Firoz Ikbal Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
criminal - murder - sections 34, 114, 201 and 302 of indian penal code, 1860 - conviction orders of a1 and a2 challenged - evidence of witness establishes presence of deceased with accused on day of occurrence - a1 specially made knife in factory and used same for commission of offence - evidence adduced proved that both accused responsible for causing murder of deceased - circumstances sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt that murder of deceased committed by a1 and a2 - conviction under section 302 justified. - - 2. the prosecution case which is quite interesting can be briefly stated as under: however, after investigation, when the police found three stab injuries on the back of the deceased and also having recovered articles like broken bangles, slippers, one ear ring and blood stained knife from the scene of offence, the police was required to change the case of accidental death into a case of murder and accordingly the fir ex. having failed in his attempts to trace out the deceased, he ultimately on 2.3.1990, filed a missing report at rajgadh police station, ghoghamba, vide ex. 78. on 3.3.1990, gordhanbhai mohanbhai, after seeing the photographs as well as the materials recovered by the police belonging to the deceased, confirmed that the deceased was his daughter. in the submission of the learned counsel, their evidence is not natural and trustworthy and, therefore, not reliable. their clothes having blood stains and their post-incident conduct are some of the circumstances which are good enough to involve the accused in the commission of the offence. 58 has more or less supported the say of gordhanbhai as well as meenaben. true, for the first time in the evidence, she has stated that the deceased had told her that she was not liked by her husband because she had big eyes and she was too short. however, on this ground alone, we do not think that her evidence is not reliable. 2, also recovered the token as well as the receipt from him. he knows gordhanbhai as well as his daughter gajra. the evidence of this witness clearly establishes the presence of the deceased with both the accused at village ghoghamba between 9.00 and 10.00 a. even if we ignore the evidence of shantaben and kiransinh on the ground that they are interested witnesses, the evidence of shantilal and mangalsinh clearly go to establish the presence of all the three at village ghoghamba at the relevant time. 1 who was present on the day of occurrence, is a strong circumstance against the accused. , in his evidence has clearly found semi digested food in the stomach of the deceased. the evidence of this witness clearly establishes the presence of the deceased with the accused on the day of occurrence. admittedly, both the accused are not having the same blood group of the deceased and therefore, this is a very strong circumstance for their involvement in the commission of the crime. in our opinion, the learned trial judge was perfectly justified in convicting the accused for the offences under sec.k.r. vyas, j. 1. the original accused nos. 1 and 2 have preferred these appeals challenging the judgment and order dated 19.8.1992 passed in sessions case no. 95 of 1990 by the learned sessions judge, panchamahals at godhra, convicting them for the offences punishable under sections 302 and 201 of the ipc. the accused no. 2 was also convicted for the offence under section 404 of the ipc. for the offence under section 302 of the ipc, both the accused were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of rs. 1000/-, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and for the offence under section 201 of the ipc, the accused were sentenced to suffer r.i. for three years and to pay a fine of rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo further r.i. for three months. for offence under section 404 of the ipc, the accused no. 2 was sentenced to suffer r.i. for one year and to pay a fine of rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo further r.i. for three months. all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. both the appeals are heard together and are conveniently disposed of by this common judgment.2. the prosecution case which is quite interesting can be briefly stated as under:-the deceased gajra is the wife of the accused no. 2 narpatsinh chhatrasinh, while the accused no. 1 firozkhan iqbal rathod is a friend of the accused no. 2 who, at the relevant time, were serving in a steel fabrication plant, situated at makarpura, baroda, belonging to babubhai bhaijibhai patel, pw 22, as worker/helper. both the accused were residing at baroda while the deceased was staying with her in-laws at village athamana. the deceased had gone to her parent's house at village dhaneshwar muvada with her cousin minaben somabhai, pw 16, ex. 56 