Case: Kanti Lal Vs. State Of Rajasthan

3. The case against the accused was that they caused the death of one Bheema Ram and robbed him of the money possessed by him. On July 29, 1985,Ridmal Singh found ain a tank situated within the Jalore Fort area. He went to the Jalore Police Station and gave Exh.14 Station House Officer immediately visited the spot and prepared Exh.site inspection note and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased. Near the place of incident, he found a foot print, which was visible on a kuchha floor, and prepared a mould of the same. The mouth of thewas found gagged with a socks.tem examination and certified that the death of the deceased was due to asphyxia.Mancha Ram Ghanci identified theto be of his own brother, Bheema Ram, and he revealed that the deceased was an employee of M/s. Hazarimal Ramesh Kumar, Commission Agents, Sumerpur, and that the deceased used to go to various places to collect the money due from the customers of the firm.Bhagwat Singh conducted detailed investigation of the case and his investigation revealed that deceased Bheema Ram had left Sumerpur on July 27, 1985 with aand a list of person from whom money was to be collected in favour of his employer. He carried aand was expected to return to Sumerpur by July 29, 1985. Bheema Ram did not return on July 29, 1985, and the investigation further revealed that during the night intervening 27th and 28th July, 1985, Bheema Ram had stayed with the appellant, Kanti Lal, at his residence situated at village Doodsi, and that in the morning of July 28, 1985 he came to the bus stand accompanied by Kanti Lal. On 27th July, 1985, the deceased had collected about Rs. 20,862.92p from various customers of his employer.sed Govind Ram on 2nd August, 1985. An amount of Rs. 10,000/and a handkerchief which belonged to the deceased Bheema Ram were recovered from the residential house of Govind Ram under Exh.The shoes worn by Govind Ram were also taken into custody. Appellant, Kanti Lal, was arrested at Bombay and pursuant to the information furnished by him, a watch, ag, printedpiece of a torn bank draft and a knife were recovered from him. The Investigating Officer also found on site inspection on 9th August, 1985 that the names of the appellants, Kanti Lal and Govind Ram and that of the deceased Bheema Ram were found written on the wall of the Rani Mahal of the Jalore Fort. Various photograph of this graffiti were taken and the signatures of the accused were also obtained for comparison. The Investigating Officer also conducted an identification parade in the presence ofate First Class, Jalore, and the witnesses who participated in the identification parade, identified both the accused as the persons with whom the deceased Bheema Ram had been found moving. Thethe khaki bag, theand other articles allegedly used by the deceased were identified by the prosecution witnesses as the articles belonging to the deceased and he finally filed the charge sheet.

Court's reasoning:
The fact of possession of these articles with the appellant only leads to the most probable inference that he was responsible for the death of the deceased, especially when the appellant had no case that he had come to possess these articles for any other reason.The evidence adduced by the prosecution would show that the appellants were moving with the deceased Bheema Ram during the relevant period. Another circumstance, which would prove the presence of the appellants at Jalore Fort during the crucial time is the graffiti found on the wall of the Rani Mahal of Jalore Fort.took photographs of these writings and the same were compared with the specimen signatures of the appellants (Exh.). The expert opinionwas to the effect that the specimen signatures of the appellants were similar to the graffiti allegedly written by the appellants.8. We are of the view that the prosecution successfully proved the case against the appellants and the recovery of various articles used by the deceased, from the possession of the appellants, Kanti Lal and Govind Ram; the evidence of the witnesses who found the appellants in the company of the deceased during the relevant period; and the other circumstantial evidence clearly established the guilt of the accused and the Sessions Court rightly found the appellants guilty of the offences charged against them.9. The High Court was fully justified in confirming the conviction and sentence of the appellants and we see no merit in these appeals to take a different view