Manohar and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/503071
SubjectCriminal
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided OnMar-04-2008
JudgeArun Mishra and ;S.A. Naqvi, JJ.
Reported in2008(2)MPHT326
AppellantManohar and anr.
RespondentState of Madhya Pradesh
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Cases ReferredAndya Sadashiv Nandoskar v. State of Maharashtra
Excerpt:
Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
criminal - conviction - recovery of article - sections 34 and 302of indian penal code,1860(ipc) - appellants convicted under section 34/302 of ipc - hence, present appeal - held, in instant case, both accused had taken deceased from his house thereafter he was not seen alive and immediately next day in morning injury was found on person of accused manohar - accused manohar could not explain about injury - watch of deceased recovered from possession of accused - similarly, from possession of accused manohar 'nylon shoes' of deceased recovered beside weapon of offence from both accused person - hence, circumstances points that accused persons had committed murder of deceased - thus, they have been rightly found guilty by court below for commission of offence under section 302/34 of ipc -.....
Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
arun mishra, j.1. the appeal has been preferred by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment and conviction dated 26-7-93 passed by the ist additional sessions judge, sehore in sessions trial no. 279/92, whereby the appellants have been convicted for commission of offence under section 302/34, ipc sentencing them to undergo rigorous life imprisonment.2. as per the prosecution case, deceased suresh and accused persons where residing at village khamlaha. deceased had accompanied the accused persons in the night, he did not come back to the house. consequently, kishore singh and munnalal went to the house of manohar to ask about the whereabouts of suresh. for several days they inquired from manoharlal but he expressed ignorance as to the whereabout of deceased suresh. they also inquired.....
Judgment:

Arun Mishra, J.

1. The appeal has been preferred by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment and conviction dated 26-7-93 passed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Sehore in Sessions Trial No. 279/92, whereby the appellants have been convicted for commission of offence under Section 302/34, IPC sentencing them to undergo rigorous life imprisonment.

2. As per the prosecution case, deceased Suresh and accused persons where residing at Village Khamlaha. Deceased had accompanied the accused persons in the night, he did not come back to the house. Consequently, Kishore Singh and Munnalal went to the house of Manohar to ask about the whereabouts of Suresh. For several days they inquired from Manoharlal but he expressed ignorance as to the whereabout of deceased Suresh. They also inquired from co-accused Nandlal. He also expressed ignorance as to the whereabouts of deceased Suresh. The prosecution further alleged that on 3-8-92, one Sangram Singh, son of Kamal Singh found the dead body in the well and consequently, informed to the police on 4-8-92, merg intimation was recorded, inquest of the dead body was prepared, dead body was identified by Shriram, the brother of the deceased. There were several injuries on the person of the deceased caused by sharp edged weapon. It was a case of homicidal death. The deceased on 28-7-92 left with accused Manohar and Nandlal and he was not seen alive. On the basis of information furnished by the accused, several articles belonging to the deceased were seized. The articles were identified belonging to the deceased. Weapon of offence and knives were recovered from the possession of the accused at their instance.

3. The accused abjured the guilt contending that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case. In defence, they did not examine any witness. Prosecution has examined in all 21 witnesses. The Trial Court has convicted the appellants, aggrieved thereby the appeal has been preferred.

