XI-HC-78 WflT^ITSb*4|ch 3^ ^WMi{, WS\WfS, fslclltiy t;.(^-8^ Sii^i ya* (i^i^si^T) 3T1^T =BT f^TW tT8TT3T1^Tsftt<|qi ?T(ITW^feT3TI^T =bi'iilci41.< iii^i~iTifteA<R]<->ii< ^sri^iiTsn^r APPELLANT: Devprasad @ Boya, Aged about 22 years, S/o Bhogaluram Ghasia, R/o Kalyanpur Aura Para, Police Station: Surajpur, District: Surguja (M.P.) (now C.G.) Versus - RESPONDENT: State of Chhattisgarh, Through fhe JaUer, District JaU First Class, Bilaspur (M.P.5 (now C.G.] Present: Mr. Rajesh Jaui, counsel for Mr. D.K. Gwalre, Depuly Gov1| ttie appeUant . Advocate forfhe State/respoadent. Di.viston Bencli: Hoa'ble W Hon'ble Mi . L.C. Bhadoo and . Dliirendra Mishra, JJ. ORAlt JUDGMBNT (DeUvered ofa 14th March. 2007) L.C. BHADOO, J. The accused/appe]lan.t| questioning legality aad and order of sentence dated Sessions Judge, Manendra^ whereby leamed Additional| accused/appeUaat guflty for corrtctness has preferred fhis crimiual appeal of fhe judgment of convictioB 14-5-1998 passed by fhe Additional arh, m Sessions Tri.al No. 259/94, Sessions Judge after holding fhe •onumssion of oflTaice under Sectious P.T.O. XI-HC-78 SITOTSRT' cWT3n^Tsbi<|tti :5vf ^|q|(-1<4, Stflyll6, fsfcTWp .('.-. A f0 S^//c'f ^-,^- ..<5?.'.rt...l.^7.'."s~r?/. g^qY^. .....................^. s 1'^ ?R(TWfffttT3T1^T •Wlfepto'^ ^- Yir'fs^rfir ^sn^r 364 & 302 of fhe I.P.C. for|lddnapping iu order to nn.urder and conuiutting the inurder of Urinila, a girl ctuld of about 4 years age, sentenced tiim to undergo R.I, for teu years aad pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default ofpayriient offine to further undergo R.I. for two years aad to undergo iiriprisorunexit for life and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, ia default ofpaiyinent offine to further undergo 8.1. for three years, respectively. Case of fhe prosecution lis that OH 13-1-1994 the accused/ appeUaat went to the house (i>f Pawan and his wife Kauilavati., who is niece ofthe accused/appellant On 13-1-1994 at about 11 a.m. when Kamlavati went to vill^ge market to purchase soap, her 4 years' daughter uainely, UmUla also left the house foUowing her mofher. Thereafter, fhe acci^sed leaving behiad his shoes & lungi also left fhe house, When Kaknlavati retumed to her house, Pawaa inquired about fhe whereabo |its of Unnila, then Kamlavati repUed that Urmila had not gone aiAng wifh Iier. Search was made aad the whereabouts of Urmila dould not be traced out. Ehiring fhe search, Sushila @ Ruggi (Pyf-11) ioformed flie parents of Urmfla fhat she saw the accused ^hfle takiag Uniula along with hiTn. When fhe whereabouts of ft^e accused and Uraula could Biot be traced out, Pawaa, father oft^ie girl child, lodged fhe report Ex. P-4 in Police Station: Manendrag^rh on 16-1-1994 at 10.30 a.ni. After registering the case, the ^tation House OfHcer took up ttie investigation. He went to fhe[house of Pawaa aad seized one lungi and a pair of plastic shoes OF the aceuscd under Ex.P-1 6-om. fhe house ofPawan. The accused was arrested on 9-2-1994. While in v_ RTO. XI-HC-' ^Sj- ^iTTT^pT, WTflWTc; tsi^rFd;^; .