Cr.P.G. vs We have heard Mr. M.

Wr. M.P.S. Bhati'a, Mr.U.K.S. Chandei, ted earted counsel forthe appsiiant. rned P.L. forthe SSate/respondenS. r^ This appeai is directed| against the judgment of conviction ana' order of sentence dated 31 .5.1997 passed by'Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, In S.T. No. 384/91 5 whereby the learned Sessions Judge after hoiding accussd Bhadvl a guiity for commission of {he offence under Sections 302, 201 of| She I.P.C',, sentenced him to undsrgo i.Tiprisonment life and ril jorous imprisonment for seven years / .. / . P.T.O. XI-HC-78 J5? •<11<IIM^, »^(1<H'16, lcjdiyy c^ an^TqiTRTR? (TSIT3T]^rst)li°t) -1. •i3^.^;^.> l»'iWl, +1MMI Sh*l|cft *»*•'*»•*•*•••*<*/** 2®e- 3<i^i ><acn (l^rfg^ST) ?:RtTWH^(T31I^T 2 *wf<-f41-< wtRisrtfteI^<Ri<^i< ^srf^iTgn^r respectively. Both the sente| |ices were dlrected to run concurrentiy. Hovi/ever, co-accused Sudh^ |n was acquitted of ths eharge under Ssctions 302/34 and 201 oftil iP.C.

2. Case of the prosecut| |on, in brief, is that PW-1 Hariprasad iodged the FirsS information Reoort (Ex.P/1) in the Polics SSation - Bairampur on 3 July'1995 | |o the effect that when he was sowini paddy in his fieid at about 1C] .00 a.m. Libna Uraon and Beeru Uraon came io his field and inforni ted that his caughter Guiiya Uraon is missing for the iast 15 days. FThey have come to knowthat one dead body after tying the same v'Ath\ |waoden plankvi/ith the help ofrope, has been throw.n into the water tail ik of Gosain Uraon.. Then he along wth those persons wsnt to the t^ ink of Gosain Uraon and sav/ that dead body tied with wooden jj !ank Vi'ith the heip of rope, v/as floatin< on the water. It seemed as if Isomebodv afier committing murder, has thrown the dead body into th |e water. Receiving this report S.H.O., P.S. Bairampur teft for the sdene of occurrence where he found that the dead body was floating or the v/ater. After giving noti.ee (Ex.P/3) to the Panchas. inauest reoort (Ex.P/4) ofthe dead bodv of Guliya Bai •. / P.T.O. W} XI-HC-78 3^-:qPn?PT, 8iT(1+l'IS, Rlclltfy ITTORT {hW<h •c<y-<Q-'• •2''?-?'-<?/-^' ^W 3ii^i ><aq> (ytg°«^<r) 3n^?r^>rR^i+ HW3[I^Tsb1 gwTWHfscrsn^T - 3- +l'!<Ic1''fl-f t<|t|flT^'teI^t'<Rl+AK ^Sff^TW^T was prepared. While in )oiice custody accused Bh dva gave memorandum (Ex.P/5) regar<p ing the place \ivhere dead ofGuiiya lai aiong wth her clothes v/4 •re earlier buried and after umina the dead body from that place, j|: was throvsiD in the water tai v/hereas the pieces of her cioihes wer^; buried in the saire pit. !n pursuance of ihat, ^veapon ofoffence i.e. i^. >n pickaxe stained with biood v/as taken into possession under Ex.Pij'

