V<a. & 76; -^S--^fe^2a2^^M^^:^^^^S .Edeaae'~7^7 - ''^^^'^^? Age __ '_ _ & 5- •^S~ •£d ^iWr'^m^!?? / l^r.dersectWB 3o2 WsTfvffv, fey • .sq7:<g7tg^~ ^^ ^^^^' tinsteR •S^ck '(t'Kimfc^ij if^i9sy ^TS~ •awr ^•r-.i ^ s^Mo. i^e/se., IF is eEpltined to tii; (ti'uanet' that: if fee states. ar'wis1iesi.t(f'be represeateS by legal; , ic iegail.pwcttEitttiec appeaTS. lfthetlegat.!pl'aettefener<&iesaotappeat wit&in sevea' asya fce: maynut tieard at alt . tf tite prisowr states ifaat fae 4ocs not wish to be repre- s-fRted by legal prafititionef' t&e'ctturt may.proceod at ^ioe wii:h:iKe case be: ohliged ta. giffs a iiearingta aay tegal ptactitioaer wlio shoald a^pear-.. 'CIUEF JlJ3'reK&MftGtSTRA3S.W9'^^»-7^A^.:%^^ -frey?f^r^«^TI::WV^ s&^3^_sf^^^7-^^ ^£^•7-^®r- ./^> c<^r-^T^ "5 ^ppeirateC.onrt K K! K. (i F- ^ M @ ^ W.GH. COURTOF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR CRUHNAL APPEAL NO.T^i OP 1989 Chherka@ Mohan Vs. State of Chhattisgarh CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI FAKHRBDDm, J SB HON'BLESHm Dn.IPDESHBeOKH, J Shri Suryakant Mishra, counsel for fhe appellant Shn Sachui Sin^i Rajput, Panel Lawyer for fhe State. JU D OM E N T Per Fakhruddin. J: Heard leamed counsel for (he parties. 2. The appeUant has been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Oode and sentaiced to undei^o imprisonment for life vide judgment dated 4itl April, 1989 by the Thlrd Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, Camp : Baloda Bazar. 3. Briefly stated fhe facts are that the accused appellant is fhe resident of village Nagarda and he was in relation of Mangli Bai. He came stfter a year to the house of the Mangali Bai. He / demanded some monetary help ofRs. 500/- or so finm MangUBai for fhe mamage of his daughter. Mang/aSi Bai allowed him to stay. WIiile he was m the house, Mai^li Bai sold 60 bags paddy to one Ramesh Agrawal. Thereafter fhe accused went out pretending that he was goii^ to his house, but came baek in the eveirii^ of YOGENDRA SINGH KANWAR Digitally signed by YOGENDRA SINGH KANWAR Date: 2025.02.20 15:12:44 +0530 TP &/ 'M Wedaesday afi®rMar^ll Bai Irfti fhe house alcmg witto her daughter for attendmg fhe inarriage of soiae relative. to tfae house, &e S©BofMan^i Bm: nameIyTiteiaai @ Aroadtaiam aaaAJais ^•and mottofirBiiadama&BaiwCTefhEa-e. ThCTeafiteroR'BMBsday, Piteremi also went to attend fbe maiTiage leavteg deceased Bmctainatl and tfae appeBanfe WSaeas Pitoram eaaae baek OB 26-2-1988 and knocked tiae door, fhe house was not (^ei»d. Thereafter he entered tte house fi~om the naghbour's taouse and found fhat bis grand motheT was fymg dead on fhe cot. Qn IA ciy betog raised, the village persons assembled on the spcrt. It was^ noted tliafe 1±iegcdd cuaiameHts i.e; Pipal Paa, ffllwer Uten^s^ad the easfa wer& missB^. ' 8 toreili teept betow? fhe ^ICTP e»ftta& deceased was atocy stoten. The repCT-t was lodged and in fbat report doubfcwas exfwessed; QR the aeeused. Gte 28-2-1:988, the aecused was apprehended near the saw miB of Neelkmath a'luMa atvfflageMisdamidgcddeHRpalPan,caieSiIvCTChaineontaiDi[% 15 Re. eoias, oneSilvCT-Satera, one Sih^Guthla ^ri smamount of Rs.294/- were se^ed fix>m the accused/ajqiellant. On furtfaer inten'ogation, onthe memorandum of aeGUsedone bag Gontainn^ saree, topch, fhoolkans ka lotak, (t^B, two fhooBiansld tliaitei^a; were seized;/&oin the house of one Dayaram Sahu. At tfae tostanee of aeeused/appeHant ovie'paar sSver iiagmori and one pair silyer kathar wera seized fi-om the witaaess ©tmadrikaPrasad. Rs.200/- were seized fi-om fhe witaess Pooiani^asad. @ \/ 1!