^. ^'t, ^^^i^ CF0000661554' /- ^i'-Ei:iL. .ob1 ,AiR.I?G.KER..-/ ^'^.^^.JS............ t\Ahec«s N<Ame „^fffel^.,.. i^e :"% :~;i;%i9gKI '?ti:B Oivision Bench (''i'iminaf) :^:JJJ '!; ' ''^i >^.^,.4>t»^«fr*-- 3e?u: ^DC ^^y^-^- i^aw»-<•iW-^-.Stl^steii,,. •^yrpT^— R©sAd^nce L.<!D .....-..,.'.../') /- .^, ^^^Kftf^^ ^<;d to Sq?^/^^^^. ..<-..,......,-.«..—...^.^n un J GL- '5 -ct 1 on ^^,^^._. by ^Q!^M!^^ s.r.^. -^TJT|^ ^z,/^^ j <^^ It is -^pl.ciin^d to ths ^S&SODQS: tthstt- .|f:'h;s •^jates ojq ^lshes to be r-pres ent:ed fcy a 1'^al practeifclcnec.ifchf^ppeU^te 0-urfc vd.il not prcc.^d wlth fche:|!I(!d8©for sev^i d<a,y@ unless t^he l^gal prcictitioner dippecirs^ 'If4^h@'l^al pr^ctiCicner doe^j not appear wlth the s^veii ddiys^b^ may-fce heard at all Af tete prlsoheE sccites thafc the does n©t^ wlsh tc be £i^p,eyS'jnted fcs? •legcil prcictioner the Cfourt m^y;|p|oceed at onc^ with the caa^ cind will nct fc<; ufclj.ged.tc ^ive!.^ hearing to dny:l®gaXproc^- iticner v^ho shculd dppe^ro : ^j l^ D<i^ e cf <ipplic.;ifcion fcr copy of Judgein^t s 2., D^t 8 of which copy r^c^ived ^ 3,, Date on which ^pelisent ^^ 9- •^' 4^ ^hether the priscn^r ^ish^d tc be represented cr nct Yes/»;., l^-^l£^^^me^^^.^^^^^-^—^-j3.. •^57777?7^r<^7c77"7777 \ Gjnfclnued iri ____^_UJQ13- ^,. ^^—.. ^- ^.—^^ J^-. ^&.^-O.^^——.-_»»^-^<«.oAt ®<3 tiytest.'^^ft^'^ifsytst^.: •^^<^'fvsi9citf<^v-!^wivyftn'':'^vyi-se^iif.'i Pcrwa^ded tc' t.he CHlEe1 JUDIC|[AL Mi^JSK^^S ^ tc'gethex ^lfch a copy of judg^'n^t or oeder pa^i'^ £cr fcivcu^ of tr^nsmlsslon to fche propcr ^pllat^ CX.^€t^ ^B.JAiL, Oi-R^i^^^ Dat @ cf c eoelpt in C^J ^ H9 s 0££ic@^ ^ "'^ ,. "1 ^ 30ate of receipt of reccrd of.^aaQcny^iy* ^NT^ 4^) ;/ dtf ^ptidl o£ .the <Mkppellidte a-u&t^ ^^ 1 3 (:> ..Dat eB ._._...._.._.._1.!:11._± ^ pci:ward^d tc tho ^^•n't 6 C.J. ^yii3t£:it©_^^ a-f. ^'< Q^ ^ ». T- XI-HC-22 d? ^^r '^pn^pT, '^ra7i5, ^fTHy MTO^IT ^^F^^.,.,....&4-^,.'^f^- STi^T'^T t^ri^'^ii^T ^"RT^^f^l 3T?t^T i^T^: ^rf^T -^Rfei^ •Wi^f^ 1t^f li^R '^^f^H'3^1 DMSION BENCH: HON. S^ L.C. BHADOO & HON. ShRI DHIRENDRA MISHRAJJ Criminal Appe^l No. of 1 205 of 1997 Appellant ^sDendent Suna Ram Vs State of M.P. Shri Saurabh Dangj, learned {^ounsel for the appellant. | Shri U.N.S.Deo, learned Add|tional Pubtic Prosecutor for the State. ORAL UUDGMENT Per LC.Bhadoo. J 1/03/2006) By this appeal under Sectpon 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure the accused/appe(lant| has question^d the legalit^ correctness of the judgment of co|nviction and order of sentence 17.03.97 passedby AdditionaJS4ssionsJuct9e, Dhamtari jn S.' 433/96 whereby the leamed Additit)nal Sessions Judge after holdj|ig the accused/appeJlant guiity for the confl and 201 of the Indian Penal Code s| for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-1 Rl and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, undergo Rl for one year and six m| that both the sentences would rurYc) Imission of offence.under Sectioi|is 302 ^ntenced him to undergo imprjsGJnment |and sentenced to undergo .thre^ years |n default of payment of fine to ^nths respectively. He further d |)ncurrently. . and dated •. No. Ifurther irected [^fr^'^fe^ -qr- XI-iIC-22 © ^^[ '^TPTM'^,: ^T{iu^l@, fN^T'RTy •WFff^W^'te-...:Q-A-^-.<|S : fe^<' 3?1^T^T 'fe^w^nt^T 9FRN"^rf^?[ ^T^l^^T^^f^T —2.