(3?.;A:.I^S3^ a^T^f^lt'fi (TitTSn^T^TtfTO ^cITW;^' fc ^TOrfi' ff fs^r <f»i^re cRarraTr^Tcs'T poUce custody, he gave raerdoraaduin Ex. P-2 regarding fhe place where he concealed the body, of Urmila aad ia puisuance of tbat, bones and clothes of UrmflA were seized at the instaace of the accused under Exs.P-3 & P-6. The Invest^atiag OfBcer prepared the site plan (Bx. P-5) offhe iblace of occurrcnce. Bones were sent for examiaation to Commupily Healfh Centre, Manendragarh, where Dr. R.S. Bhojak (PWj-13) examined aud gave tus ireport Exs.P-7 & P-8 and referred tja the Chief Medical Offlcer. Inquest Ex. P-9 on bones & clothes olfthe deceased were prepared. Bones were sent to Medical CoU^ge, Raipur, where Dr. D.C. JafcQ; coaducted test ofboues and |gave his report Ex.P-10 in wliich he opined that bones are of a Uuinaa, female child a^,ed 4-6 years, cause of death and tuae of material suppUed. death caimot be assessed from the After coinpletioa of i&v^stigation, cbarge sheet was filed iii fhe Court of Additional Chief|Judicial Magistrate, Manendr^arh, who iu turu cominitted fhe c&se to fhe Sessions Judge, Surguja, froni where learaed Additioi^al Sessions Judge, Manendragarh, received ftie case on traasfer fd>r trial. The prosecution in ordler to establish charge against accused examiaed 16 witoessies. Statement of fhe accused was recorded under Section 313 ofthe Cr.P.C. in which he deiued the inaterial appearing agamst hihi in the prosecutioa evideucc aad stated that the witnesses have ^leposed against him at the iastance of the PoUce, he does not waat tto say aayfhing. .-'I -y XI-HC-78 'ffppr^'fT ai^res 'SSf 'ilWM-f, •ST^W\6, K^Wy. ..<^..ft..^^/?^ 4- sn^T'ra^ (yiI^q^iiT) s.n^Tcfn'R-iisb craTSTT^TsbMicb ^•ciTW'Eri^a'sn^T =hi<(Fi-i<fl-i TOTciY i¥te'^t' <l'si<-(ii< ^i3TRTIT3TI^T Leamed Additional Sest respective parties aad pen|i sentenced the accused as afoi ions Judge after hearing couasel fo:r sal of fhe record, convicted :inentioned. We have heard Mr. appeUant aad Mr. D.K. Gwaht behalfofthe State/respondent Ryesh Jaia, leamed counsel for , learaed Deputy Govt. Advocate In this case there is no rests on the circiunstantial resting conviction based on Uirect or ocular evidence. Whole case ^vidence. As per fhe setfled law for Ifhe circuinstantial evidence as bas been held by the Apex O Chatterjee vs. State ofW.B. )urt in the matter of |reported in (1994) 2 SCC 220: "In a case based circuiiistances giult is to be dr^ established but so established aud consistent gudilt of the should not be caTl ofher hypofhesis aud the chain complete as not for fhe beUef coi the accused. It l| established iadignation of fhi conviction and greater should bi fhe evidence lesl proof. fitoin. sUould o^ly acjcused. t>n circuinstaatial evidence, the which the conclusion of |iwu have not oiily to be fiitty jlso that all fhe circiunstances be of a conclusive nature ^ly with the hypothesis of the Those cucumstances ^able ofbeing explaiaed by auy sxcept fhe giult of the accused <}f the evidence laust be so l|o leave auy reasonable groiuid tsistent witti fhe uinocence of ^eeds no reminder that legaUy aad not inercly ife court caa forin fhe basis of more serious the crime, fhe the care taken to scrutmize suspicion takes the place of circtunslaaces fUe P.T.O. XI-HC-78 siT^rq^ tTaTTSn^Tg^Tlcf; 3^r ^rTin^T, (^ftws, iii^rey _&.A.lr2-SW^' 3n^?rq?g7 (i^3^8T) ??cn'W;Hfef3T1^T ^|i|fi'l41-< TTl^ff ff te^t iRl+dlT ?; aTRfiT sni^r In the present case, thje prosecution has tried to establish charges a.gaiast the accused dp. fhe foILowing eircumstances: - 1. That, the accused is uijicle of Kamlavati, wife of Pawan and mother of deceased Ufmila. On 13-1-1994, fhe accused came to the house of Pawan & Kamlavati. 2. That, on 13-1-1994 at^bout 11 a.m. when Kaailavati house for inarket to ^urchase goods froni groceiy Urmila also foUowed |her aad fhereafter, fhe accused/ appeUaat also left the hAuse. 