and her brother narvat gordhan, two to three days prior to shivratri day being 23.2.1990. as agreed between the deceased and the accused no. 2, she had left early in the morning for village ghoghamba where the accused no. 2 was to meet her. both the accused came to village ghoghamba. many people spotted the deceased in the company of both the accused between 9.15 a.m. and 10.00 a.m. at ghoghamba bus stand. all the three thereafter went to godhra town and had their meals. at godhra, on the same day night, the dead body of gajra was found on the railway track. initially an entry of accidental death was registered by the police at godhra railway police station. however, after investigation, when the police found three stab injuries on the back of the deceased and also having recovered articles like broken bangles, slippers, one ear ring and blood stained knife from the scene of offence, the police was required to change the case of accidental death into a case of murder and accordingly the fir ex. 141 was filed by the psi godhra railway police station. the photographs of the dead body ex. 35 were taken by one of the panchas who himself was a photographer which were released on 26.2.1990. on 25.2.1990, the mother-in-law of the deceased conveyed a message to gordhanbhai mohanbhai, p.w. 35 ex. 87, the father of the deceased through bukiben mavsing, pw 18, ex. 58 to send back the deceased to village athamana. the father of the deceased made efforts to trace out the deceased by making inquiries at different places including the place where the accused no. 2 was serving and residing. having failed in his attempts to trace out the deceased, he ultimately on 2.3.1990, filed a missing report at rajgadh police station, ghoghamba, vide ex. 78. on 3.3.1990, gordhanbhai mohanbhai, after seeing the photographs as well as the materials recovered by the police belonging to the deceased, confirmed that the deceased was his daughter. the police thereafter started usual investigation against the accused for their alleged involvement in the commission of the crime of killing gajra. the accused no. 1 in the early hours of 24.2.1990, at about 2.45 a.m. was found loitering at dabhoi bus stand in a suspicious circumstance and, therefore, he was arrested by dabhoi police sub inspector bismillakhan, pw 42 for the offence under section 122-c of the bombay police act. the accused no. 1 pleaded guilty of the said offence. he was convicted and sentenced to suffer s.i. for ten days. similarly, the accused no. 2 was also found on 26.2.1990 at about 8.00 or 8.30 a.m. at dabhoi bus stand in a suspicious manner and, therefore, he was arrested by head constable prabhatsinh sahebsinh, pw 41, ex. 107 and two ladies purse containing rs. 131/- and two silver anklets (chhadas) tied in a handkerchief were recovered from his pant pocket. the accused no. 2 introduced himself to the police as mano jkumar khumansinh. the accused no. 2 was also sentenced to suffer s.i. for 10 days by the concerned court. since the investigation was in progress, the investigating officer found the involvement of the accused in the killing of gajra and hence the accused no. 1 was arrested on 14.3.1990 while the accused no. 2 was arrested by transfer warrant on 16.3.1990. at the end of the investigation, on the basis of the material available, the accused were chargesheeted and were tried by the learned sessions judge, panchmahals at godhra.3. the charge at ex. 2 was read over to the accused. both the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. the defence of the accused was of total denial. the learned sessions judge, at the end of the trial, after appreciating the evidence on record, was of the view that the prosecution has successfully established the charge levelled against the accused and hence by the impugned judgment and order, convicted both the accused and imposed the sentence as stated in the first para of the judgment.13.7.1999:4. ms. banna datta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, after taken us through the evidence on record, submitted that this being the case based entirely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has not established the entire chain of circumstances which would lead to the only conclusion that the accused are responsible for committing the murder of deceased gajra. she further submitted that there is no motive on the part of the accused to commit the alleged crime; in any case, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there is no reason for the accused no. 1 to be associated with the accused no. 2 in the alleged commission of the crime. finally, it was submitted that no reliance can be placed on the evidence of prosecution witnesses on the point of they having seen the deceased in the company of the accused on the day in question. in the submission of the learned counsel, their evidence is not