— ^Ffe^ HrR^Tf ^ -fe^ f^"R ^3i^TR^1^T 2. The admitted facts of the prosecuti4n is the son of deceased Dhani R^ir deceased Dhani Ram and mother of was in detention in connection withl IPC, he asked the accused/appellarjt on which the accus^d/appellant jn| father (since deceased) Dhani Ran| Kunwal Singh to sell the agricuiturjal Rs. 2500/- in two installments was Dhani Ram from whom the thereafter Dhani Ram was releaseM custody Kunwal Singh and accus^ Ram to execute the sate deed Singh as the land was jn the nam< avoiding the execution of sale deed| Dhani Ram wasresiding with the and since 02.06.96 the whereabout^ one body of unknown person was s^c river bed. The accused was informetd river bed. At this, after seeing the that the bodywasof hls father on accused/appellantand P.W.-11 Police Station Sihava and accusedl the effect that on Syndayi.e; 02.0p. Umar Gaon market for selling the wi he along with.his father and case are that the accused/appedant ^m. P.W.-1 Chaiti Bai is the wife of accused Suria Ram. As the deceased Ithe offence under Section 307 of the larltto get him reieased from the custody 1 consultatjon with his mother and his entered into an agreement with one land and in lieu of that amount of paid to Chaiti Baiwife of deceased acc4sed/appellant took the amount and on bail. After his retease from the ^d/appellant Suna Ram asked Dhani of thjs agricultyral land in favour of Kunwal of Dharii Ram, but Dhani Ram was |jn favour ofKunwal Singh. Deceased 1 acjcused/appellant in yillage Bhishsimpuri of the deceased were not knowin and s^en by the villagers on 07.06.96 by the villagers who took him linthe ^othe Ra<n l^ody, accused identified and disclosed which P.W.-7 Ram Prasad, Suna f?am - Bhuwan village Kotwar went ^o the Ihimself gave merg intimation P(-12 to .Op.96 he along with his father wjent to itinowing basket (Soopa/and the^eafter Leelarjath of his vitlage consumed liq^or. At [^t^^fe^ XI-HC-22 '^^•.'^iFn^r^, '®^~T^,f^rr^y 3TT^['^T 'feW^TI^T ^RW?i1i?[ 'W^ITW^I^^.......&^.^..t 3?R^'^n^Tf^ -2>-| about 7.30 p.m. Lelanath went to hi^ to.his house. The food was not pr^pared; both ofthem went for sleep. At about 7.00 a.m. in the morning he aw that hjs father i.e. deceased Dhani Ram was not at the house. He wjent somewhere in the night itself. On Monday i.e. next day moming Ratij thereto, in the night Dhaniram cam^ vras notafrajd ofanybody. When hej Dhaniram left the place. On the| Wednesday search made about the| panchnama P-9 of the bodyof Dhs panchas. The site plan P-10 of the the Patwari. Site plan P-7 was pre| body was sent in a sealed packet f< Legal institute, Gandhi Medica! Co Dr.B.K.Athwal conducted the post and gave his opinion that.the body chest and neck cbnsistent with present. Death js homicidal in natur^. He also gave the report P-18 Nalishi P-16 ^was recorded on 08.06 '^Rf^R^H^ff ^ 'fe^ T^^R ^^OT^TS^T village. He along with his father came Ram informed him that a day before to his house and was sayingj that .he said that he is feeling sleepy ojn which following day i.e. on Tuesday and whereabouts of his father and he went to the house of his unde Heera Si|igh. Today, between 12.00-1,00 p.m. Makhan, Akhtu Ram and others cai^ie and informed that his father's body is lying in the Lakhanpuri river bed|on whieh he went and saw tl^at, face and head ofthe body was visible anp the rest ofthe bpdy was buri^d in the sand. Both the hands were eaten a\|yay by the animals. Who and jhow his father has been murdered is not kn^wn to him. On receiving this rejportthe {nvestigatmg Officer left for the sc|ene of occurrence and prep^r prep^red the inl Ram after gjving notice P-? to the place of occurrence was prepjared by ^ared by the Investigation ofRcjer. The ^r post mortem examination to |Medico |lege Building. Bhopal where P.W.