3. That, fhe accused lefij his lungi & plastic shoes at lesidence of Pawaa. 4. That, fhe whereabouts dffhe accused as also ofUnmla could not be traced out, even the accused was not found in the hotel at Khoagapani w|iere he was worldng. The accused was arrested on 9-2-1994. 5. That, Sushila @ Rugg Urnula along with him i (PW-11) saw the accused taldag the date ofincideat. an 6. That, the accused gave| place where he concealejd ia pursuaace of fhat, deceased as weU as from. fhc place ofoccurr^nce nieinoraaduiu Ex.P-2 regaidiag fhe body & clothes ofthe deceased aad IskuU bone and oflier bones of fhe of tiie deceased were recovered cldthes XI-HC-78 WRWT awrai 3^T "41^1rCT, ^Tfl^'lri; (sf^ll^y ^^(^..^•I'^s^ an^T°fiTf»RN (W3TT^TshHicti STcITWHfttTSn^T I^ff tffsv <w]<-41< ^^fRl^l -STf^T 7. That, Dr. D.C. Jam, Fotensic Medicine Department, Medical CoUege, Raipur, gave' h^s opiaion that the bones which were recovered from the plslce were of a child aged about 4-6 |not giveii smy explanatiou regardia^ years. 8. That, fhe accused has his abscondence. As far as fhe first circujnstaace is concemed, Pawaa has stated in hls evidence thajt in the year 1994 on fhe occasiou of Makar Saxikianti., when a fauf of Sidh Baba was goirtg on iii fheir viUage on 13dl Janiiaiy, the |accused came to ttieir house, tliey provided Tiim food because h^ is their relative. This fact has not been challenged ia the c^oss-examination of this witness. Kamlavati (PW-6) has also ^tated ia her evidence fbat as the accused is her fafher^s brofheij' ia near relation, he used to coine to fheu- house aad ia the niomuijg of fhe fatefdl day, he came to fheh- house, she provided food t4 accused also leflt fhe house. liim. She has uot been cross- examined on thls aspect. Tl^erefore, from. the above evidence oi' thcse two witaesses, it is est^blished that iu the nionuag of tae fateful day the accused cauie tja the house of Pawan & Kamlavati. As far as the second cir^uinstance is concemed, Pawan (PW- 1) has stated in his evidence 1|hat after finishiag meal, his wife left to purchase soap froia groce^y shop, his daughter Urmila, aged about 4 years, also foUowed Ijier. He has further atated fhat the In cross-examination. he has stated that Umula left the house aftfcr soine tnne when tus wife li P.TO. XI-HC-78 3^T ^llfld-M, t<ITflyi|(a, Fsjdl<r!^< &. ^.(^g^.S 3TI^?Tcraqi' (^qi^si^S.T) sn^rw traT3:I1^?Tsb1 ??tlTW?lf?cT3I1^T iFi^fyi4'i'i tiitidTffte^t<Ri^i< ^srf^fiTsn^r house. Kamlavati (PW-6) has steted ia her evidence that when she retumed finui the shop, her husband inquired about tlie whereabouts of Urnula, the|i she said fhat Urmjla had aot accoinpanied her, the accusbd was also not at thc resideace, therefore, they started seairchiag the whereaboute of the:ir daughter. Pawau has stated thereafter, search was inade. it is estabUshed that wbeu Hamlavati left the house, after soaie time, Urcaila also left the hoi^se, fh.ereafter, the accused also left the house aad thereaftier, he] Pawan. As far as the third has stated that the accused belund his shoes and lungi. Investigatmg OflBcer came an4 under Ex.P-1 froin the house Pawaa and he has stated th^: Investigatmg Officer under Ex|, •A' to 'A'. S.N. Tripathi (PW-1 evidence fhat ia fhe year Inspector in Police Station: Vf seized one lungi & pau- of Therefore, it is estabUshed accused were seized fi-om the were left by fhe accused at flie| ctrcutmstance 1)0), 199(4 fhat his daughter did not