natural and trustworthy and, therefore, not reliable. on the other hand, ms. ami yagnik, learned app appearing for the state, while supporting the judgment of the trial court, has submitted that the prosecution has successfully established the case against the accused beyond any manner of doubt and, therefore, no interference is called for in the matter. ms. yagnik pointed out that the involvement of both the accused in the crime is sufficiently established from the circumstances that they were there with the deceased on the day in question; their absenteeism on duty on the day in question and thereafter not returning to the job; recovery of blood stained knife having been made at the factory where the accused were working; their clothes having blood stains and their post-incident conduct are some of the circumstances which are good enough to involve the accused in the commission of the offence.5. on proper appreciation of the prosecution case, it would be more convenient to divide the entire case into the following parts:-(a) recovery of dead body on railway track between 8.30 and 11.30 p.m. on 23.2.1990; (b) the incident of the day i.e. 23.2.1990; (c) search of the deceased by the family members; (d) movement of the accused after 22/23.2.1990 till they were arrested.6. wilson george, pw 3, ex. 36 is the driver of the goods train who saw a human body near railway pillar no. 472/19-20 when he started his train from the godhra railway station at about 10.55 p.m. on 23.2.1990. he applied the brakes. however, the train crossed the body and it was stopped at kasundi railway station at about 11.05 p.m. he informed the station master about the dead body.7 manoharlal guman malji, pw 4, ex. 37, the assistant station master of kasundi railway station informed the station master of godhra railway station. he also instructed gangman of the railway station to take the dead body off the railway track and to keep it near the railway track. purshottam sahadev, pw 37 ex. 99 is the head constable of godhra railway police station. according to him, on the basis of the information conveyed by the station master, kasundi railway station, entry no. 6/90 regarding the accidental death was recorded in the police station by the pso and as per his advice, the head constable purshottam had visited the scene of offence after getting the information from the station master, kasundi railway station in the early morning of the next day. he found the dead body of a woman and also saw a knife there. having scene the knife lying near the dead body, he realised that this was not a case of accidental death, but was a case of murder and he immediately telephoned psi gohil and entrusted the investigation to him. psi gohil reached the spot at about 8.45 a.m. and made the inquest. the head constable purshottam took the dead body to the railway police station where the photographs of the dead body were taken. thereafter, the dead body was sent for postmortem.8. sahadevsinh bahadursinh gohil, pw 43, ex. 120 is the psi, who after making the inquest, drew the panchanama of the scene of offence and recovered muddamal articles i.e. blood stained knife, broken plastic colour bangles, blood stained saree, slipper and a one rupee coin. they were attached under the panchanama ex. 83. psi gohil also noted the injuries on the person of the dead body and he also filed a complaint at ex. 141. psi gohil in his evidence, has admitted that the muddamal knife had remained in his possession for 24 hours and he has also obtained the finger print report which is 'nil' as far as the knife is concerned.9. pravinsinh amarsinh raul, pw 44, ex. 121 who took over the investigation from psi gohil on 24.2.1990, in his evidence, has stated that since the dead body was not identified, he recorded the statements of the persons of nearby villages. he also sent the muddamal articles to forensic science laboratory, ahmedabad.10. the aforesaid evidence deals with the recovery of dead body from the railway track at about 11.00 p.m. on 23.2.1990 between godhra and kasundi railway station. the dead body was not identified, even though the police tried to ascertain the facts by recording the statements of the persons of nearby villages. the police came to know that the deceased was gajra only when the father of gajra, gordhanbhai mohanbhai advertised about his missing daughter and when the father of the deceased gajra identified the photographs of the dead body of gajra. the evidence of gordhanbhai mohanbhai and other witnesses lead us to the incident of 23.2.1990, also being a day of shivratri. gordhanbhai mohanbhai, pw 35 ex. 87 in his evidence, states that the gajra was his eldest daughter. he identified the accused no. 2 as the husband of his daughter gajra. after the marriage, his daughter was staying with her in-laws at village athamana while her husband was residing at baroda