3. On his memorandum (Ex.P/7) one bamboo stick, one nyion roi|)e, wooden plank; mat were taken into possession underEx.P/8. Pi|i ain and bloodstajned soi! from the place l- Z. l' of occurrence was taken int'l )-possession undsr Ex.P/10. Ciothes of ^?&t: the deceased found on hsr aody '.wre taken into possession under Ex.P/12. Dead body of 3uiiya Bai was sent for postmortem examinati'on to Primary He^ ith Centre, Bairampur wi-iere Dr. 5.P. Vaishya (PVV-6) conducted p^ istmortem and p'epared the postmortem report (Ex.P/13). He opined :hat cause of death v/as due to coma as a resuit of biovi/ bv hard and blunt objeci on the Semporal region of skull. Adipocere Vi/as prese; nt and death 'AQS homicida! in nature. Clothes Vi/hich were exhumec i at the Instance of the accused as well as the ciothes vu'iich vs/ere foi /• . / . |nd on the dead body of deceased were P.T.O. z3';' XI-HC-78 Tn^anqRTO-, (STnu'is, piirtiyy NI+4CTI ShHlcft ^, ^y^'^.o^<'•'l- WT 2W- 3ll^!?l <iat» ('i^t^ai^eT) 3TI^T^>TR-fi+ BaiT3n^Ts»]iii«ti WtiTSiiTgf^rsn^r 4— *i<<F<-i41-f Ki^(-i1'ifteiA<Rit<i<. ^i STf^IT 3ITCRT sent to Forensic Science Labc|ratory in orderto ascertain vAether both the clothes are the pieces o c the same Sari, Pstticoat and Biouse, from Vi/liere report Ex.P/22 vras recei'/ed. After completion of jnyestigation charge sheet \A@; 3 filed in the Court of Judiciai Magistrate s'fff^- io in turn committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Ambikapur ' htiere prosecutlon in order to establish the charge against the accus |ed persons examined nine Vtfltnesses. Statements of the accused v^s recorded under Sections 313 of the Cr.P.G. in vsfhich they denied the materiai appearing against them in the prosecution 'evidence stated that they are innocent and have been falsely impiicated in the ^ 'ime.

3. L'earned Sessions ^Ji.1 dge after hearina counsel respectivs parties convicte| j sentenced the accused as aTorementioned.

4. We have heard Mr. M. P.S. Bhatia, iearned counsel appearin; on behalf of the accused'appl silant and Mr. U.K.S. Chandei, !earne< P.L. for the State/respondent. >. \/ !'^. P.T.O. XI-HC-78 3^'sipTRTO-, »'rfltt'is,Rldiyy *II*1WI ShHICtl .q^..c<7:.-.^.'..2d.?.7/7.'^.q. ^g_ 3ll^l 4atti (lc<t^qi«isT) 3TI^T?iTf^(R; ofW3n^Tsb1 ??(ITWflfef3IT^T - S'- 'biold'in-f t<i*<tiTffte^t'<Ri«i< ^.afff^iran^T

5. Mr. Bhatia has not dist>uted the homicidal death of Guljya Bai. Apart from that, PW-6 Dr. S| P. Vaishya who conducted postmortem on the body ofGuliya Bai has| stated that there were contusions on the thlgh, chest and mandible.bil >ne Vi/as fractured, zygornetic bone Vs'a.s fraetured, there was a depre^ ;sed fracture on the skul! bone, cause of death wa.s com a, jnjuries wej \e caused by hard and blunt object and death was homicidal in natulre His injury report is Ex.P/13. This vAness has not been cross-< ^xamined bv the defence, therefore. from the above medical evidence t is esiabiished that death of Guiiya Bai Vias homicidal in nature.

6. As far as involvemeri of the accused Bhadva in crime in 'is question concerned, there| is no ocular or direct evidence against the accused in this case. Tfl e conviciion is based on circumstantial evidence i.e. the pieces of clothes of deceased Guliya Bai Vi/ere recovered at the instance of| accused Bhadva from the piace wtiere firstlythe dead body\ft@s burii|d after commission ofmurder.