retum, Therefore, from fhe above evidence, had not returaed to fhe house of is concei-aed, Pawan (PW-1) had left his house barefoot leaving When the inatter was reported, the seized lungi & pair of plastic shoes |of Pawau which has been proved by ^.t lun.gi & shoes were seized by fh.e j.P-1 which bears his s^nature froni |, Sub Inspector, has slated :ui lus he was workiag as Assistaat Sub ^anendr^arh aad on 16-1-1994 he slhoes of the accused under Ex.P-1. piat lungi & pair of shoes of the bouse ofPawaa on 16-1-1994 whiclii residence of Pawaa. XI-HC-78 ^sr "iii4iiM<<, (STTiM'ie, [si^i^y —Oo.,A,(^§3/^, ^ '"2 gn^rq?g7 (q^fgg^sr) an^TeRT d^T3TR?Tsb^l»b ?RiTWtrf?a'3n^T ifiraf^sfrT Wq.-ff tT fe^-•(fSTRR ^3:ri^T3TR?T As far as the fourth cirit:iunstance is concemed, Pawaio. (PW- 1) has stated in his evidence fhat the accused left the house just after his daughter left his ho^ise. The accused had aot retamed, fherefore, he raised suspii whereabouts of the accused fife 11), who ruas a tea staU o4 Ahiaed Colony, mformed 1iii|n that the accused has taken his daughter aad he went towar{ Pawan inade search, but whe^eabouts of the accused could not be traced. He also went to the hc^tel of Khongapaui where the accused used to work, he enquired fixjin the owner of the hotel, the invner urfonncd hiTn that fhe accusil order to go to fair and he searched the accused, but hd fhe accused. He went to lod] accused was arrested on 9-2- not known and the accused has not explamed anyfhing as explanation has come forth| abscondence froin duty or no1 as to coUect his plastic shoes ^nd lungi. circuitis As far as the fiffih father of Umula, has stated ii inarket in search ofUmula, Si staB on a troUey at fhe comer cioa aad started searching ffae Unnila. One Sushila @ Ruggi (PW- a wooden troUev on the conaer of Is fhe river to Mandendragarh city. ;d has left ftie hotel takiag leave in has not retumed. Thercafter, he coiild not trace fhe whesreabouts of ^e report ia fhe Police Station. The L994, tiU fben his whereabouts were b'eniaiaed absconded. The accused to where he reinamed in those days and why he remained absco^ided finm his duty. Thereft>re, no fiTOin the accused icgarding his retumiag to the bouse of Pawan so u^istance is concemed, Pawan (PW-1), iiii lus evidence ttiat when he went to |ishila @ Ruggi (PW-11), who runs tea |ofAhmed Colony, informed hun ffaat F.T.O. XI-HC-78 3^T '^W\v\'t<, VnS\W\Q, (sffll^y ^..d;./?i^y?^ ai^iiia* (^cj{^q<^y) sn^TciirR-fi'h ci'>lT3n^rgiiiRi ITW^f?(T311^r ^rafeft;T imiiff ^'fsl3'ri»TOTC ^i3:rf<PT3n^T the accused has taken his d|i and be went towards the nveb the Manendragarh xaarket, whereabouts of the accused.l has stated fhat be had not rei reason that he thought that] daughter for the purpose of to fhe hotel where the accused and his daughter were not av^ law's house at Aiabikapur, l|' available and he returued onlh inatter on 16th. Kamlavati Urmfla, has stated ia her evi( inquired from fhem as for wht disclosed her that their fou4 Ruggi repHed that one persc|n searched for her daughter wi not be traced, aughter while carryiag on shoulders He went towards fhat side and in hiut he was not able to trace the In cross-exaaamation, fhis witoess )orted the niatter on fhat dav for ft.e the accused nught have taken his ]])layiag with her. Thereafter he weat was workiag, there also the acciised lulable, then he went to his faffcier-ni- yt there also, fhe accused was not ou 15th, thereaflter, he reported fhe [PW-6), wife of Pawan & mofher of lence fhat Ruggi, who nius tea stall, ^na. they are searchiag, on which she years' daughter has missed, the:n has taken ttieir daughter. They \ole day, but her whereaboiits could Sushila @ Ruggi (PW-1 : kaows Pscwan., his wife Kamla daughter Unmla was aged a1 uncle of Kainlavati, used to Pawaa. 