>- 4. Dr. C.L. Patel, P.W.8 conducted fhe autop^ on 26-2-1988 aad opined ttoat the deafh was homiGidal due to fhrotflmg. The post mortem report is Ex.P/11. The artieles seized were put for identification where they wepe idCTitified by Msu^li Bai (P.W.ll). AftCT completion of the investigation, (diallan was filed. The appellant abjuped the girilt and ccaitended fhat he was falsety nnpUeated. 5. Leamed trial court after conaderii% (he endcaiee and retying on tte mHterial, recorded a finding and found him guilly for the offences punishable undCT-Seetion 302 EPC. 6. Shri Mi^ira, leamed counsel appearing for the appellant, contended that fhere 1s absolutefy 110 evidence agaiast the appellant. He fi.u'ther eonteaded fhat even if the recoveiy of articles is accepted, itwffl be acase uiider Secti<Mi 411 ofI.P.C. 7. Sbri Rajpoot, leamed eouasel appearing for fheState, on fhe other hand, contended that tlie e^^ellant faas coauEHtted muTder and has been i^htty convicted for tiie offeiiee puiasfaable uadra' Section 302 IPC. 8. We lyve heard leamed couasel for fhe pm'ties and g(Hie thdt^h fhe record minutefy. 9. In fhis case, fhe feiet that fhe death of Biadamati Bai is homleidal faas not been dlsputed ty teamed eounset for the parties. Even otherwise; it is also proved by fhe post m<Mtem report and ttie evldence of Dr. C.S. Patel (P.W. 11) wtK> conducted ^^ V autopsy that the death was honucidal. Accordingfy it is held fhat the deafh of Bindaaiati Bai was homicidal. 10. There is circuiQstahtial evideiiee against the appeUant. One of the drcumstances is'fhat P.W. 11 MangB Bai ui her statement had stated that the accused is.heT Gousin i.e. san. ofelder moliier. She has further stated that accused had come to her house and demanded Rs.500/- on the pretext fhat he had to perform the marriage of his dai^hter. On fhat date, oiie Prakash Sefh had come to her house and she sold 60 boras paddy. The accused helped her in fiUiiig up the bagssuid waghmg the paddy. She faas also stated fhat it was aftier nine years tliat the accused had come and remained fhere f<a' foiir days and rettHiifidonTuesday sayii^ that he we^ gomg to his village. It was diiring his preseace the tatk had taken place tfaat Mai^l Bai has to go to attend the marriage eeremony in her ralatiions at village Rikotar. She faasalso stated that in the mormng of Wednesday, she went to village Rikitar to attend fhe marriage along with her daughter. She further stated fhat her mofher-in-law i.e. Bindamati Bai mid son Pilaram were teft in fhe house and Pilaram was also to gp to Banstf. At village RIkotar, she was infca'med that ha~ mother-m-law is not / in.a condition to walk. She came back to her house aiul found fhat her mofher-in-Iaw is dead. She also found tliat fhe omaments were missmg fi-om the body of her mofher-ui-law, whieh she was wearing. Certaln articles fl'om ftae house were also i&issii^. The torch kept below fhe lallowofher mofher-in-law was ^also missaig. She lodged fhe repOTt to fhe police statfoii. She has ^ ^ stated that fhree lypes of omaments were inixed and out ofthem she had identified har omaments in the identification parade. She had ateo identified fhe artieles in the Court. In Para-6 of her statement ste had stated fbat golden piparpatti which was bemg wom by her mofher-in-law i.e. article A, N^mmA pair and Kafhar pair Le. article B and C, ah?er Salai (artiele D), silver coin (article E), silver Oathla (article F), Lota (artiele G), silver chain (article H) and topch (article 1) were produced in the Court and she had identified fhe same. The defence has not been able to demollsh. The Court below has relied on this. We have also givea our fhoughtful consideration. So faras identificationofthe property is concemed, it has been di-dy identified and this is the property which has beeai recovered finm accused person. 