Case: Raju Vs. State of M.P

This appeal has been filed by the appellant-Raju, who has been convicted for the murder of one Niranjan Singh. The trial Court convicted the appellant-Raju under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short `the IPC) and acquitted one Barelal and Suresh of the same charges along with Section 34 of the IPC.2. According to the prosecution, the deceased Niranjan Singh and the accused-Raju were employed by one Ganesh Prasad (PW-8), owner of a truck. Niranjan Singh was employed as a driver and the appellant was employed as a cleaner of the same truck. They had been asked to carry certain goods from Gwalior to Bhopal. This is not disputed. However, the appellant-Raju called the owner Ganesh Prasad from Udaipur and informed him that the vehicle was apprehended by the R.T.O. Ganesh Prasad, therefore, went to Udaipur along with another driver and got his vehicle released. The vehicle contained goods for Pune so he engaged another driver and cleaner and sent the vehicle to Pune. He asked the other driver by name Zakir regarding Rajus whereabouts and was told that Raju had left Udaipur saying that he is going to meet the owner. Zakir also said that he had not met the deceased Niranjan Singh. Thereafter, Ganesh Prasad, the owner of the truck had been informed by Raju that Niranjan Singh had fallen ill and medicines are being administered to him.3. A complaint was lodged by father of Niranjan Singh that his son was missing. Eventually, Ganesh Prasad, the owner of the vehicle along with Phool Singh Rana, the father of Niranjan Singh and 3-4 other persons went to search for Raju at his village Dharampur. He was seen driving a tractor and was wearing the shirt of the deceased. The appellant said that he left Niranjan Singh at Delhi because he was ill. When asked about the explanation for the shirt of the deceased on him, he confessed that he had killed Niranjan Singh near Ghatigaon and the dead body has been thrown in Deopura located in the ravines of Chambal. He also stated that he had taken an amount of Rs. 7,000/- from the pocket of the deceased along with his driving licence and a diary. An FIR was lodged on 19.11.1999 at P.S. Morar.4. During the course of investigation, a skeleton in a highly decomposed state wearing a shirt, banian and underwear was found in a ditch at the instance of the appellant. The appellant also led to the discovery of driving licence and diary of the accused.5. The prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses. The most crucial witness for the prosecution is Ganesh Prasad (PW-8), the owner of the truck. As observed earlier, the trial Court and the High Court have both convicted the appellant. 6. We have heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties. 7. We find that the case rests mainly on circumstantial evidence and the burden has been properly discharged by the prosecution. There is no doubt about whom the deceased was last seen with. The owner of the truck has himself stated that he had sent Raju along with the deceased on truck from Gwalior to Bhopal. This fact having been admitted, it is obvious that it was for Raju to explain as to what happened to Niranjan Singh. That he has failed to do. 8. The High Court dealt with the following aspects in its judgment: (i) appellant was seen last in the company of the deceased; (ii) suspicious conduct of the appellant by setting forth false story; (iii) after discharging his duties as clearner, appellant did not resume the work place of his master Ganesh Prasad; 9. We are in entire agreement with the High Court that when all the circumstances are considered together they form a complete chain unerringly pointing to the guilt of the accused. 10. As observed earlier, there is no doubt that the appellant was last seen in the company of the deceased and, in fact, he cooked up a false story which makes his conduct suspicious. The false story lies in the telephone call to the owner that the deceased had fallen ill and again on the next day, another phone call to the owner that he is going to Pune with the goods and on the other hand, employing another driver and himself fleeing. The appellant did not thereafter return to resume his duties as a cleaner in the employment of Ganesh Prasad but went to his village Dharampur where he was discovered by Ganesh Prasad and others, as stated above. There was no reason for him to act in the above manner except to hide his foul deeds. 11. The High Court also dealt with the following aspects in its judgment: (iv) recovery of skeleton at the instance of the appellant; (v) recovery of other articles from appellant; and (vi) extra judicial confession of the appellant. 12. A skeleton was recovered in the Chambal ravines in a ditch about 200 feet deep and in a highly decomposed state. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the skeleton has not been identified, in fact it was not possible to make out that it was a skeleton of a man or a woman. Much less could it be said, therefore, that it was of the deceased. This argument is of no avail to the appellant in this case since it would not have been possible to discover the skeleton at all unless someone who had knowledge about it led to its discovery. The appellant undoubtedly knew where he had thrown the dead body of Niranjan Singh with whom he had gone on the truck from Gwalior to Bhopal. 13. A Similar inference is liable to be drawn in regard to the other discovery at the instance of the appellant, namely, the driving licence and pocket diary of the deceased and the iron rod. The first two articles could only have been with the deceased; or with someone who had taken it from the deceased. We have thus, no doubt of the appellants guilt. 14. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, who ably assisted the Court, submitted that the owner of the truck had a motive to falsely implicate the appellant. According to the learned counsel, the appellant had dis-agreement with the owner who had, in fact, driven him away after beating him and later on called him to implicate him falsely. This statement made by the appellant in its defence under Section 313 sounds hollow and we have no hesitation in rejecting the explanation. 15. We find that there is no reason for the owner of the truck to falsely implicate the appellant.16. In the result, we find that the chain of circumstances unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the appellant.

Decision reasoning: 0[ds]15. We find that there is no reason for the owner of the truck to falsely implicate the appellant.16. In the result, we find that the chain of circumstances unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the appellant.