Full Judgment
A.K. Shrivastava, J.
1. Accused/appellant-Jhalle (hereinafter referred as 'the accused') has filed this appeal against the judgment and sentence dated 6-3-1990 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panna in Sessions Trial No. 71/88 convicting him of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201, IPC, awarding sentence of rigorous imprisonment of life and five years respectively with a further stipulation that both the sentences would run concurrently. By the same judgment, co-accused Lakkhu @ Lakhan Lal has been acquitted.
2. In brief, the case of prosecution is that deceased Shivshanker Sharma (hereinafter referred as 'deceased') was serving on the post of 'Forest Guard'. On 7-5-1988, deceased Shivshanker went on his bicycle to his place of duty. He was in uniform and was also wearing a wrist-watch. At his duty place, he took attendance of labourers working under him. Ram Das (P.W. 2), and Sharan Singh (P.W. 4), are the labourers of Forest Department and were serving under the deceased. On 7-5-1988 during his duty hours, the deceased caught accused persons with 'Achar' (a forest produce) and teak wood, etc., and brought them to Village Gandhigram at 7.00 P.M. Preliminary formalities were performed by him at the house of Mannulal (P.W. 1). The deceased, in presence of Mannulal, kept the seized articles, in his house with a direction, whenever he would sent the slip, seized goods be delivered back.
3. The accused persons, offered bribe of Rs. 50/- to the deceased with a request to close the matter, but, he did not accept the said amount and directed them to accompany him up to Panna. They proceeded through the Jungle route from Village Gandhigram in the night at 9 P.M. On the next day, Ram Das (P.W. 2), Sharan Singh (P.W. 4) and Mannulal (P.W. 1), came to Panna and entreated A.K. Tiwari (P.W. 3), Ranger for the payment of their wages. Shri Tiwari directed them to call Forest Guard Shivshanker (the deceased). These persons went to the house of the deceased where they were informed by his wife that deceased had not returned home. These witnesses narrated the said fact to Ranger Shri A.K. Tiwari. At the same time Chandra Datt Sharma, the father of the deceased, came and submitted a report (Ex. P-22) to Shri A.K. Tiwari stating therein that the previous day his son went to his duty place, in the Jungle, but he had not returned. On receiving such report, Ranger Shri Tiwari lodged a written report (Ex. P-21) on 8-5-1988 at 9 P.M. at the Police Station, Panna. The police registered it as 'Missing Person' report (4/88). Shri J.P. Khare, Town-Inspector of Police Station, Kotwali, Panna started investigation and went to Village Gandhigram where he recorded the statements of witnesses. Upon enquiry, it was learnt by him, that on 7-5-1988 at about 9 P.M., the deceased was with the appellant. Thereafter, Shri Khare along with Ranger Shri A.K. Tiwari, Sharan Singh and Ram Das went to the house of accused persons and made queries. The accused persons disclosed the fact that they had committed murder of the deceased. His dead body and his belongings namely uniform, shoes, bag, etc. were seized at the instance of the accused. The dead-body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem and the Autopsy Surgeon Dr. A.K. Mishra (P.W. 7) after post-mortem opined that deceased died on account of head injury. The post-mortem report is Ex. P-42.
4. The police, after investigation, filed the charge-sheet and the case was committed by the Committal Court to the Court of Sessions, who charged accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201, IPC, which they denied.
5. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses. The case of prosecution rests upon the circumstantial evidence. The learned Trial Judge found accused/appellant guilty and thus convicted him by awarding the sentence mentioned herein above, but, Lakkhu @ Lakhanlal was found to be innocent as a result of which, he was acquitted. The convicted accused has thus filed the appeal.
6. Shri Abhishek Arjariya, learned Counsel for the appellant, has submitted that learned Trial Judge has committed gross error in holding that there is enough circumstantial evidence so as to arrest the accused under the ambit of guilty. According to him, the circumstances are not enough to maintain the conviction.
Shri Wakil Khan, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State, submitted that, there is no infirmity in the judgment and the evidence of the witnesses when appreciated in proper perspective, the chain of events are scrutinised in great deal, there remains no missing link and each circumstance leads to the exclusive involvement of the accused and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
7. After hearing the rival contentions of learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. We have perused the evidence brought on record. On scrutiny of the evidence of Mannulal (P.W. 1), Ram Das (P.W. 2), Sharan Singh (P.W. 4) and Madra (P.W. 6), the guilt of accused/appellant is proved.
8. The law regarding basing a conviction on circumstantial evidence is well settled. When a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy three tests:
(i) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;
(ii) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused;
(iii) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must also be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. The circumstantial evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. [See K.V. Chacko alias Kunju v. State of Kerala, (2001) 9 SCC 277: AIR 2001 SC 537].