7. As per settled law in order to rest conviction based on the cireumstantla! evidence, as .p ^r the decislon of She Apex Court in the •. / P.T.O. XI-HC-78 s^'^iraRTO, ssTfltf'is, Riwiuy -.. .<^.. ft. .'.2^.'iu'& WH?TT ^*1T9i 4ft0- 3n^T(ra?R (ipfgg^r) Sl^T^TR.ijch cTSTT3n^?TshHlcfi S^tTWHfeTStI^T .- £- «bi'i)f<'i41-f t<i*<dT^'teIA<Ri*<i< ^sri^iT^n^r matter of Dhananiov ChafSerfee Vs. State of W.B. reDorted in (1994] 2 SCC 220. the cjrcumstan'] ial evidence must satisfy the folioviflni the circumstanij es from which an inference of guiit sought to be dravim, must be cogentiy and firmiy established; those circumsta nces should be of a definiie tendsncy unerringly pointj ig towards guilt ofthe accused; the circumstanc ;es, taken cumuiat'ively should form a chain so comp| ete that Shere-is no escape from the conciusion that within ai! human probability the crime •ASS committed b iythe accused and none else; and d. the Circumstantil il evidence in orderto systain conviction must be compl^ 'te and incapable of explanation of any oth er hv'PQthesi; than that ofthe guilt ofthe accused and sucn eviaence should not oniy be consistent vAh the iuilt of the acci Ised but shouid be inconsistent w/ith his innocence. •. / P.T.O. -s^ XI-HC-78 ?s? "iiww, ®Tflu'is,R)ciit<y . G^ -^~- .2.^ticl [1^_ NtHWI »>W«h"•-••••<••••••••••••'• ^ 2®0— sn^wraw ('i^gs^r) sntw?irR-<i* cIW 3TR?T gWRi BCTRIT flfer a'n^T

9.- •!bi''<fd''<1-f *fitftiTtftecfl'<Ri'wi< ^.srf^ran^T

8. Mr. Bhatia subtfiitted tii )at as per the F.S.L. report (Ex.P/22) the contour of the clothes which were exhumed at the instance of She accused and the ciothes \i|/hich were seized from the body of deceased, did not match as |the contour was damaged. He further argued that recovery at the in) ^tance of accused is a very weak type of evidence, therefore, merely oh this cireumstance the accused cannot be connected with the crime in question. He further contended that fhe prosecution has not bee|i able to establish that there was any motive on the part of accusecj Bhadva to commit the murder of Guiiya Bai.

9. As far as motive to commit the murder of Guliya Bai concerned, when the case |s based on circumstantiai evidence if motive is estabiished, it play^ ^ a vital rile in connecting the accused v/ith the crime in question. ^ut at the same time, if it is missing it is very difficult to ascertain as \ to what was the motive of the accused prevailing in his mind at the ti| fne of commission of the crime. it is only known to the accused and the third person. Therefore, the Court is required to scrutinize th4 'cjrcumstantial evidence in a carefui . / P.T.O. K : . XI-HC-78 3^'^TPI1?PT, S9Tfl«'IS, PlMI'My *TTHcTT ^t)T9i —0-Y:A...2-<:?. #'# * <^»^»••*»»••<•/**J;t ^* 's*^ ^ 200 Sn^TTV^R (yit^si^iT) 3D^TqiTfi?TN; BW ST^V sbliti ?^nw;Hf?cT3;n^T -& =t)i<ifii<(1-< fi*<CTTfftecA<Ri«i< ^wl^r-CT^r •te. manner before arriving at t(ie conclusion that prosecution has been abte to estabiish the involv^ment of the accused in crime in question on the basis ofabove princi] |ies laid down by the Apex Court.