4. Shri P.R. Bhave, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that in the instant case, circumstance of last seen has not been established. It has not been proved when actually the death of Suresh took place. Evidence of Mahesh (P. W. 4), is that only accused Manohar Singh was last seen in the company of Suresh when he came to the betel shop, thereafter there is no evidence on record that accused Manohar accompanied the deceased towards the well after eating betel. The injury on the person of accused Manohar Singh, in the parietal region was caused subsequently to the incident and the injury in the leg could have been caused due to several other reasons. It was not enough to create a chain of circumstances against the accused Manohar to complete it. In the absence of evidence indicating that deceased Suresh had inflicted any injury on the accused Manohar, there was nothing to infer from the injuries found on the leg of accused Manohar. Dr. Rajendra Kumar Gupta (P.W. 7), has admitted that he did not mention the date on Exh. P-6. It was put by someone else in the red ink. Thus, injury was caused in the intervening night of 28/29-7-92 has not been established. Autopsy surgeon has opined that death took place before more than 72 hours of post-mortem, it was conducted on. 4-8-92, thus, the date of incident cannot be co-related to 28/29-7-92 when the accused were last seen in the company of the deceased as per the prosecution. He has also submitted that arrest memo was drawn subsequently on furnishing of Information memo's and the seizure memos at different places. It would not have been possible to draw them in the close proximity of the time, they were drawn. Thus, seizure became doubtful. Gopal (P.W. 12) has mentioned different place of seizure of some of the articles, thus, recovery was not made in his presence. The memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act were not recovered in his presence. His signature have been obtained in the memo's. Consequently, seizure of articles has also not been established pursuant to the information furnished on behalf of the accused. On the weapon of offence, presence of blood was found, it was not human blood, it is not uncommon in the villages to find the presence of blood as such on weapons/clothes. The recovery of the shoes at the instance of the accused Manohar was not natural as no person would remove the shirt from the person of deceased and other articles as that would be the incriminating circumstances against the accused. Thus, considering the normal course of human conduct also, the recovery at the instance of the accused/appellants are not reliable. He has referred to the various decisions of the Apex Court and of this Court so as to contend that chain of circumstances must be completed, and merely last seen together in the company of deceased cannot be said to be sufficient so as to fasten the guilt on the accused persons. Thus, appellants are entitled to be given benefit of doubt. The conviction of the appellants be set aside.

5. Shri T.K. Modh, learned Dy. Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that no case for interference in the appeal is made out. Three sets of evidence is available in the instant case. The first circumstances of last seen at 28-7-92, the evidence of last seen as evinced by Kamal Singh (P.W. 2), Chain Singh (P.W. 3), Mahesh (P.W. 4), Munnalal (P.W. 8) and Manohar (P.W. 9), beside the accused Manohar has admitted that on the next day inquiry was made from him about the whereabouts of the deceased Suresh, at that time he was limping due to leg injury. He has also admitted that injury in the leg was found on 29-7-92 and he had consulted the doctor Rajendra Kumar Gupta (P.W. 7) on the aforesaid date. Thus, it is evinced that injury was found after last seen immediately next morning on the person of the accused Manohar. Beside the cause of death of deceased Suresh was homicidal in nature. In the medical requisition memo, Manohar has stated that injury in his leg was caused 10-12 days before his medical examination, he was sent for medical examination on 8-8-92, injury on the head was caused 4 days before. It is apparent from the medical report that injury was caused more than seven days before and healing has taken place. There was stitched and dressed wounds found on the left leg. Besides stitched wounds was also found on the left parietal rcgjon and left occipital region. These were caused before seven days of the examination. Thus, the time relate back to intervening night of 28/29-7-92. The injury report Exh. P-5 and Exh. P-6 have been proved by Krishna Kant Chaturvedi (P.W. 6) and Rajendra Kumar (P.W. 7). Further there is nothing to doubt the seizure and the memo's drawn. They have given the information and seizure was made at their instance and they were also arrested on the same day. The evidence of the Investigating Officer, Rakesh Kumar Gurgamla (P.W. 20), being disinterested witness, his deposition is sufficient to prove the drawing of memo's under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and the seizure at the instance of the accused persons, beside Gopal Singh (P.W. 12) has also supported the factum of seizure of crucial articles like watch, shoes etc. of the accused Manohar and Nandlal. They have been identified to be belonging to the deceased. Weapon of offence were also seized from the possession and at the instance of the accused persons. Thus, circumstantial evidence in this case is complete. Recovery was also made within ten days. Thus, conviction has been rightly recorded under Section 302/34 of IPC.

6. Before we dilate upon the facts of the instant case, we deem it appropriate to refer to the citations referred to at bar. In Lakhanpal v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1979 SC 1620, the Apex Court has observed that mere fact that the accused and the deceased (the real brother of the accused) were together in the field prior to the occurrence does not by itself lead to irresistible inference that the accused must have murdered the deceased. Extra-judicial confession was disbelieved in the facts and circumstances of the case. In Pohalya Motya Valvl v. State of Maharashtra : 1979CriLJ1310 , the Apex Court has laid down that the principles governing the appreciation of evidence in a case dependent upon circumstantial evidence arc that each circumstances relied upon by the prosecution must be established by cogent, succinct and reliable evidence; that the circumstance relied upon must be such as cannot be explained on any hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. There should be complete chain, no link of which should be missing and they must unequivocally point to the guilt of the accused and exclude any hypothesis consistent with his innocence. In Gambhir v. State of Maharashtra : 1982CriLJ1243 , the Apex Court has observed that when the case depends on circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy three tests:

(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;

(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;

(3) 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.