and was serving in a steel fabrication plant at makarpura, baroda. according to him, the distance between the village athamana and his village dhaneshwar muvada is 5 to 6 k.ms. and his daughter used to come to him very often. he has further stated that the deceased had come to his place with his son and his niece meena who had gone two days prior to the day of shivratri to village athamana to attend marriage ceremony at bukiben's place. this witness has further stated that he was told by meena that the deceased had left early in the morning on shivratri day to village ghoghamba to join her husband who was to come from baroda. according to him, his sister bukiben thereafter came on the third day from village athamana and conveyed the message of the in-laws of the deceased to send gajra back to their place. thereafter this witness started making inquiries about the whereabouts of the deceased. he accordingly sent his wife kamlaben to pavagadh and on the next day, also sent his son to village athamana. however, they could not trace out the deceased. this witness and his wife thereafter went to baroda and met kanaksinh maganbhai parmar, pw 23, ex. 65, cousin brother of the accused no. 2 to inquire about him. kanaksinh took this witness on his scooter to the steel factory where the accused no. 2 was working. the owner of the factory babubhai bhaijibhai patel, pw 22 ex. 62 informed this witness that the accused no. 2 had last came on duty a day prior to shivratri. he further told that the accused no. 1 who is also the friend of the accused no. 2 had also not come since then. babubhai also informed this witness that the accused no. 1 had taken rs. 80/- 'on account' from him. after getting the residential address from babubhai, this witness met bipinbhai, the landlord of the accused no. 1. the landlord also informed that the accused no. 1 had left his room early in the morning on shivratri day together with his friend. thereafter, this witness and his wife went to pavagadh and discussed about the missing of their daughter with his brother and had decided to give a public advertisement and to inform the police. accordingly, on the next day, this witness had informed rajgadh police station. he has further stated that one mato babar, who was serving as a cleaner in the tempo, informed him that he had seen the deceased at about 9.00 a.m. near the bus stand. after giving the public advertisement, the next day, the psi godhra police station had come to his village and sought the details about his daughter. he accordingly showed her photographs. the psi, after comparing the photographs with the dead body, informed him that gajra had died. he and his wife accompanied the police to godhra police station where he was shown the earring, hair ribbon and a coin in presence of the panchas. on 14.3.1990, he was again taken to dabhoi where he was shown silver anklets and ladies purse and handkerchief. he identified them to be of his daughter gajra. this witness has been cross examined. however, nothing substantial has been taken out from his evidence. now, this witness has been corroborated on all material aspects by the other witnesses. the deceased gajra had come from village athamana with meena and narvat and had stayed at village dhaneshwar muvada and the deceased left in the morning of shivratri for village ghoghamba which is corroborated by meenaben somabhai, pw 16 ex. 56 and amratben somabhai, pw 17 ex. 58, the mother of meenaben. meenaben, in fact, in her evidence ex. 56, has stated that the deceased had told her that the accused no. 2 was to come to meet the deceased on shivratri day and she had to go with him for getting earrings and 'mangalsutra'. according to meena, the deceased had left at about 9.00 o'clock in the morning for village ghoghamba and while going, she had told the witness that the accused no. 2 was to come at village ghoghamba. she has further stated that the deceased had put on earrings and had taken a chain from one bhikhiben. she identified the clothes, bangles and slipper put on by the deceased when they were shown by the police. amratben somabhai, pw 17, ex. 58 has more or less supported the say of gordhanbhai as well as meenaben. true, for the first time in the evidence, she has stated that the deceased had told her that she was not liked by her husband because she had big eyes and she was too short. this fact has not been stated in her police statement. however, on this ground alone, we do not think that her evidence is not reliable. reading this evidence, it is clear that the deceased had in fact come from her in-laws' place to her parental house at village dhaneshwar muvada two days prior to the day of shivratri and she had left for village ghoghamba in the morning of 23.2.1990 as agreed between the deceased and the accused no. 2.11. bipinbhai shanabhai, pw 27 ex. 71 has corroborated the say of