3-4 years back on 14 at about 10 a.ni. she was went to coUect water, at present ia the Court, was tak f I) has stated ia. her evidence that she (^ati aud their daughter Unnfla, their ))out 3 years. The accused, who is lcoine to fhe house of Kamlavati & lfh on the day of festival of Sidh Baba ^jiag on her tea stall as her husbaad time, she saw that accused Boya, 4ng Uniula, daughter of Kamlavati & sittBn; P.T.O. XI-HC-78 35f ^iqioq, »Tf1<d'l<o, (s|ctl<iy &?.^.:^^.^§, 3il^i tiaiti (yiI^q^iT) .10 3fT^T W f^IW traTsn^TgiHN? ^RiTWHfgirsn^r cbl^Frl^l-f t||t|7lTq:te<:^t'<Rl<-<il< ^;3TRriT3f1^T Pawao., towards the river. cam.e to her aad iaquired fhat their uncle Boya has ta^ was wearing green frock and ^ [n the eveniag, Kamlavati & Pawaii their daughter, she informed fh.eiu sen IIrmfla and at tbat tirne, IirmiTa wo greea ribbons. Mr. Jaia, leamed Kamlavati (PW-6) has stated @ Ruggi iafonned thein daughter. When. accused she did not disclose the Therefore, the above fact Kamlavati doubtful. coutasel Jn for ttie appeBant, argued that para 4 of her evidence fhat Sushila soine person has taken thefr was known to Sushila, theia why of Bova to Kamlavati (PW-6'l. faialees fhe evidence of Sushila iSs ttat Bc|ya nlame corroborslted lu order to appreciate leamed coimsel for fhe aad we find fhat there is nd reason fh.at Pawan (PW-1), hl( stated that Sushfla @ Ruggi talsen their daughter toward^ (PW-11) has also Moreover, perusal of fhe fir^ was lodged by Pawaii on 16- tbe saine it has been categori| inibrmed that Boya even on fhe search niade, fh^ kaown. Therefore, fhe evid^ Pawan (PW-1) iu which it tbe accused has taken Uraula (iie arguinent advaaced by Mr. Jaiii, jllaat, we have perused the evidence substance in the argument for the (sband of Kamlavati, has catEgoricaISy linfonned fheia that fhe aecused neis fhe river aud even Sushifa @ Ruggi fhe above evldence of Pawau. ^t in&rmation report (Ex.P-4) whicli .[1-1994 at 10.30 a.m. rev'eals tliat iri ;aily inentioned that SusMla @ Ruggi has taken fheir daiighter and whereabouts of fhe accused are not bnce of Sushila @ Ruggi (PW-11) & been categorically mentioned that with him; is corroborated by the fii~st Devp^asad P.T.O. XI-HC-78 3 T "MI^IO^, dTfl^'lri, (sfCll<H^< ^-.&?.A-.J.'^.S^/?.S -II 3ii^i yach (yl'i6!^) sn^T»BT (TqT3IT^Tsbt||ch s^iTwgfersn^T cbi-Ml^^n^^T^ ^ ^S^ <\^\^\( ^iSTRn'sn^r Skis iaformation report. In the (: Kamlavati has stated that some person has taken th^ir prosecution case doubtful or| Pawaa (PW-1) & SushUa @ information report (Ex.P-4). ^ examined. Therefore, froin that the accused taken fhe d^ cross-examiaation of Pawaa defence has uot been able which inakes their evidence dl>ubtful t^ ;ircumstauces, m.erely the fact fhat uslula @ Ruggi iafonaed theia fhat daughter, does not makes the weak tn the liglit of the evideace of ^ Ruggi (PW-ll) as also the first ^amlavati (PW-6) has uot beea cross- above evidence, it is established lughter of Pawan along with 'hi'm. In |(PW-1) & Sushila @ Ruggi (PW-11), briiig any circumistance on record tie boc^y As far as the sixfh & sfc Vijay Smgh Parihar (PW-15)|, evidence ffaat on 9-2-19941 accused Devprasad, at abouj fhat he has concealed fhe Ghati aad he cau take fheinl ^vriting under Ex,P-2, fhe sax^ Prasad & Krishua Murari. examined as PW-2. He hasl came to 'hi'm and said fhatl therefore, he went to the report. 