These three tests were reiterated in the case of Mahmood v. State of Uttar Pradesh : 1976CriLJ10 and B.S. Sambhu v. T.S. Krishnaswamy : 1983CriLJ158 .

In State of Gujrat v. S.D. Soni : 1991CriLJ330 , the Apex Court laid down that circumstances must be established beyond reasonable doubt before conviction is recorded on the basis of circumstantial evidence.

In Bhalinder Singh @ Raju v. State of Punjab : (1994)1SCC726 , the four circumstances relied upon by the prosecution before the Trial Court and the High Court were as follows:

(1) Last seen together;

(2) recovery of the shoes of the deceased at the instance of the appellant pursuant to a statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, besides recovery of empty liquor bottles and a glass;

(3) Extra-judicial confession made before Sarpanch of the village;

(4) A false explanation given by the appellant to the father of the deceased, when he went looking for his son on the night of the occurrence; was not found to be true as such these circumstances were held not enough to justify the conviction.

In Balwinder Singh v. Slate of Punjab 1995 Supp (4) SCC 259, the Apex Court has held that all the links in the chain of events must be established beyond a reasonable doubt and the established circumstances should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence. There was delay of 5 days in lodging the FIR, identification was not held, medical evidence was contradicting the age of the deceased, thus, the accused was acquitted.

In K. Sukumaran v. State of Kerala : (2000)10SCC365 , the Apex Court has laid down that the circumstances proved must complete the chain, circumstance of last seen together was proved, but the vital circumstance that the alleged clothes of the accused, on which blood of the same group as of the deceased was found, actually belonged to the accused was not established, charge of murder against the accused could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt, hence, the accused was acquitted.

In Mohibur Rahman and Anr. v. State of Assam : AIR2002SC3064 , the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused and the accused given false explanation regarding the whereabouts of deceased to the family members of the deceased, recovery of the dead body in two pieces was made from two different places. Consequently, the accused Taijuddin was convicted.

In Amit @Ammu v. State of Maharashtra : 2003CriLJ3873 , the accused was charged with rape and murder, accused was last seen together in the company of the victim, the evidence of last seen was found reliable, the close proximity of place and time between the event of accused having been last seen with the victim and factum of death, it was held that the burden was on the accused to prove the sudden factum of death. In the result, conviction was upheld.

7. Coming to the circumstantial evidence brought on record, in the instant case of last seen together. There is overwhelming evidence with respect to the last seen. Chain Singh (P.W. 3), has stated that at about 9:00 p.m., the accused Manohar, Nandlal and Suresh Kumar were together. The deceased, Suresh was carrying lathi at that time and wearing a black bushirt and black pant, he was wearing shoes also, thereafter he was not seen alive. He has with stood cross-examination. Merely by the fact of the last seen evidence as furnished by the family member of the deceased, cannot cast dent in his version. There was no reason for him to presume that Suresh was to be done away with the accused persons. Munnalal (P.W. 8) is the brother of the deceased, he has also stated that at about 9:00 p.m., accused Manohar and Nandlal came to the house and all three were going together, he asked where they were going, he was told that he was going to the betel shop. Suresh was wearing black pant, black shirt and nylon shoes and was carrying a lathi. He was putting on one HMT black dial watch. Suresh did not come back to the house in the night. Consequently, he went to accused Manohar next day in the morning, he met accused/Manohar when he was coming from the well to the house, he was limping and was having injury in the leg. On being asked about the whereabouts of Suresh, he expressed ignorance, when he asked how injury was caused to him, he informed that injury was caused when he was taking out bed by darala. Accused Manohar was taken to the hospital. He came back after one or two days from the hospital. Thereafter he again made inquiry or for whereabouts of the deceased Suresh, again accused Manohar expressed his ignorance. After few days the dead body of the deceased Suresh was found in the well of Sangram Singh and Kamal Singh of Village Amlai. When they came to know that one dead body was found, they identified the dead body of the deceased Suresh. Deceased Suresh had advanced certain money and used to make the demand from Manohar. Manohar had borrowed a sum of Rs. 900/- from the deceased. Deceased was also carrying the key of the tractor and key of the attachee, he was also carrying a tester. In identification parade, these articles were identified by him in the presence of the Tehsildar. He has identified the tester, keys, shoes, shirt and watch etc. correctly. He has deposed to as to the identification in the Court also. There is another witness of last seen, Manohar (P.W. 9). He had seen the deceased in the company of the accused, they were going from Village Khamlah to Amlah. Suresh was wearing black pant and shirt at the relevant time, he has handed over a lathi and started reading Ramayana again, thereafter deceased was not seen alive. Mahesh (P.W. 4) was running a betel shop at Village Amlah has stated that Manohar and the deceased Suresh came to his betel shop, Manohar had asked for the betels. He has mentioned the cost of betel's in the account of deceased Suresh. Deceased Suresh was wearing black pant and shirt. Suresh was carrying lathi whereas Manohar was not carrying any weapon in his hand. He had not seen the deceased Suresh alive thereafter.