11. We have also gone through the evidence of P.W.-15 Tikeshwar Stagh, Naib Tahsfldar, who got the identifieation conducted. There is nottung in his cFoss-exaiiiination to demofish the testimony. He had denled the suggestion that fhe Police had given the omaments without seal. So far as recoveiy is concemed, P.W.-6 Jhidanbai has testified that aeeused had come to her house on Rrid^? and afte- sittu^; sometiaie kept his Jhola there / and had gone. He had ^pen to her one Nagmori and Kathar to keep them saying that these are the omamCTits of his wife. Thereafter, she put the omflaients at fhe house of ane Chandritea Prasad who gave Rs. 1300/- to her. She gave fhe said amount to ^ ttie accused. On the next day he had come along wlth Pollce and '< the Jhola was ff»ento the Poliee. So far as the recoveiy ofJhote: is concemed, it is wdl proved. So far as fhe articles are eoncemed, they were seized while the accused was apprehended. FW-14 J.S. Dhurwe is anofher witness, who has testified that when the accused was arrested near the saw mill, the arttoles were seized ft-oin him. PW-4 Neeltanfh is the witaess who has testified fhat the memorandum was reccwded in bis presenGe said fhe seizure was efiTected. At the time of seizure, these ardctes were seized. Ex.P-1 is the memorandum and Ex. P-2 to P-5 are (he seizuie memos, which have been proved by PW-4. The aecused has not been able to say as to how fhe articles have come in hls possession. Admittedty, fhese articles have been identified and there is no dispute that aeeused did not elaim any article. 12. The next questfon arose fos' eonsideration is who inflicted (be injuries to the deceased, so as to toru^ home the offence against the appellaat. TTie prosecuti(Hi has exemained various witnesses. 13. We have also gone tfaroi^h fhe evidenee of P.W.-3 Pito Ram, who is the son of Mang^ibai. He had stated fhat Iris Mofher had gone to attend fhe marriage ceremony leasing him and his grandmpt|aer in fhe house. Thereafta-, he had also gone to attend mamage ceremony leaving his grandmother and the accused in the hoiise. This Gircumstance has also been relied upon by the trial Court. ta our opinion, it is a veiy material circumstance. It was the accused who was in the need ofmoney and deinanded Rs. 500/- frosi Manglibai and it was ia his presence 60 boras of &-S paddy were sold. Ttae aceused helped Man^ibai in filing up the boras and weighing it ThereerfteF the accused weiit out pretraidmg that he is leaving the house, but came baek after Man^t Bal along with her daughter left the house for attendmg fhe marriage of some relative. The testimoiy of Pila Raai is that wten he left the house, Bindamati Bai and (he accused WCFC fhere. When BindaiBati Bai died, fhereafter the accused was luding and was apprehended near the Saw Mifl. He was found along with tfae articles which are beloii^aag to Mem^ibai and the deceased. Some of fhe sdzed omameats were wom by the deceased. Then immediately next day the bag was recovered with tfae artksles. These reccwery and seizure aFe well proved. The fact fhat fhey betong to dereased and Manglibai fe dlso estabUshed. It was also bome out flTom fhe recopd tbat ttie aecused was in fhe need of money and he demanded Rs. 500/- fi'om Mai^libai. Testimony of PUarasB also establishes that the aeeused and the decesesed were last seen together. 