Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suryakant Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 January, 2010
Author: Rakesh Saksena
Bench: Rakesh Saksena, Sushma Shrivastava
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
Criminal Appeal No. 2659/2008
Suryakant Singh, s/o Narendra
Singh, aged about 33 years, r/o
16/61, Sohwatia Bagh, P.S.Geoge
Town, district Allahabad, U.P.
..........Appellant
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh
through Police Station Majhagawaon,
Tehsil Majhagawaon, district Satna
(M.P.).
..............Respondent
For the Appellant: Shri Vishal Dhagat and
Shri Mukesh Shukla, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Smt. Chanchal Sharma,
Government Advocate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRESENT:
HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH SAKSENA
HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE SUSHMA SHRIVASTAVA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing: 07/01/2010
Date of Judgment: 19 /01/2010
JUDGMENT
Per: Rakesh Saksena, J.
Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 18.11.2008, passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Satna, in Sessions Trial No.30/2006, convicting him under Section 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.500/- and rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.500/-, on each count respectively.
2
2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 13.9.2005 Motilal Lohar, resident of village Hirodi, Police Station, Majhgawan, district Satna (M.P.), lodged a report with the Police, Majhgawan, that when he was going to stay at his field, he saw something burning beneath a culvert. In the morning, when he went at that place, he saw the dead body of a woman in burnt condition. Police registered a Marg and initiated enquiry. It seized a blood stained towel, broken bangles, a ring found in the left hand's thumb of the body and piece of clothe of unburnt Salwar. Near the spot, a fired bullet of .315 bore was also found, which was also seized. The dead body was sent for postmortem examination and a case under Section 302/201 was registered. On 15.9.2005, Dharmraj Singh and Mannu Yadav came to know from the news published in the newspaper about the dead body found within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Majhgawan. By the time, dead body was buried. They identified the articles seized from the spot to be that of Dipika Singh, daughter of Dharmraj Singh, who was married to accused Suryakant. Dharmraj Singh expressed his suspicion on Suryakant. On investigation, police found that Dipika Singh was married to Suryakant in Allahabad on 12.2.2004. After marriage, Suryakant suspected the character of Dipika Singh and started maltreating her. With a view to get rid of Dipika Singh, he planned her murder with accused Arvind Pandey and Atul Katiyar. He alongwith Dipika, Arvind Pandey and Atul Katiyar proceeded for visiting the temple of Godess at Maihar in the car U.P. 70-AB-4754, which belonged to Dharmraj. They started at about 11.30 a.m. on 12.9.2005, after keeping 15 litres of petrol in a jerry can in the dicky of 3 the car. On their way, enroute Chitrakut, at about 8.00 p.m., Suryakant killed Dipika Singh by firing Katta at her and dropped the dead body in a culvert by the side of road and set fire to it after sprinkling petrol. It is said that after return to Allahabad, he got his car repaired by denting and painting and by changing the seat covers and mattings of the car with a view to conceal incriminating evidence of the offence. He threw away the old seat covers etc. in the river Ganga.
3. After completing the investigation, police filed charge sheet against all the three accused persons under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25/27 of the Arms Act. Case was then committed for trial.
4. All the accused abjured their guilt and pleaded false implication.
5. According to the statement given by accused Suryakanat under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, his wife Dipika Singh was continuing her study. As examinations were approaching, she was residing at her parents' house. There was no dispute between them, however, she was a woman of frank and self-willed nature. On the day of incident, he had gone to his office of LIC and thereafter he had gone to the house of his friend Mahendra Gupta from where he returned at about 12.00 O'clock in the night. When he received information that Dipika was missing, he contacted his father-in-law on telephone and went to police station with him. Police asked them to wait. Later on, he was sent to Police Station, Majhgawan, where Station Officer of the Police Station manhandled him and demanded Rs.10 lacs from him. Since he did not give money, a false case was concocted against him. 4 His father-in-law had also demanded Rs.5 lacs for the marriage of his elder daughter, but he could give only Rs.60,000/-. Being annoyed, he also got him involved in the false case. According to him, his wife had gone to Delhi; he had no knowledge as to where she went from there. Accused examined Siyaram as DW-1 in his defence.
6. There was no direct evidence in the case and the case rested on the circumstantial evidence only.
7. Prosecution, in order to substantiate its case, examined 23 witnesses in the case. On the basis of evidence led by the prosecution, learned trial judge found following circumstances proved beyond doubt against appellant:
(1) Identification of the dead body of Dipika Singh (deceased); (2) Homicidal nature of the death of deceased; (3) Accused being seen last together with the deceased; (4) Recovery of Katta used in the commission of offence at the instance of accused;
(5) Repairing and changing the furnishings of the car in which the deceased was taken;
(6) Motive on the part of accused; and (7) False explanation furnished by the accused;
While convicting accused Suryakant Singh, the trial Court, finding the prosecution evidence not sufficient against the other accused persons viz. Arvind Pandey and Atul Kumar Katiyar, acquitted them.