8. It is apparent from the evidence that both accused were last seen together with deceased at Village Khamlah and they were going to the betel shop of Mahesh. It appears that from the house of the deceased, two accused persons were accompanying the deceased. The accused are also resident of Village Khamlah but on the betel shop as stated by Mahesh, Suresh and Manohar took the betel, they were together. He has not stated about the presence of Nandlal. The evidence discloses that from Khamlah accused Manohar as well as Nandlal accompanied the deceased to Village Amlah and they were going together for eating betel. We have to consider in the circumstances whether there is any other cogent evidence so as to implicate the accused persons and in particular Nandlal in the instant case so as to complete the chain against them.

9. With respect to accused Manohar from the aforesaid evidence, it is apparent that he was accompanying the deceased. He was last seen in the company of the deceased. When we consider the statement of accused Manohar recorded under Section 313 of Cr.PC, question No. 22 was put to him that 'Suresh did not come back in the night and Munnalal (P.W. 8) came to him to inquire whereabouts of deceased, at that time he was limping and was having injury in his leg'. In reply, he has expressed his ignorance of whereabouts of deceased Suresh. He has answered, 'it was right'. He has admitted that question to be correct. Thus, it is apparent that the accused Manohar himself has admitted that Munnalal made inquiry from him about the whereabouts of deceased Suresh and at that time 'he was having injury also and was limping'. It is apparent that deceased Suresh met homicidal death, there were several injuries caused by sharp edged object on the person of the deceased Suresh. He has also admitted that Munnalal (P.W. 8) inquired from him about the whereabouts of deceased Suresh. This he has admitted in answer to question No. 59 that whereabouts of deceased were asked from him by Manohar (P.W. 9) and his brother Munnalal (P.W. 8). Thus, it is apparent that continuously the family members of the deceased questioned from Manohar about whereabouts of deceased, Suresh as he was last seen in the company of the deceased. Thus, case of last seen has not been introduced all of a sudden after the dead body was found. In case they were not last seen, there was no reason to make inquiry from the accused Manohar about the whereabouts of the deceased. He had borrowed money from Suresh also stands admitted by accused Manohar in answer to question No. 54. He has also admitted that Dr. R.K. Gupta has treated him in District Hospital, Sehore, applied the stitches on his leg. He has admitted that Exh. P-6 was in the handwriting of Dr. R.K. Gupta (P.W. 7). In answer to the question by which weapon injury was caused to him, he has expressed ignorance. As a matter of fact, it was for the accused to explain the injury, cut wound on his leg but he has expressed ignorance how it was caused. It is also apparent that deceased was having large number of injuries. The accused was also having injury at least on his leg as on 29-7-92. When we consider the medical requisition memo dated 8-8-92, Manohar Singh has informed that injury on his leg was caused by knife (Churri) before 10-12 days and Dr. R.K. Chaturvedi (P.W. 6) as per report P-5 opined that injury was stitched. The dressed wound on left leg was quite healed and was of duration more than seven days. He has also opined with respect to two other injuries. He has found on the person of Manohar, wound on left parietal region was stitched and dressed. The wound on left occipital region, was also dressed wound. The accused has stated that these injuries were caused four days before and Munnalal (P. W. 8) has also stated that there was injuries on leg of accused Manohar. He has not stated about the injury in the occipital region and we find on record in General Diary (Exh. P-29A) with respect to pelting of stone on accused Manohar by someone else. Injury in the leg was not caused on 4-8-92. Thus, the aforesaid leg injury is clearly co-relatable to the intervening night of 28/29-7-92. In the previous night when last seen in the company of deceased, accused Manohar was not limping but the next morning, he was limping, admittedly he had injury in his leg. Beside that Dr. Rajendra Kumar Gupta (P.W. 7) has also stated that he had stitched the wounds though he might not have put the date on Exh. P-6. But considering the evidence and admission of the accused that injury was there when witness Munnalal met him in the next morning after he was last seen in the company of the deceased on 28-7-92. We have no hesitation in rejecting the submission that the date of last seen and the suffering of injury by accused Manohar and date of death of deceased has not been proved. We find that considering the post-mortem report Exh. P-32 of 4-8-92, dead-body was in advance stage of putrefaction. Foul smell was coming, larve crawling over the body, flies were also seen, whole face was blush, right eye was coming out from the orbit, tongue protruding out, lips were swollen, hairs separated from scalp with skin, scrotum with penis swollen, abdomen distended, arms, palms, feets reddish, abdomen, chest back blush, muscle skin absent from hips and ante-mortem wounds were found.