gordhanbhai. in his evidence, he has stated that he had rented out the front portion of his kitchen to the accused no. 2. the accused no. 2 was his friend and used to take meals with him. according to him, on 22.2.1990, the accused no. 2 had come to him and informed that on the next day, he will have to go out and, therefore, he should be awakened early in the morning. accordingly, this witness, at about 6.30 in the morning, went to wake him. however, the accused no. 2 was not there and a lock was applied on the door. the accused no. 2 had thereafter not returned to him.12. babubhai bhaijibhai, pw 22, ex. 62, the owner of the steel fabrication plant, in his evidence, corroborated the say of gordhanbhai by stating that he and his nephew had come to inquire about the accused no. 2. according to this witness, the accused no. 2 was a worker while the accused no. 1 was a helper working in his factory. he identified both of them in the court. he has produced the muster roll ex. 64. by producing the same, he has stated that both the accused had worked till 22.2.1990 and thereafter had remained absent. babubhai has further stated that on 21.2.1990, the accused no. 2 had taken rs. 90/- from him. he has produced the relevant page showing the entry of withdrawal of rs. 90/- by the accused no. 2. according to this witness, on 19.3.1990, pi of rajpara police station came with both the accused and recovered a pipe under the panchanama from his factory. the muddamal article no. 30 was shown to him to which this witness has stated that the same was made by the accused no. 1 in his factory and while making the same, the accused no. 1 had informed him that it was for cutting the vegetables. he has stated that the said knife was made in his factory as the handle of the knife is of the pipe which is made from the used pipe article 30. in the cross examination, he has admitted that his brother-in-law is looking after the administration of labour. the presence marked in the muster is by his brother-in-law bhanu prasad. regarding pipe article 30, he has stated that in the factory, such pipes are kept as per the requirement. the accused no. 1 had taken out the pipe article 30 from the nearby rack where they were sitting. he has denied the suggestion that the pipe article 30 has not been recovered from the factory in his presence. he has admitted that he has not stated in his police statement that the accused no. 1 had informed him that he was making a knife for cutting the vegetables. reading his evidence, it is clear that nothing substantial has been taken out by the defence. the evidence of bipinbhai and babubhai make it clear that both the accused had worked upto 22.2.1990 and 23.2.1990 being the day of shivratri holiday, had not attended their work on 23.2.1990 and thereafter also. the accused no. 1 had in fact informed his landlord bipinbhai that he had to go out in the morning of 23.2.1990 and had in fact gone early in the morning and not returned thereafter. it would not be out of place to refer to the evidence of ashok kumar keshavlal shah, pw 38 ex. 102 who is the owner of s.m. cycle stand, opposite railway station, baroda. according to him, on 20.3.1990, pi godhra police station had come to him and had shown token no. 145 and receipt no. 4169 of the cycle stand belonging to this witness. he has identified the same to be of his cycle stand and has also identified his handwritings. he has stated that the cycle for the said token number was there in his cycle stand. on the basis of the said receipt, he identified the keys of the cycle and handed over the cycle to the police which was recovered under the panchanama and the police had paid the fees of rs. 12.50 for the same. the witness issued the receipt vide ex. 103. interestingly, the police, when arrested the accused no. 2, also recovered the token as well as the receipt from him. as per the evidence of ashok kumar, the cycle was parked on 23.2.1990. in other words, the accused no. 2 had parked his cycle on 23.2.1990 at s.m. cycle stand, baroda. it is also clear from the evidence of the investigating officer that the distance between baroda and village ghoghamba is 60 k.ms. in view of the clear evidence of bipinbhai that the accused no. 2 had already left his room before 6.00 a.m., it is reasonable to infirm that the accused no. 2 must have left for going to village ghoghamba to meet his wife. the prosecution, in the instant case, has also relied upon the evidence of other witness which go to prove the presence of not only the accused no. 1, but also of the accused no. 2 together with the deceased between 9 and 10 a.m. on the day in the question i.e. shivratri day.13. shantilal ditiabhai, pw 19 ex. 59 is serving as attendant in the office of talati of dhaneshwar muvada. he knows gordhanbhai as well as his daughter gajra. according to him, on 23.2.1990, he had gone to