9. If these tests are applied in the present case, the guilt against appellant is duly proved. Following are the circumstances which complete the chain so as to prove the guilt of the accused :--
(i) Suman Bai (P. W. 11), the wife of the deceased, has categorically stated in her statement, that on the date of incident deceased had gone for duty on cycle to 'Sarkoha Beet', and was wearing his brown uniform, belt, shoes and was, also wearing a wrist-watch. He was also having his bag containing official papers.
(ii) Mannulal (P.W. 1), Ram Das (P.W. 2), Sharan Singh (P.W. 4) and Madra (P.W. 6) have deposed that on 7-5-1988, during their duty hours, deceased Shiv Shanker found accused persons with 'Achar' (a forest produce) and teak wood etc. and brought them, to Village Gandhigram.
(iii) The preliminary formalities were made at the house of Mannulal (P.W. 1). According to these witnesses, the deceased disclosed his intention, to register a forest offence against the accused persons and thereafter went to Panna at about 9 P.M. from Village Gandhigram with the accused.
(iv) The accused did not return home, as a result of which there was a search for his whereabouts. In this regard evidence of Suman Bai (P.W. 11), Sharan Singh (P.W. 4), Indrajeet Singh (P.W. 8) and Mannulal (P.W. 1), are relevant.
(v) At the instance of accused the dead-body of deceased was recovered from Chunha Khadan.
(vi) The dead-body was found tied with two cement poles with the help of wire. These facts are proved by the evidence of Ram Das (P.W. 2), A.K. Tiwari (P.W. 3) and Sharan Singh (P.W. 4).
(vii) The seizure memorandums of the uniform, belt of deceased and cement pole etc. are Exs. P-4, P-5, P-8 and P-9 and they have been seized at the instance of appellant. An Atlas cycle belonging to the deceased was recovered vide seizure memo Ex. P-12. This document has been proved by Ram Das (P.W. 2).
(viii) The blood of the deceased was found on the earth, grass, leaves and small wooden pieces, collected from the place of occurrence and vide report (Ex. P-37) of the Forensic Analyst, human blood was reported to be found on these articles.
(ix) Pieces of cement pole, stone stained with human blood were recovered, at the instance of the appellant and presence of, human blood, was affirmed by Serologist vide its report Ex. P-38.
(x) Suman Bai (P.W. 11), the wife of deceased, identified the articles, namely shoes, bag and belt of the deceased.
(xi) The other witnesses Shiv Kishore (P.W. 14) and Prabhakant Dwivedi (P.W. 15), also identified these articles. The test identification memo is Ex. P-39.
(xii) Sanjay (P.W. 12), is a watch-repairer. He repaired the wrist watch of the deceased and has proved the receipt Ex. P-36 by which payment of Rs. 30/- was made by the deceased towards repairing charges.
(xiii) Pyaar Khan (P.W. 16), is a witness who sold the Atlas cycle to the deceased and proved the receipt thereof vide Ex. P-34.
10. The above said overwhelming evidence, are sufficient to prove each circumstance pointing towards the guilt of the accused and taking cumulative effect of these circumstances, a complete chain is formed. In the case of Kanhai Mishra v. State of Bihar, AIR 2001 SC 1113, wherein in para 5 the Apex Court held as under:--
'5. It is a well established rule in criminal jurisprudence that circumstantial evidence can be reasonably made the basis of an accused person's conviction if it is of such a character that the same is wholly inconsistent with innocence of the accused and is consistent only with his guilt. The incriminating circumstances for being used against the accused must be such as to lead only to a hypothesis of guilt and reasonably exclude every possibility of innocence of the accused. In a case of circumstantial evidence the whole endeavour and effort of the Court should be to find out whether the crime was committed by the accused and the circumstances proved form themselves into a complete chain unerringly pointing to the guilt of the accused. If the circumstances proved against the accused in a case are consistent either with the innocence of the accused or with his guilt, he is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Reference in this connection may be made to a Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in the case of M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra, [AIR 1963 SC 2000 : 1963 (1) Cr.LJ 235] and recent decisions of this Court in the cases of Ronny alias Ronald James Alwaris v. State of Maharashtra, (1968) 3 SCC 625: (1998 AIR SCW 1103: AIR 1998 SC 1251:1998 Cr.LJ 1638] and Joseph s/o Kooveli Poulo v. State of Kerala, (2000) 5 SCC 197: (2000 AIR SCW 1682: AIR 2000 SC 1608 : 2000 Cr.LJ 2467).'
11. Adjudged on the anvil of the aforesaid law and considering the circumstances which we have enumerated, we do not have the slightest doubt in our mind that all the circumstances lead towards the guilt of the accused and, in contrary, no other hypothesis is possible or plausible. The chain is complete. There is nothing on record which can raise any doubt to indicate the innocence of the accused to confer on him the benefit of doubt. Thus, we are unable to perceive any error in the judgment passed by the learned Trial Judge.
12. Consequently, the appeal dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence are hereby affirmed.