(1) Penetrating wound near right nibble;

(2) Spindle shaped incised wound over epigastrium;

(3) Incised wound over right wrist ventral surface;

(4) Penetrating wound near umbilicus right side;

(5) Incised wound over left scapular region;

(6) Penetrating wound over left infra scapular area;

(7) Incised wound in inter scapular area vertical;

(8) Incised wound over T12 level of back (Horizontal).

Dimensions of injuries were also given. It is apparent that large number of injuries were inflicted on the person of deceased by sharp edged penetrating weapon. Injuries were also found on the person of Manohar relatable to the same proximity of time when deceased Suresh was done away with. It appears that in the course of struggle, injury might have been sustained by accused Manohar. He has failed to explain the injury. He was limping when he was asked about the whereabouts of deceased Suresh by his brother Munnalal (P.W. 8) next day in the morning. The post-mortem report has been proved by H.L. Dalodria (P.W. 21). It is apparent from the post-mortem report that death was not due to drowning but the deceased was put in the well after the death, articles like shirt, pant, watch shoes etc. were removed.

10. Inquiry was also made from the accused Nandlal about the whereabouts of the deceased. Witness namely Munnalal (P.W. 8) in Paragraph 5 of his deposition and Kishore (P.W. 10), in Paragraph 2 of his deposition support the fact. When we consider the statement of accused Nandlal recorded under Section 313 of Cr.PC, in reply to question No. 25, he has admitted that Munnalal (P.W. 8), had continuously asked him regarding the whereabouts of the deceased Suresh supported by the evidence of Chain Singh (P.W. 3) and Manohar (P.W. 9). Nandlal has also accompanied the accused Manohar at the time when deceased was last taken from Village Khamlah. Thus, the evidence of witnesses inspire confidence that accused Nandlal has also accompanied Manohar and Suresh at Village Khamlah when they were going to eat betel. The recovery of the watch of deceased has been made from the possession, at the instance of accused Nandlal, which we find to be reliable one. Thus, complicity of accused Nandlal also stands established in the instant case. At the instance of Manohar also seizure of articles belonging to deceased Suresh was made.