-15 tiortem and prepared the repc?rt P-17 jn advanced stage of decomt?osjtion with partially mutilated conditjon. Thje evidence of anti mortem injilry over aumatic asphyxia and stran^uiation 96 by Police Officer Shri C. 8 Dehati Netam [TTt^ ^fa^f XI-HC-22 •3-^r -^rai^i, ^ftwi^, •f^ray ^?i^^{TWTi^ ^^^ ^......&:^,S{».:...^ T^ ' V-' ; . ^ ^ '^TT^T^T T^iN'Sllt^T ^RNT^rf^T ^^T^^i^R^n -^-i ^Rfef^T ^ fe^ ^N?R ^3ri^T3T[^I 4 b^ecfr" the the of police station Sehava. On 08.0$. white dhotiof the deceased werej custody on 10.06.96 the accus|ed/appellant regarding the weapon of offence-|cl recovered the club under Ex.P- possession a piece of half burnt mateh box under Ex.P-5. During regarding sale of land receipt of teken into possession under Ex.| recovered articles wer? sent for Science Laboratory, Raipur from w|iere completion 6f the investigation, ch^rge and 201 of the IPC against the First Class, Dhamtari who in turr| Judge, Raipur from where the Dhamtari received the case on franfefer for trial. ?.96 under Ex.P-6, one green shirt and taken into possession. While in police gave memorandum P-3 club arid in pursuance of that he got 1. The Investigation Officer took into te'cfr". two half burnt mateh sticks and one investigation, the agreement Ceipt part payment of money Ex.P-2 was P-1 by the Investigating Officeif. The acdused shemicai Examination to the Foirensic the report P-15 was receivedl. After sheet was fited under SectiQn 302 in the Court of Judicial magistrate committed the case to the Sejssions learned Additional Sessions ^tudge, The prosecution in order to accused/appellant .examined fifljeen accused/appeiliant was recorded he denied theprosecution evidenc^ he is innocent and he has been fajsjely implicated establish the crime again^t the witnesses. Statement c(f the ur(der Section313 ofthe Cr.P.C. ir^ which appearing against him and stat^d that ticated in thecrime. Learned Sessions Judge after parties convicted and sentenced one ofthis judgment. h^aring the respectiye counsel for the t^e accused as mentioned in par^igraph [Tft^ ^R^^ XI-HC-22 3^T^l^T f^njch STif^I '^RW^if^f ^-^i •^rm^q, ^^ms, 'l^sray WN^T1^MI-^ T,q^^-. :: ^ ...:..Cz,^..d»,....i.^|i3o '^[^T^^T^R^af -s-E- ^Rkw^ •^iTTOf ^ ^ZT ^^R ^ 3?p^q ^ni?i 8 We have heard Shri Saurabjl accused/appellant and Shri U| Proseputor on behalf of the State. Dangi, leamed counsel ^ for the N.S.Deo, learned Additional Publjc Homicidal death of Dhani Ram is rjot in dispute. Apart from that, from the eviderl conducted the postmortem bn th^ injuries were anti mortem 1n m fractured, right side third, fourth a^ left.side second, third, fourth, sb GlavicuJar line to anterior auxiiiary 1 the evidence of anti mortem inju< traumatic asphyxia and strangula) nature. Therefore, from the above) that the^death of Dhani Ram was h| |ce of P.W.-15 Dr; B. K. Athwal, who body of Dhani Ram has stated that the |ityre. The thyroid from cartilage was id sixth rib at mid GlaviGular line and on th, eighth, ninth and tenth ribs at mid |ne were found fractured. He opined that ty over the chest, neck consistent with pon present and death is homicidal in evidence of the doctor it is established bmiddal in nature. Nowcoming to the Jnvolvement of|the murder of his father Dhani Ramisl evidence in tbis case and the \A| evidence. As per the settled law, the cjrcumstantial evidence, the e^ accused person bycjrcumstantial accused/appellant in committiDg the lconcerned, there is no direct and ocular I'hole case rests on the circumstantial |n order to rest the convietion bdsed on ^sentjal ingredjents to prove guilt of the jvidence are: i) The circumstances] should be fully pr6v^ ii) the cjrcumstances s| from which the conclusion is drawn d;- , ', •. -..' . hould be conclusjve in nature. [^^ ife^ XI-HC-22 > ^^ '^STP^PT, ^^'^qTC,. 