8 days fhei^after, fh^ presence as weU as ia fhe fhe accused disclosed fhat he| he can get the sarae recovere^ iveafh circuiastances are coaceraed, , City Inspector, has stated ia his he conducted investigation fiuin 9.25 in the momirig, he disclosed ofUniula ui fhe draia ofSidb Baba to fh.at place which was rcduced to ic was given iu the presence of Jaald Krishna Miirari Tiwari has been stated ia his evidence fh.at Pawan Police is not registering fhe case, Station aad thev registered the Police searched fh.e accused, ia his of Janki and fhe com.plauiant, has coucealed fhe body in fhe draiii, which was reduced to 'aTitm.g under PoBice pr^sence P.T.O. XI-HC-78 tTPRcTT 9^111^1 3^T •^II^Krl-M, ®xfl'H'16,(sldiyy -^%?:A.,(sr83A$ irraT K! 311^1 4ach (yi(^si^iiT) 3T1^T^R-li=t) traT3T(^Tait|icb ??(TTW (rf??T 3T1^T »bl'i|fyl'l|1-1 H|tli~lT^'te^<R]<-c;K ^sfRiirsn^r Ex.P-2, which bears his sign^l discredit the above evidence u^ been exauuned as PW-5. He the accused took fhe PoUce t<|> one finck, two ribbons, few seized, he put his fhuinb Chetram (PW-4) has stated i4 fhe skuU bone from fhe drainl been cross-examined. evidence fttat one day he wa^ was passing through fhe personnel, fhe accused was accused near fhe cave of took fhein near fhe bushes seized. The accused lum.setf Police aad fhe Police preparejl Singh Panhar (PW-15) has information was given, fhe took them. to fhe cave of along wifh thein and after brought out the clothes i.e. nbbons, hairs and bone piecei tture. Defeuce has not been able to cross-exainiaation. Jaaki Ram has Ihas also stated iu his evidence that fhe draia froiu where one sweater, Ipieces of bones and baugles were ]unpression on fhe seizure niemc. his evidence fhat fhe PoUce seized lunder Ex.P-3. This witness has nct (PW-12) has stated in his goiag to Manendragarh inarket, he bridge, he was caUed by the PoUce yso with theia, the PoHce took fhe Baba and fhereafter, the accused wherc, skuH bone and jrocfe were handover bones & clothes to fhe fhe recoveiy nienio Ex. P-6. Vijay ia tus evidence that after fhe in the presence ofJanki Ptasad Baba where they took ABauddia ffae saad ofdrain, fhe accused |sweater & fix>ck, two green colour which were seized under Ex.P-6. ABaiiddia raihv^iy Sidh fi-d>in stated acdused Sidh reiE(ovuig Leamed couasel for fhi instance, memorandum. Ex.P- accused, as such, fhe same appellant argued that In the first ^ does not bear fhe signature of fhe :aruiot be said to be proved aad it P.T.O. XI-HC-78 flTTq^n St)*1|ch ^sr 'Aii^id^, oxTl^'ie, Rinitiy ri^.-A:.l?7-g.s/?J 13 W^\ 14;)* (^ciI^o^iT) 3ii^r iprf^ricR H'))T3n^TafflT:fi ^RfTW^rfN'sn^r swife^frT wti^rf ff te^ ^R?T!: ^) 3TRiTT Sll^T cauxiot be said that fhe acci recovery iiteino Ex.P-3 does sed gave meinoraudum. Sirnilarfy, bear the signature ofthe acciiaed. It is true fhat fhe of the accused, but merely witaesses Kristtaa Murari Investigating Officer Vijay Sinj stated fhat the memoraudunti cross-exanunation of these brtug aay circumstaiice on re|c it is estabUshed fhat the accused. n<bt nieia(1)raaduin does not bear the signature on this ground, when partfcularly Fiwari & Janld Prasad, as also ')i Parihar (PW-15) have categorically was given by the accused aad ia i, defence has not beea abte to :ord which discredits fheir evitlence, norandum