11. Coming to the question of reliability of recovery, we find on record statement of two witnesses namely Gopal Singh (P.W. 12) and Rakesh Kumar Gurgamla (P.W. 20), Sub-Inspector of Police, the Investigating Officer of this case. Before, we proceed to examine the evidence, we deem it appropriate to refer to the cases cited in that regard. In Shanwar Manu Koli v. Emperor AIR (37) 1950 Bombay 267, it has been observed that police evidence must not be discarded and conviction can be based on that evidence. Similar observations were made in Kochan Velayudhan v. State of Kerala : AIR1961Ker8 and in State v. Badruddin : AIR1950All436 . In Mr. Jamunia Partap Lohar v. Emperor AIR 1936 Nagpur 200, it was held that accused was not formally arrested when giving information leading to discovery, before going to spot where articles were hidden the accused shall be deemed in police custody at the time of giving information. In Sudam Chandra Bag v. Emperor : AIR1933Cal148 , when a Police Officer, although he arrested a person charged with being in possession of cocaine after the finding cocaine with him, interviewed the accused and was with him for a considerable time and walked with him to the place where the accused point out the spot where the cocaine might be found, it was held that the accused was in police custody at the time when he made the statement as to the spot where the cocaine could be found and his statement was admissible. In Anil @ Andya Sadashiv Nandoskar v. State of Maharashtra : 1996CriLJ1698 , the Apex Court has laid down that witnesses with respect to search and seizure of weapons from accused were police officials does not by itself creates doubt to their creditworthiness. Non-examination of independent panch-witnesses was thus, immaterial.

12. Gopal Singh (P.W. 12), has stated that at the instance of accused Nandlal one knife (Churri) and one 'watch' was recovered from his house situated near the well. Police had prepared seizure memo (P-15). He has owned his signature on the seizure memo. In Paragraph 4 of his deposition also proved that information was given by accused Manohar with respect to the watch, 'shoes' which he has put in between the wall of his house. The information memo Exh. P-12 was written in his presence and nylon shoes were seized as per memo (P-17) at the instance of the accused. Though, he tried to change the version in the next thought but fact remains that nylon shoes were recovered at the instance of accused Manohar even if we discard recovery of other articles such as lathi and purse, though purse of the deceased was seized from the possession of the accused Manohar. The articles were rightly identified but were not produced in Court nor the lathi which was seized at the instance of Nandlal was produced before the Court, though, it was also identified correctly by the witnesses in the Investigation parade. We discard recovery of the articles not produced before the Court as well as recovery of keys and tester. Fact remains that 'watch' was seized from the possession of the accused Nandlal as per the seizure memo (P-15) pursuant to information memo (P-9) was furnished by him under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The seizure of weapon of offence, knife (churri) was also made pursuant to information memo (P-9) furnished by Nandlal as per seizure memo (P-13) from his house at his instance.

From the possession of Manohar, weapon of offence, one 'knife' and 'purse' was seized as per seizure memo (P-21) pursuant to information given as per memo (P-13). Beside that shoes of deceased were also recovered on the basis of information furnished by the accused Manohar at his instance from his house. Thus, seizure of weapon of offence, knife as well as Gupti corresponding injury of such weapon were found on the person of the deceased and seizure of shoes stands proved from the possession of accused Manohar. The shoes have been correctly identified. The recovery of watch from the possession of the accused Nandlal is also supported by the independent version of Rakesh Kumar Gurgamla (P.W. 20), the Investigating Officer. He has proved the seizure of these articles in Paragraph 24 of his deposition. It is also apparent that well was situated nearby the way from Khamlah to Amlah, much detour was not taken as it was quite near the road leading from Khamlah to Amlah, where the deceased as well as accused persons were proceeding. In our opinion, the three tests laid down by the Apex Court that circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established secondly those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; and thirdly 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. Thus, in the instant case, we find that both the accused had taken the deceased from his house thereafter he was not seen alive and immediately next day in the morning on the person of the accused Manohar injury was found. The family members of the deceased made inquiry about the whereabouts of the deceased as accused had taken the deceased alongwith them. It is also clear that deceased Suresh was not seen alive after they were last seen together on 28-7-92. The accused Manohar was limping next morning and his injury has been proved by the doctor. He could not explain the injury on his person. From the possession of Nandlal, 'watch' of the deceased has been recovered that has been identified to be belonging to the deceased. Similarly, from the possession of the accused Manohar 'nylon shoes' of deceased have been recovered beside weapon of offence from both the accused person. Thus, in the instant case, the circumstances points that the accused persons had committed murder of deceased, Suresh. Thus, they have been rightly found guilty by the Court below for commission of offence under Section 302/34 of IPC.

13. Resultantly, we find no merit in the appeal.

14. The appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants is affirmed. The accused are on bail, their bail bonds stand cancelled. They are directed to surrender forthwith, Police is directed to arrest them forthwith in case they do not surrender before the Trial Court.