3ilt?T ^^ 6 , wwtw^--£--l\-G'la'-lie1&7 •^^sr' 3T^T'^T : '^{W^ni^r ^^ ^ri^T 9. ^i^I I^TW ^f^T- -&1- ^PTfeNN'HR^ ^ fi%lr Tf^^R '^^f^R^¥r m) all the facts so estat)ljshedshould be consistent onl^ with the hypothesis of gui|t and jnconsistent with the innocehce; iv) the circumstences sl^ould, to be moral certainty, exclude the possibility of guilt of ^ v) the motive - as the 'T ny person other thah the accusec^. The prosecution has tried to establ|sh the charge against the accused on thefoJlowing circumstances: deceased Dhani Ram was incu^tody therefore in order t<|i engage the counsel and get phani Ram released 6n baip, he and accused/appellant Suna|Ram were 1n need 6f m^ney therefore they entered in^o an agreement for the s^le of land of Dhani Ram in favpur of P.W.-2 Kunwal Sing^. Accusedtook advance ofRs. ^5001- from him and aftet release Dhanl Ram was avoiding execution of the s^le deed therefore the accusedl feeling harassed a^ Kunwal Singh for the| he took the adyance money sale ofthe agricultural land. was from vi) the accused/appell^nt made extra judidal conf^ssipn regarding eommjttin^ murder of his father in front <i>f his mother Chaiti Bai P.^/.-1. vii) Weapon of offence-< the accused and the viii) The deceased was company of accused |;lub was recovered at the instarice of ^ame was found stained with blooid. last seen alive on 02.06.96 ip the [^^^s^ -^ XI-HC-22 ?:sr ^T^n^R, ^t^TT?, ^TRiy 7 WW^I'^W^_....C<^.^-..l 3:[^T'^T 'f^it??: an^r ^^te^fN 10. Now we shall proceedl to examine th| to ascertain whether the prosecut|on charges againstthe accused based i) As far as first cir<S iearned counsel f<j the attentton of td evidence of P.W| witness has state^ that he is readytc view ofthe abovel harass6d by'the has not been estal appreciate the arg the accused/appel P.W.-2 Kunwal Sir Ram and his motl admeasuring 36 land was in the the first instellmenl paJdRs.400/-aftei jn advance to th( thereafter that m< Suna Ramand th< Dhani Ramwasin after his release •^S^fqf^ T?[q^ ^-f^^ 1^^^ '^a'ii^m^T^i evidence available on record in order ha? been able to establish the n the above drcumstances: ^umstence (i.e. motive) is concemed, ^r the accused/appellantwhile inviting (e Court towards paragraph 5 of the .-2 Kunwal Singh argued that this that Dhani Ram informed him twice execute the sale deed. Therefore in^ levidence there was no reason to feel ^iccused and thus, this drcumstance i|5lished by the prosecutjon. In order to juments advanced bythe cfounsel for jant we have perused the evidence of Ighwho has stated that accused Suna |ier Chaitt Bai agreed to sell the land d^cjmals at the cost of Rs. 3200/-. The of Dhani Ram (since deceased). In he paid Rs.2100/- and thereafter he demand and in all he paid Rs. 2500/- wife of deceased Dhani Ram and >|iey was taken by accused/appellant recelptwas executed in hisnameas |detention therefore itwas agre^d that nailne te sale deed will be executed, [•^1 Dhani ^f^ !@: XI-HC-22' "^^ ^TRT^T, ^tof^, t^RTy WW?il ^HI.^_...;...A^..