14. The qiiestion aaag^e for ccaisideration 1s as to whefeer fhe -\ circumstantial evidence which faas been broi^it on record is sufBcient ;to prove fee guUt. It is well settted that in cases in / wfajch fhe evidence is purety of a circumstantial iiature, we are conscious that the faets aad ciFGumstmiees from whieh the eonelusion of guflt is sot^ht to be drawn must be fuUy establi^ied beyond aiyreasonatde doubt and factssuid ciFemnstaaGesshould riot caily be Goi^istent wlfh Che guflt of the aGcused but ftey mu^: be in fheir effisct as to be eatirely incompadble wifh fhe mnocence of the accused and must excludg eveiy reasoxiable hypothesis consistent witfa his innocence. -^- 15. In the case cSBai'sSi/heub'afma.—Vs.-StatsvfKevnateiieet reported in AJJt. 1983 SC 446where afltjer committu% murder, the accused was apprehended about a year and the recoweiy of ardcles was made immediatety fhereaftar and it was identified, the Hon'ble Apex Coiut has held in para 13 fhat:- "T?us is acase where mwSerandrobbery areprcwed to hcwe been integrcd parts of one cmd tfie scane transcKSwn and ffierefwe the presumption caising under SlustraVon (a) to Se& 114offhe Evidenee Act is that not cmly the cppellant commttted the murder of the deoeased but also committed robbery of her gold omaments irhich form part of the scane trcmscKstian. The proseaitian has led suflfcfent ewdence fo oonnect the appeVxxnt vrith the commission ofthe CTime. TTve sudden diEsqRpeanznce of the qppelfant from the hause of P.W. 3 on the monving ofMeaxSt 22, 1979 when it was dxscovered that fhe deoeased had been sh'cmgulated to dectth cmd reUeued af hw gotdamaments, eoupledu»ththe ctrcumstanoethathe VMXS atosexinSmg fcsr a permdof over one yeccr tSthe was appvehended by P.W. 26cct wttage HosahaSIy an. Mardi29, 1980, takenwiththe circumstcmce that he made the stcctement Ex. P-35 wnmeduxtelg vpon has carestleadmg to the dxscauerg of the stoien artides, must necesscffily rafee ffie mference thect the appellcavt alone cmd no one efee was gitilty of having cancnwtted the murder of the dieceeised cmd robbery of her gotd aarruxmetvts. The . appellctnt had no satisfcicton/ exf^ancctiem to offerfor his possessfcn of the stofen property. On the contrcay. he Senied that the stotwi property was recovered from fmn. The ^dse demcd by vtsey fe an mcrimmatmg ctrcumstance. TTte nc^ure of presvanpVon under iBustration (d) to Sec. 114, must dependupoh the natuTeqfthe euidence aefaiuoed. No fixed time lanit can be laid doum to determine whether possession. isreoentw othwwise caideach case must bejudgedan its awnfacts. The questian as towhat cmwwnts to recent possessiem suffident to 9 •\— 'i-. Y-' jus^y ffie preswnfiVovK of guSt uarfes aoooniaisF as the stoten cfftiete fe or fe not cateutated to pass readityJTonthcindtohand.yGwsto^ctr^cleswere suchas werenot Uk^^topassreadSyfivmhcmdto hemd, ttie penod qf oneyeca'that ^egised ecmnat be scaS to be fbo lang parttcular^f when fhe dfyseUcfftt hadbeen absoandmg dwing that penod. 1TTe wcis no fapse Qf^ftne between. ths dcxte of 1vs carest cmd thereocweryofthesWenpnyiertg." 16. to fhe Ught ofabove, we hflve considered fhe entire cas^. The recovery is made wlfhin Iwo days, whidi is weU proved. Immediatety thereafta-, fhe accused has not been able to ofier any esqjtenatioii. Under fhe drcumstances, we are of the opimon fhat there is 110 inflnmly in fhe unpugnedJudgnient 17. TheappealfailsandisaGCOTdm^tydismissed. 18. Before parting, we appreciate fhe valuable assistance rendered by fhe comMel fca' fhe parties. Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge L^' \^/6/2005 ^76/2005-^° Hanie/PaOvdk IIISiteiic"BteiE»*BK»TOW^ lh!lkSSaBtl^SUi^