village ghoghamba and was waiting at the bus stand to go to village rayan muvada at about 9.00 or 10.00 a.m. at that time, he saw the deceased in the company of the accused no. 2 at the bus stand. on making the inquiry, the deceased told him that she was going with her husband to godhra. in the cross examination, he has stated that he had informed gordhanbhai mohanbhai regarding he having seen the deceased at the bus stand before his statement was recorded by the police.14. mangalsinh anopsinh, pw 20 ex. 60, who is having his snacks shop in the bazar of village ghoghamba, has stated in his evidence that the daughter of gordhanbhai and her husband had come to his shop at about 10.00 a.m. on being asked to her, she told him that she was going to her maternal house. both of them had thereafter gone in a bus leading to jinjari. he has identified the accused no. 2 who was there with the deceased on the said day. he specifically stated that he knows gordhanbhai not by name, but by face. in his cross examination, he has stated that his shop is at about 200 feet away and he has not stated before the police that on being asked, the deceased had stated that she was going to her maternal house.15. kiransinh babarsinh, pw 15, ex. 55, who is the cleaner of a tempo, in his evidence, has stated that while he was at village ghoghamba, near his tempo, waiting for the passengers at about 9.30 a.m., he saw his cousin gajra in the company of her husband and one more person. both were talking to her. he offered lift to all of them for halol. however, the deceased told him that they were going to godhra. he thereafter went away for halol.16. the evidence of one more witness i.e. shantaben is relevant to show the presence of the accused in the company of the deceased at village ghoghamba bus stand. shantaben somabhai, pw 33 ex. 84 is residing at dhaneshwar muvada and had gone to village ghoghamba for labour work. she saw the deceased with both the accused at village ghoghamba bus stand at about 9.00 a.m. in the cross examination, she has admitted that ordinarily, she remains with the family on the festival day and shivratri being the festival day, she spends the day with her family. she has further admitted that she is residing in the same maholla where gordhanbhai is residing. the evidence of this witness clearly establishes the presence of the deceased with both the accused at village ghoghamba between 9.00 and 10.00 a.m. even if we ignore the evidence of shantaben and kiransinh on the ground that they are interested witnesses, the evidence of shantilal and mangalsinh clearly go to establish the presence of all the three at village ghoghamba at the relevant time. their evidence is natural and truthful. therefore, it inspires confidence. the deceased being a girl of their village, they were curious to know as to where she was going. they will not be knowing the other accused by name and, therefore, they did not ask any question to them, but they simply tried to get the information from the deceased only. we, therefore, feel that their evidence inspires confidence. true, the deceased did not inform them about the place where they wanted to go as the names of some different places have been given by these witnesses. but they would not change the fact that these witnesses had seen the deceased in the company of the accused at village ghoghumba.15.7.1999:17. tulsiben, pw no. 26, ex. 70 also throws some light regarding movements of the accused with the deceased on the day of shivratri. she is having her shop facing the road at village eral. she has stated that both the accused had come to her shop on the day of shivratri and purchased 100 grams of chavana wafers from her shop. she identified both the accused in the court. in the cross examination she has stated that she does not know the names and addresses of the accused. her evidence would go to show that both the accused were together on the day of shivratri. she is not expected to know the name and address of each of her customers. the last witness who has seen the deceased in the company of both the accused is ratilal bundilal, pw no. 21, exh. 61. he runs a hotel in the name of kunj vihar at godhra. according to him on 17.3.1990, shri rajpara, police inspector, godhra visited his hotel along with both accused present in the court. he identified accused no. 1, who is also known as pravin. according to him 15 to 20 days prior to 17.3.1990 both the accused came with one lady to his hotel for having meals. according to him, accused no. 1 was in fact serving as a labourer in his hotel a year ago. he, therefore, knew accused no. 1. he further stated that the accused no. 1 had introduced himself to be belonging to village sevalia and had worked in his hotel for about 15 to 17 days. the payment for the meals was made by the accused no. 2. he was informed by the police that name of the