10. The investigating oiTji ;er PW-8 Anandram has stated that on

3.7.1995 in the presence o|f witnesses during in'/estigation accused iie in polic'e cust|3dy made a dis&losure that dead body of Guliya Bai was buried in th ie fieid near his house and thereafter he alona with his brother Sudh^ jn after exhuming the dead body, wrapped it vAh mat, tied v/ith vu'ooder) plank and threw the same into the Vi/aier tank of Maiai Uraon. The d |ccused also disclosed that the pieces of iouse and Sari of Guliya B| |ai were again buried in the same pit from vrfiere th'e dead bodv Vi/as 4xhumed and his memorandum is Ex.P/5 which bears his signature fj 1-om 'B' 'B' portjon. He further stated that the accused took them |near t'he pit from vitiere pieces of Biouse and Sari wsre taken out M l' the accused and handed over to them 'Atiich were seized under E^ j.P/9. PW-1 Hariprasad has eorroborated the above evidence and h^ js stated that the acc'used Bhadva gave memorandum Ex.P/5 v/t-iich \ [bears his signature and accused handed / . / ^ P.T.O. -, c' ^ XI-HC-78 S^^iraRPT, aiTn*i'i6,Isitiwy *T1*1rtl S»itTT<ti **•'»**'*+/*+*+****+•+/*+* 20fr 3ll^l Maqi (lc<t3a«t,eT) 3f^TqiTR.fi<t) gaiTsn^rgnR) STtTRR: flfgtT SII^T t>i<<Fci<fl-f iiHflTfftecA<Ri«i< ^i sri^ir 3ii^r over the pieces of clothes to •» police after taking out the same from the pit, which were taken into| possession under Ex.P/9. The defence has not been abie to elicit an^ circymstance in the cross-examination of these witnesses to show that the above memorandum was not given by the accused and in sursuance of that the recovery was not effected. Therefore, it is estAb ished that memorandum Ex.P/5 was given by the accused, in purs Itance of which clothes of the deceased were recovered. PW-8 Anandram has ^gain steted that the recovered pieces were sent to F.S.L., Sagar fcjr examination. The report of F.S.L. admissible under Section 291 3 of the Cr.P.C. Perusal of the report (Ex.P/22)'reveals that the piec|e of Sari recovered from the pit marked as 'H-1' recovered at the instance of accused and piece of Sari 'l-^ ' tallied with each other in desigjn, in warp and woof and on microscopic examination both the pieces 411ied with each other. Even on burning of both the pieces, it turned ihto grey colored ash.'H-3' and '1-1' i.e. pieces of Biouse of the decea|sed, which was taken from the body of deceased and the piece of c|othe recovered at the instance of the accused fiom the pit, also ta! ed with each other on the above tests. ». / P.T.O. XI-HC-78 3:5ET '<||<||ciq, ©Tflfl'IS,Rtdltfy •sr: *TI^(^TT ^HIcK ..C^.^....?OH^.J.^, ^ 200- W^\ W<h (lctt^q^iT) 3I1^rqiT^i=b craT3TT^?Tsh^|ef) ?wraT;Hl?a'3;n»S^T /o -j *i'I<Fd<fl-f *jitiTi1'fftec3'<(«i'Ki< ^ia'll^rsn^T The laboratory could not concj uct test in respect of contour because the contour was damaged. Final opinion was given that yellow coloured pieces of clothes of Ex. j-2 tallied with the yellow coloured pieces of Sari of Ex. H-1 and;t^ le pieces of clothes of Ex. 1-1 tallied with the piece of Blouse of Ex.H-3. Therefore, prosecution has been able to establish the fact based on this report that Sari and Blouse recovered at the instance of ai xused Bhadva from the pit tallied with the pieces of Sari and Blouse ^ .eized from the body of deceased. It is an admitted fact that the place from where the clothes of the deceased were taken into possession, w| as shown by the accused, as such it is established that the accusedl had the knowledge about the place ?^. where the.dead body of Guliy a Bai was buried and the clothes and other things were conceaied. 'his is a strong cireumstance unerringly pointing towards the guiit of the accused and there is nothing on record to show that the accu: >ed Bhadva has been impltcated in a faise crime.

11. On the basis of aforess id discussion, we're of the considered opinion that finding of the tria! Court convicting the accused Bhadva / . / . ~) ^. d P.T.O. M uA; '• ^"•'T'C ^) ^_y XI-HC-78 S^airaRTO, aiflwKp, Rfiwy ^^^^..^.^,..^7/-^^ 3<1^1 44* (T1^3g^F) sn^r ^r R-fi* W 3TT^5T Sbliti gTaRRflfer'w^r ~i'r- wrig^ WRTt if te^t <^WCT( ^w^iran^r under Sections 302 and 3 01 of the IPC, is based on strong circumstantial evidence andl the same does not suffer from anv iiiegalily or infirmity.

12. In the result, the appejat )at being devoid of substance is iiabis to be dismissed and is hereby djsmissed -SdA- L.C. Bhadoo Judge Sd/- DHIRENDRA MISHRA Judge ^ •• / .0 '^^ /- ly v !>\' P.T.O.