Ex. P-2 was given toy the witnesses, metnorandi As far as recovery of| Allauddin (PW-12) is au indei] stated in his evidence fhat presence under seizure s^nature of the accused fhn werc recovered at the iastanc been proved by Vijay Siagh Officer, as also Janld Ram (FW clofhes aad bones are concemecl, iade^endent witness, he has categoricatly clokhes aadboites were recoveied ia his inctno Ex.P-6 aad Ex. P-6 bears fhe >ugh which cloffaes of fhe deceased of fhe accused. Tfais fact has also Pariliar (PW-15), the Investigatin; -5). Leamed counsel for thd is no evidence that the clothesl In fhls connection, Dr. stated iu his evidence fhat th^ for examination were identifil deceased. appeUaat further argued fhat there were ofdeceased Urmfla. ?.S. Bhojak (PW-13) has categoricaUy clothes wldch were brought to 'hwn ;d by Pawan Ghasia, fafher of fhe XI-HC-78 tTT*TOTT sb<<rai 3 T ^ll^ld-4, iSTfly'Ko, (slfliyy ^..^... .1.^.^3/^5 u' ^--3 3ii^i 4a<»)(yit.jsi^.g') sn<^TW (raT3<l^lsb^i»b ?RITW:trf?(T3:n^T <RTqfepfrr WRlf ff fe^t'rfsRZR ^i 3rf;aiT 311^T In view of fhe above iB clothes of the deceased wekc accused. Moreover, as far a^ report (Ex.P-10) of Dr. D.C[ human and of a glrl child bones of the deceased wert accused, As far as the e^ghfh ci4< 1) has stated in his evidencs left fhe house leaviag behfnd thereafter, he had not retum^ at Manendragarh and at his| hotel at Khongapani where accused was not available tbere. house of Pawan was abscoilided knowa, he was arrested on| reinained in abscondence anU as to where he reiaaiaed durpng also admissible against fh( Evideuce Act aad mference abscondence on account ofc<) liscussion, it »established that fbe recovered at the instaace of the the bones are concemed, as per fhe Jain, the pieces of boaes were of ged 4-6 years. Therefore, clottaes &, recovered at the instaace of tibe ;uiustaiice is coacemed, Pssman. (PW- fhat on the fatefal day fhe accused nd his plastic shoes & lungi and ;d. Even he searched for fhe accused father-in-law's house, as also at fhe the acc'used was working, biit the The accused after leaving the aad his whcreabouts were not 9-2-1994. During fhis period, he he has not offered any explanation mg fhjs period. This circumstaace is accused under SectiDn 8 of fhe can be drawn tliat he remamed m. tamission ofcrime. For the foregoing reas coinplete and from the above accused, the only irresistibl< accused was the onty person |who ons, the chain of circuanstaaces is cireumstances appearfng against fhe conclusion can be drawn that the conunitted the crime and aufhor XI-HC-78 ini "5 ^II^IMI a>»TTcb 3^r ^ii^id<4, t<>Tf1^'i<i, isfcii*iy,< _(^,^.^'2^3/ ^ v^.-...'.........^.^.-^. 200_ 15 311^Sfl 4d* ('icl('la"<.ff) sn^r^R-iish cWsn^rgitTNi 5?HTW'Hf?a'3:n^?T offhe crune, fhere is no possf third person. In the result, we do nol judgment of the trial Court, Uable to be dismissed and it substantive sentences inipos^ 364 & 302 of fhe I.P.C. are finaucial status of the accu^ Rs.100/- (Rupees one huiidi^ pa}Tnent of fine, he shaB suffe| each couat. +i^Fri4^tii^dTft'feLtrl ^WK ^sTRiiTaT^r piility of cornmittuig the crime by any find aay iBegaUly or mfirmity ia the |the appeal beiag devoid of merit, is hereby disinissed. Conviction aad ^d upon the accused under Sections |aiamtauied, howevcr, looking to the ied, sentence of fiiie is reduced to ^d oiily) on each count, iu default of one inonth siinple uaprisouineat on Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge ^ Soma