^..:..j 3^1 ^T f^ri^sn^T '^W^f^I ^.,... ^ ii) releasjed Ram was January, he ask^( which he said th4t come he will execji Holi festival, he (Ff. Mechka along wjt^i Ram said that he Ram was not exe<| the reason. Againj Ram went to villa^e alsocameto Mecl along with Kashi when Dhani R^ accused/appellantl receipt P-2 was ta( him under Ex.P-1 In.the cross when Dhani Ram Ram and wife of consent arid only land. He pajd th Chaiti Bai, Suna Vishwanath Patel Dhani Ram went wife and on both execute thesale d ^ptfoT^r 'STO^? ^ 1^Tzl"<N^?R ^^rS^H 371^1 from jail v<4ien in the month of him to execute the sale deed on when his elder son Kashi Ram will jte the sale deed. On the occasion of .W.-2) again went to village Navapara his brother Naval Singh. Then Dhani n/ill come with Kashi Ram. Why Dhani uting the sale deed he does not know after two months healong with Suna Mechka and on that day Kashi Ram ika. Dhani Ram said that he will come R^m but he never came. The time im died, he was residing with .Suna Ram at Bhishampuri. The cen into po^session by the police from exartiinationi, this witness has stated that was in jail, acGu?ed/appellant Suna Phani Ram went to him tose^k his jthereafter they discussed to s^ll the money in presence of. Kashij Ram, ?am and two other witnesses namely |& Roopnath. After retease from jail to village Mechka to reside with his times, Dhani Ram said that |he will bed. the [^ ^^s^ w XI-HC-22 -ye^ •TqTin^T, -0-g^Fre, fS^fRj-y: 'WR^r:'^nr^' :.e,^....i^y W^I^T f^ti^an^T ^i*41<^'W^<:T ^?^ferih 'w3^ ^ ft^ xf^R: ^'^FCT^I^T Eiai stat^d iii) The dosescrutini &P.W.-1 Chaiti and avoiding th4 connection,'ifwe| Bai in paragrarth categorically the sale deed. H^ wilj retumthe death of Dhani residing with Su( Chaiti Bai, wife accused/appellan|l prepared to of Kunwal Singh Ram who took under pressure of Kunwal Sing^ ready to execuf Gircumstance ind| was not executi^g Suna Ram was harassed on deed.it is in paragraph four| accus^d/appellan|l of the evidence of this witness PIW.-2 ai shows that Dhani Ram was reluctent execution of the sale'deed. Ih this look into the evidence ofP.W.-1 Qt four of her evidence, she that her husband had not exe^uted said that he wili rtot sell the 1any.Me mo^eyafter earning the same. Befo«|ethe |Ram, since iast one week, he| execUte ia Ram. Thus, from the eviden^e of of the deceased and mother c(f the it is evident that Dhani Ramw^s not the sale deed of the land in llavour ^haiti has was |and therefore accused/appellant |Syna fie money and spent the same( was f^rexecution of the saie deed in tevour but deceased Dhani Ram we^s not :e the land. There wasr a ^trong cating the fact that since Dhani nt>t the sale deed, accused/appellant happy with him rather he was f^eling accbunt of the non execution of th< Ram sale evidenfl from the evidence 6fP.W.-1 Chaiti Bai |of her evidence that on account ofthat Suna Ram and deceased Dhanp Ram .[Tit^'^fe^ [=F '25- XI-HC-22 ^^ •?^RRW, "^ft^Pre', f^TTHy 10 _.:....,..(^A.-^^ .S^b '^ITO^Il ^NSeb OT^T^T '^Tt^'^nisT -•^RW^rf^f STI^T'?^T!W^fN —k4 IV) Tni3uiged in maa^ the accused had peet and quarrelled which shows that hiotive to commit the crime. As far as the confession regar<| is concerned, Pj wife of deceast evidence that thej murdered Dhani paragraph four Ram, her husba^ Ram at Bhisham< also called to Bh| she saw that quarrelljng.in p^ enquiry by her, murdered Dhani This witness has of extra judicial cc her. Before restir confession as per to ascertain that theaccused/appe There is nothing makes the accused/appellanl none else than th ^n^i^ -9 -fetst 7^R?R •^^m^Ti^T second circumstance (extra judicial ing committing murder of Dhani Ram) W.