therefore The Same Has To Be Accepted As Being Well Founded. It Will Be Ludicrous To Think That A Father Will Fabricate Such A Story To Nail In An Innocent Person In The Murder Incident Of His Son. Deceased Had Accompanied The Appellant On 6.7.1980 But Had Returned Following Day In The Evening As He Could Not Get The Cement, Leaving His Cycle At Appellant's House Which Subsequently,during Investigation, Was Recovered From The Same Place On The Disclosure Statement By The Appellant Himself, Which Further Lend Credence To The Prosecution Version. Next Tuesday, On 10.6.1980, Deceased Had Gone To Village Karaundhi, At Appellant's House Informing His Father That If He Will Get The Cement, He Will Get It Transported In A Bullock Cart And Will Also Bring His Cycle. This Statement By The Deceased To The Informant P.W.2 Is Admissible Under Section 32(1) Of The Evidence Act As To The Circumstance Leading To His Death. This Aspect Of The Matter Has Been Considered By The Privy Council In Case Of Pakala Narayana Swami Vs. The King Emperor 1939 (Vol 40) Cr. L.J. 364, Which Has Favourably Been Approved By The Apex Court In The Decision Of Sharad Biridhichand Sarda V. State Of Maharashtra : AIR 1984 SUPREME COURT 1622 Wherein It Has Been Held By The Apex Court As Follows:-
"11. The Leading Decision On This Question. Which Has Been Endorsed By This Court, Is The Case Of Pakala Narayana Swami V. Emperor, AIR 1939 PC 47, Where Lord Atkin Has Laid Down The Following Tests:
"It Has Been Suggested That The Statement Must Be Made After The Transaction Has Taken Place, That The Person Making It Must Be At Any Rate Near Death, That The "circumstances" Can Only Include The Acts Done When And Where The Death Was Caused. Their Lordships Are Of Opinion That The Natural Meaning Of The Words Used Does Not Convey Any Of These Limitations. The Statement May Be Made Before The Cause Of Death Has Arisen, Or Before The Deceased Has Any Reason To Anticipate Being Killed. The Circumstances Must Be Circumstances Of The Transaction; General Expressions Indicating Fear Or Suspicion, Whether Of A Particular Individual Or Otherwise And Not Directly Related To The Occasion Of The Death Will Not Be Admissible . ...................Circumstances Of The Transaction!' Is A Phrase No Doubt That Conveys Some Limitations. It Is Not As Broad As The Analogous Use In "circumstantial Evidence" Which Includes Evidence Of All Relevant Facts. It Is On The Other Hand Narrower Than "res Gestae" Circumstances Must Have Some Proximate Relation To The Actual Occurrence................... It Will Be Observed That "the Circumstances Are Of The Transaction Which Resulted In The Death Of The Declarant." These Principles Were Followed And Fully Endorsed By A Decision Of This Court In Shiv Kumar V. State Of Uttar Pradesh (Crl. Appeal No. 55 Of 1966 Decided On 29-7-66 : (reported In 1966 Cri App R (SC) 281)). Where The Following Observations Were Made:
"It Is Clear That If The Statement Of The Deceased Is To Be Admissible Under This Section It Must Be A Statement Relating To The Circumstances Of The Transaction Resulting In His Death. The Statement May Be Made Before The Cause Of Death Has Arisen, Or Before The Deceased Has Any Reason To Anticipate Being Killed .................. A Necessary Condition Of Admissibility Under The Section Is That The Circumstance Must Have Some Proximate Relation To The Actual Occurrence ............The Phrase "circumstances Of The Transaction" Is A Phrase That No Doubt Conveys Some Limitations. It Is Not As Broad As The Analogous Use In "circumstantial Evidence" Which Includes Evidence Of All Relevant Facts. It Is On The Other Hand Narrower Than "res Gestae".
Evidence Of PW2, Who In All Incriminating Circumstances Has Supported PW1, Further Lends Credence To The Charge Against The Appellant. Through His Cross-examination Defence Could Not Shatter His Testimony And Failed To Elicit Any Statement Favourable To It And This Is Yet Another Link Against The Appellant.
FIR Of The Incident Was Lodged Without Much Delay As It Was Very Natural For The Father To Search For His Missing Son Prior To Lodging Of FIR. Father's Statement That He Had Gone To Appellant's House Following Day In The Morning Because Deceased Had Not Returned Earlier Evening Is Also A Link Circumstance And Establish That The Deceased Had Left His House For Village Karaundhi To The House Of The Appellant, Otherwise There Was No Plausible Reason For The Informant To Go To Village Karaundhi To The House Of The Appellant In Search Of His Son. Urmila's False Deposition To The Informant Is Yet Another Connecting Link Which Deposition Is Contradicted By Recovery Of Cycle And Disclosure Statement Made By Her Appellant Husband. This Is Yet Another Circumstance In Completion Of Chain.