accused no. 1 was firoz and the name of the accused no. 2 was navrat. in the cross examination several questions were put as to the employment of the accused no. 1 in his hotel. however, nothing substantial has come out. out of the witnesses who have seen the deceased in the company of both the accused, in our opinion, the evidence of the witness ratilal is very important as far as the prosecution is concerned. this witness is the last person who has seen the deceased alive along with the accused. he is having a hotel at godhra and the deceased was found dead in the vicinity of godhra town soon thereafter. the fact that the accused no. 1 has served with him and he, therefore, identified accused no. 1 who was present on the day of occurrence, is a strong circumstance against the accused. dr. laxmanbhai rathod of the civil hospital, godhra, who has completed the postmortem on the deceased on the next day at about 5.30 p.m., in his evidence has clearly found semi digested food in the stomach of the deceased. this would go to suggest that the deceased was done to death few hours after she consumed food with the accused. the evidence of this witness clearly establishes the presence of the deceased with the accused on the day of occurrence. the learned advocate for the appellants submitted that even if the evidence of these prosecution witnesses is accepted, it would, at the most, go to suggest that the deceased was with the accused in the morning and in the evening hours. in the submission of the learned advocate, the prosecution has not established the activity of the accused during noon time and their movements after they consumed food at hotel kunj vihar. there cannot be evidence showing the presence of the deceased and the accused on each and every hour. while deciding the case on circumstantial evidence the circumstances with regard to the presence of the accused with the deceased along with other circumstances, namely, the conduct of the accused prior to or after the incident, the motive if any and other available relevant circumstances are required to be taken into account. merely because the prosecution could not establish the presence of the deceased with the accused during the noon time or after consuming food till the dead body was found, that fact itself cannot lead to a conclusion that the important link in the chain of circumstances is missing.18. while narrating the facts we have stated that the accused no. 1 was found loitering at dabhoi bus stand in the early hours of 24.2.1990 and was arrested by dabhoi police and was on the next day produced before the court wherein he pleaded guilty and was thereafter sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for 10 days. similarly, accused no. 2 was arrested in the similar fashion on 26.2.1990 at about 8.45 am and was also sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for 10 days. the accused no. 2 in fact disclosed his name as manojkumar parmar before the police obviously with a view not to disclose his identity. the evidence of bismillah khan janbazkhan khan pathan, psi, dabhoi police station, pw 42, exh.115, would go to suggest the manner in which the accused were arrested and the panchnama attaching their blood stained clothes and the muddamal articles including anklets (chhada) belonging to the deceased recovered from them was drawn. since the accused have also not disputed the fact that they were not arrested by the police officers of dabhoi police station, it is not necessary for us to reiterate the evidence of the police officials.19. besides the evidence of the prosecution witnesses who have seen the deceased in the company of the accused almost the entire day of shivratri before she was found dead on the railway track, in our opinion, there are other circumstances against both the accused, which would lead to the only conclusion that both the accused are responsible for causing murder of the deceased gajra. dr. laxmanbhai somabhai rathod, pw 36, exh. 97, medical officer of the civil hospital, godhra, performed the postmortem of the deceased on 24.2.1990 found as many as 14 injuries. three out of the same are stab wounds which are as under :1. stab wound on post aspect of rt. side of the chest at lower zone. cavity deep size 3 cm x 2 cm, 6' below the rt scapula. 2. stab wound on back of rt. side of chest, 1' below the injury no. 1st. size 2.5 cm, 1.5 cm. bleeding present. 3. stab wound on back of rt. side of chest. size 1.5 cm x 1 cm. cavity deep. just below the injury no. 2. bleeding present.the rest of the injuries are clws, crush injuries and abrasions on different parts of the body. dr. rathod also found the following three internal injuries.1. fructus ribs from 6th to 12th on rt. side of the chest. 