-1 mother 6f accused/appellant and id has categorically stated in her accused disclosed to her that he has Ram with hand and lathi and in ^he has stated that deceased Dhani id went to reside with his son Suna )uri and one week thereafter she was shampuri and when she reached their >yna Ram and Dhani Ram were ^ragraph 5 she has stated that on Suna Ram disclosed that he has ?am and has buried him in the /Vaa/a. |iot been cross examined on the point (nfession made by the accused before }g convictjon based on extra judicial the settled law, the Court is requjred ^he extra judidal confession made by s|lant was voluntary, true and prompt. |n the evidence of this witness which ^tra judidal confession of the 1 involuntary. Moreover, this witness is »|s mother of the accused and wife of 1 [^ti^fm —.y C-2-^. XI-HC-22 -^^ '^[T^I^R, ^^TT^) '^TR?y 11 _.......<Li.^-^...y ^p^iT^^I^" 3TS^T^I l^t^an^T '^^w ^i^a V) VI) ofn the deceased an<|l therefore the assistance was therefore, there make a false stt implicate the false case. As h^i examination the i circumstance byj becomes of the consider^d voluntary extra jujdk from the other heldthatthesam^ onthe onetiand she lost her hu^band ily person who remained fQr her ^he accused/appellant being her son. ^/as no occasion before this l^dy to atement before the Court in or^er to ac^used/appellant i.6. her own son in a i^s been mentioned eariier in th^ cross iefence-has not been able to eli^it any which the evidence of thjs ^itness yntrusfc|vorthy or unreliable. Therefore, opinion that the accused jujdiciat confession before his mothjer and Asfar as the oth^r Ram Prasad, concemed the e\ and at some plac|< the accused/app^ before the Potic^ confessiori to be admissible of the police offic< As far as third cirfci concemed,' P.WI Officer has staNd '^?^[fetzft;T 'RPI^f ^ 'fe^ 'rf^^ ^^m3?i^T ^e are made cdnnected circumstance it can sa wastrue. Irwitnesses i.e. P.W.-7,9& 11 njamely, Hshwanath and Ram Bhuwah are 1/idence of these witness is w^vering |e it is seen that they have stat^d that ^llant made extra judicial con^ OfHcer therefore, the extra made jbefore these witnesses can not ;ely be ©ssion iudicial sesaid is the same was made in the presence r. ' . . ./ ! .' ' 1 iumstance Q/Veapon of offence-felub) is -14 C.S.Netam, S.l., Investigating that on 10.06.96 while m| police [T?t^^fe^ w^ (27. XI-HC-22 • ^s^^rqT^r, -^fr?Frs,'^TTOy 12 TiT^^rwqra? J^^:-- ^........a^-.Q'i....^-) 3iI^T^T fei^sn^T ^F'R'w^rfin ^llt?l'^H^R ^f^T -l^ vii) viii) custody, the that he has cont the Beshram Jb4 took him alongj occurrence and out the club fron|i taken intopossell ac4used/app§IJantgave memorandum P-3 |;ealed the weapon of offence - dub in |/sh and in pursuance of that aqcused with the witnesses to the pl^ce of jn the presence of thewitnesses hje took ihe Beshram bush andthe sannie was isionunder P-4. I P.W.-7 Ram Pr^ Suna Ram broj assaulted the deb P-3 was prepar^d same was takenj the evidence Investigating the club was rec and the same Science Laboratt received and in was found stainejd As far as fourth accused andthe! waslastly seen per the settled lc the crime base^ accused,whent| ^N^s^h '^TR^rf ^ ft^ Ti^R5K ^a?r^R^T?^T sad has stated thataceused/ap^>ellant ight the club and-'said that h^ had seased with this club and memor^ndum which bears his signature aijid the jnto possession under P-4. Thu^, from of witness P.W.