Another Important Incriminating Striking Feature Of The Case Is The Recovery Of The Dead Body And That Of The Cycle At The Pointing Out Of The Appellant. Appellant's Complicity In The Incident Came From The Time Of Lodging Of The Missing Report By PW1. Kripal Kureel P.W.6 , Who Had Engineered The Investigation, First Of All Had Searched For The Appellant, Apprehended Him And On His Disclosure Recovered The Corpse Of The Deceased . Words Used By The Appellant In His Said Disclosure Statement, Which Is Admissible Under Section 27 Of The Evidence Act Was Testified By Sub Inspector Kripal Kureel In His Examination-in- Chief In Following Words " I Can Exhume Dead Body, Where I Have Buried." On The Basis Of Such A Disclosure Dead Body Of The Deceased Was In Fact Recovered From The Same Place. This Circumstance Is An Additional Rung In The Chain Of Circumstances Established Against The Appellant. All The Fact Witnesses And The I.O. Were Cross-examined On This Aspect But The Accused Miserably Failed To Bring Out Any Statement Which May Even Slightly Erode Credibility Of Prosecution Version. We Have No Reason To Discard This Part Of Prosecution Story Which Is Well Proved.
Another Incriminating Circumstance, Recovery Of Cycle From The House Of The Appellant, Which Was Concealed In The Parapet Of His House Further Confirms Prosecution Version. The Place From Where The Cycle Was Recovered Could Not Have Been Known To Any Other Person But For The Inmates Of The House And They Were Only The Appellant And His Wife Urmila. It Was The Disclosure Statement By The Appellant That Had Led To The Recovery. Cross Examination To Belie This Aspect Of Recovery Is Very Perfunctory And Does Not Help The Defence At All. Hollow Suggestion By Accused That The Cycle Did Not Belong To The Appellant Is Unimpressive. We Have Not Found Anything Which May Compel Us To Disbelieve The Said Allegation That Recovery Was The Out Come Of The Disclosure Statement Made By The Appellant.
Another Important Aspect Of The Matter, Which Points Out Appellant's Guilt Is The Condition Of The Dead Body When It Was Exhumed From Bhairav Nala By The Appellant. The Hands And Neck Were Tied With The Help Of A String From Back Side. This Could Not Have Been Done By The Deceased Himself And The Injury Detected On His Corpse Coupled With The Opinion Of The Doctor That He Was Strangulated To Death Leaves No Doubt That It Is Case Of Homicidal Death Covered U/s 302 IPC.
Thus From The Above Discussion, What We Find Is That The Deceased Had Left His House At The Instance Of The Appellant And Thereafter Was Found Murdered In The Appellant's Village And At The Pointing Out Of The Appellant His Dead Body And The Cycle Were Recovered From Bhairav Nala And Parapet Of His House.
Turning To Motive Aspect, We Find That The Motive To Commit Murder Was Very Much Embedded In The Mind Of The Appellant, As His Wife Was Having Illicit Physical Relationship With The Deceased. No Husband Can Tolerate Such A Temerity And Faux Pas. This Must Have Tormented Appellant Time And Again And Therefore, When He Got An Opportunity, He Settled Of The Score By Removing The Deceased From His Way. The Motive Further Finds Corroborated From The Fact That There Was No Cement Shop In Village Karaundhi And Accused Has Failed To Bring Out Any Material To Show That Any Culvert Was Being Constructed In His Village. Though Deceased Acted On Appellant's Assurance But It Seems That The Allurement By The Appellant, To Get Cement For The Informant, Was A Step In Conspiracy And Was Pre- Planed To Murder The Deceased. After Going Through The Evidences, We Find That Non Availability Of Cement On The First Day Was Also A Part Of Conspiracy And, On The Subsequent Occasion, When Deceased Had Approached The Appellant, He Was Murdered And His Dead Body Was Disposed Off In Bhairav Nala.

Adverting To The Investigation, We Found Evidence Of Two Investigating Officers And Two Head Moharrirs Untainted. No Fault Can Be Found, Which May Discredit, Otherwise Convincing Investigation. There Is Enough Material On Record Indicative Of Appellant's Guilt. Defence Has Not Been Able To Shake Testimonies Of PW 5 And 6 In Any Manner.
The Residue Of Above Discussion Leads Us To Conclude That The Chain Of Circumstances Against The Appellant, Points Out His Guilt. No Other Hypotheses Can Be Cogitated In His Defence To Assoilzie Him. Resultantly, We Find No Force In The Instant Appeal Which Stands Dismissed. Appellant Is In Jail. He Shall Remain In Jail To Serve Out Remaining Part Of His Sentence.
Let A Copy Of This Judgement Be Sent To The Trial Court For Its Intimation.

Go to Navigation