2. tear on post surface of rt. side lab of liver size 2.5 x 1.5 cm. 3. tearing of post surface of rt. lobe of liver. size 2 cm x 1 cm. just 1/2' below the 1st injury.according to dr. rathod, the internal injuries nos. 2 and 3 are corresponding to external injuries nos. 1 and 2. the cause of death as per the opinion of the doctor is that the deceased died 'due to shock as a result of excessive external and internal (intra abdominal) hemorrhage following the tearing of liver due to antemortem injury on rt. side of back.' dr. rathod has further deposed that the external injuries nos. 1 and 2 are possible with muddamal knife, article 20. in view of the evidence of dr. rathod, it is clear that the deceased died homicidal death which is with the use of the muddamal knife. the police during the course of investigation attached number of articles including muddamal knife with blood stains from the scene of offence and the same was sent to the forensic science laboratory, ahmedabad. as per the forensic science laboratory report, exh. 18, the muddamal knife was having blood group 'b', i.e. the same group of the deceased. it is also clear from the fsl report that accused no. 1 is having 'o' group blood and the accused no. 2 is having 'a' blood group. during the course of investigation, the pant and undergarment (jangia) of the accused no. 1 were attached vide articles 17 and 18. similarly, shirt and pant of the accused no. 2 were also attached vide articles 27 and 28. as per the fsl report, articles 17, 18, 27 and 28 contain 'b' blood group. in view of the fsl report it is clear that the muddamal knife was used for commission of the offence, and with the result, the clothes of the accused were stained with the blood, having the same group of the deceased. admittedly, both the accused are not having the same blood group of the deceased and therefore, this is a very strong circumstance for their involvement in the commission of the crime. it is to be noted that the police attached muddamal knife along with other articles found near the dead body of the deceased during the course of the investigation which is quite different from recovering or discovering at the instance of the accused under sec. 27 of the evidence act. therefore, there is no possibility of falsely involving the accused in the commission of the offence. in this view of the matter, the only question which is required to be decided is as to whether the accused has any connection with the muddamal knife. reading the panchnama, exh. 45 it is clear that the muddamal knife is not an ordinary knife. it was specially made by the accused no. 1 by welding a pipe with the blade of the knife. babubhai bhaijibhai, pw 22 has identified the knife and has stated in his evidence that the handle was made from the used pipe lying in his factory by the accused no. 1. the police in fact attached the piece of the used pipe. in view of this evidence, we have no manner of doubt that the accused no. 1 made the knife in the factory of babubhai and the same was used in the commission of the offence.in view of the above discussion the following circumstances emerge :(i) the accused and the deceased were together on the day of occurrence and they moved from place to place and ultimately reached godhra where the dead body was found in the vicinity of godhra town on the railway track. (ii) the deceased while leaving her father's place in the morning had specifically mentioned that she was going to meet her husband and the place of meeting already fixed by them was village ghoghamba. (iii) as many as four prosecution witnesses have seen the deceased in the company of the accused at ghoghamba. (iv) she was already given rs. 20/- few days back by her husband, i.e. accused no. 2 being the amount of fare for going to ghoghamba. (v) injuries on the person of the deceased, i.e three stab wounds are possibly by the use of the weapon made by the accused no. 1 himself in the factory, where he used to work. (vi) the blood stains found on the clothes of the accused no. 1 and those found on the weapon are having the same blood group as that of the deceased. (vii) 'chhada' of the deceased was recovered from the accused no. 2. (viii) abnormal conduct of the accused no. 2 who did not bother to inquire about his wife and went away from the place alone. (ix) absence of both the accused from their duty after the incident. and finally, (x) their attempt to put the dead body on the railway track to make it appear that she died of an accident.these circumstances, in our opinion, are sufficient to establish beyond in any manner of doubt that the murder of the deceased gajra was committed by the accused. we are in complete agreement with the reasoning and findings of the trial court. in our opinion, the learned trial judge was perfectly justified in convicting the accused for the offences under sec. 302 read with 34 and under sec. 201 read with sec. 114 of indian penal code. there being no substance, both these appeals are dismissed.