-7 and P Ofllicer w&s r, C.S.Netam, it is establish^d that overed at the instanceof the acjcysed sent for examination to the F^rensic W.-14 ry, Sagar from where report P-1 which it has been opined that th^ club with blood. 5was cjrcumstance (last seen to^ether- deceased) is concerned. thedecjeased iljve in the company ofthe accu^ed.as w, in order to cohnect the accus^d with on the last seen together wijth the ie deceased wrcis alive, the mcideinGe of [T?t^'^ t T f-2 K XI-<HC-22 '3T^-^T4R:p?, ^NTI^, ^T^y ,^..:^^.^3 'HI'^^IT^W^ s^r^r T^i^ ^^T: ^W^It^T \^I Jast seen and cfi otherthat there s|l im6 must be so proximate with| each |hould not be any scope of comi^g any third person in fcjetween. Based on this principle examine the eviidence of P.W.-3 Leelanath who has stated that in thel and deceased Dhani Ram met him and they sai^l that theywilj go ho^m^ togetherand Dhani Ram purc|iased one bottje of liqijior from a Ka/aar and both dec^ased and accused conl he had not cons^imed. Dhani Ram was saying tHat he will go Semardih meantime he wei but he did not Thereafter the ori Dhanj Ram and market went to residence. P.W.- Suna Ram, dece^ morning even as| Suna Ram merg and when the a' ^N^t^'Rl^ff ^ fec^ Tf^^R '^'^OT^H^T if we market, accused/appellant Sun^ Ram 1 umed the liquor. They offered hijm but where his family was living but it back to his house. Oji the nexjl day, Suna Ram met i\\m andsaid that he is going to ^orest Idjsclose anything about Dhani Friday, the villagers informed hir^ that one dead body h^s been foundburied in the river bied. In the cross examihation, this witness has statect n the Ram. that Suna Ram, after returning froijn the Itheir residence and he went 1:0 his ft Kunti Bai has stated that acfcused |sed Dhani Ram along with onep^rson came to her to p^irchase liquor and they consum^d the liquor and the dsjy was Sunday. On the very ne^t day per the report of accused/appellant Intimation P-10, deceased was m issing from the house a(id his body was founct in the rjv^r bed tcused was informed, he iately [Tft^ ^p^^ •'\- -\ a-T? XI-HC-22 ^^ '-^qpTRT^ ^fi^TS",- fe^T^3T .^riwi^^. _.........Q,,.(A..,...Gfc.. iiW^T '^W^- <3RT^T'^[ 1^w3?iN> ^^i^^r^T 11 ^T^i^^nw^fN -44 bojdy identified the evidence of P.W in those days mortem report P-J' was withfn 1-2| deceased fromthe night Therefore, on th^ is established th4 the night of 02 .Qi together the deceased was just before his P-10 merg intim^ to be of his father and as per the •1 Chaiti Bai, deceased used to reside ^A|ith the accused and as per the post 17 dated 10.06.96 the dyration ofjdeath weeks and the accused an^ the consu|med tiquor togetheron 02.06.^6 and ofjthatday, deceasedwasfound missing. basis of the post mortem reportfalso it th^tthe death of DhaniRam took place in .Q6.96. If this circumstance is ta^en up oth4r circumstence established is that the s^en cteath. In the result, based on the above d b) that the weapon of offence theaccused c) thatthere was motive behincl was not executing the sale as the accused took the pressure on the accused re^arding therefore there was a motive! ^mfepih w^ ^ 'feT^ -<f^^< ^'^NH'STF^I ative in the company ofthe aiccused 1 The accused made fatse^ report intim^tion in the police stationthat hisj father disappeared fromjthe house. ;umstantial evidence, i.e. a) judicial confession bythe ac4used/appellant before bis moth^ ^-blub was recovered at the insfartce of the crime in question as the d^ceased c|eed in favoyr of P.W.-2 KunwsO mo|iey from Kunwal Singh and the