8. Shri Vishal Dhagat, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the evidence led by the prosecution was unreliable and insufficient for bringing home the charge against the appellant. It was not established beyond doubt that the dead body found by the Police 5 Majhgawan was that of his wife Dipika Singh. The identification of the articles recovered by the father of deceased viz. Dharmraj Singh (PW-6) was not reliable; evidence of last seen together given by Manik Chand (PW-11) and Kashi Prasad (PW-12) was unnatural and unreliable; it was not proved that the Katta was seized on the information furnished by the accused and it was the weapon of the offence and that there was no motive on his part to kill his wife. He placed reliance on Bodhraj vs. State of J & K-AIR 2002 SC 3164. On the other hand, Smt. Chanchal Sharma, learned Government Advocate, contended that the circumstances brought on record by the prosecution evidence were cogently and firmly established and they unerringly pointed towards the guilt of the accused. Since from the circumstances proved, complete chain of evidence was formed, trial court committed no error in holding the accused/appellant guilty. The evidence adduced by the prosecution was fully reliable. The finding of the conviction recorded by the trial Court did not call for any interference.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and evidence on record carefully.
10. Motilal (PW-3) deposed that at about 8.00 p.m. when he and Chhotelal Sahu were going towards their field, they saw something burning near a culvert. The next day morning, they saw a dead body lying there in burnt condition. When police reached there, an inquest memo (Ex.P/3) was prepared and he signed the same. The dead body was half burnt. There was a ring in the thumb of the dead body. A towel and a ring were seized from the spot vide seizure memo Ex.P/4. 6 Though this witness was declared hostile and in the cross-examination he stated that he did not give any statement about recovery of the aforesaid articles to police, yet he admitted his signatures on the inquest and the seizure memo. Another witness Chhotelal (PW-9) was also declared hostile, but he admitted that he had seen the dead body near the culvert and he had signed inquest (Ex.P/3) and the seizure memo (Ex.P/4).
11. R.P. Mishra (PW-22), Station Officer of Police Station, Majhgawan, categorically stated that witness Motilal (PW-3) had given an oral intimation to police that a dead body of unknown woman was lying near the culvert in burnt condition. On his report, Marg No.17/2005 was registered. The Marg intimation was Ex.P/7. In the presence of witnesses Chhotelal (PW-9) and Motilal (PW-3) he conducted the inquest and prepared memorandum (Ex.P/3). From the spot he seized a towel having blood stains, broken bangles and a fired bullet of .315 bore. He also seized a ring and half burnt clothe pieces from the dead body. He recorded the seizure memo Ex.P/4. The evidence of aforesaid witness finds corroboration from Ex.P/3 and Ex.P/4. From the above evidence it is established that the dead body of a woman was found near the culvert in half burnt condition and a ring, half burnt clothes, broken bangles, a towel and fired bullet of .315 cartridge was seized on 13.9.2005 from the spot.
12. Dharmraj Singh (PW-6), father of Dipika Singh, deposed that accused Suryakant was his son-in-law. Dipika was married to him on 12.2.2004. For about a month, after the marriage, relations between 7 them remained cordial. Thereafter, Suryakant and his family members started harassing her. Though the attempts of patch up were made, but in vain. Ultimately, Suryakant sent Dipika back. Near about 10th August 2005, Dipika went to Delhi to the house of her elder sister. On or about 20th August, Suryakant came to him and informed that he had left his house and again wanted to live with Dipika. He talked to Dipika and made her agree to come back and live with him. On 1 st September 2005, Dipika came back; they took a house on rent in LIG Colony; Dipika and Suryakant started living in that house since 7th September 2005. Till 11th September they used to visit their house daily, but, on 12th September, neither they came nor called on phone. When his wife went to the house of Dipika, she found it locked. He tried to contact Suryakant on mobile phone, but it was not reachable. Thereafter, on mobile, Suryakant informed him that Dipika was not there; he had left her at University after giving her Rs.2000/- for fetching the form. He then went to the house of Suryakant and talked to landlady, who informed that Suryakant and Dipika had gone on 12th August with their friends. They went to police station and informed to police about missing of Dipika. Police people, however, told to them that she was an educated lady; she might come back. Despite search, whereabouts of Dipika could not be traced out. On 14th September 2005, he received message on telephone from his friend at Satna that in Dainik Bhasker newspaper it was published that a burnt body of a girl was found. He alongwith Suryakant and Mallu Yadav went to Majhgawan Police Station and made an enquiry. Inspector Mishra informed that after postmortem 8 examination the dead body was buried. He shown him a towel, bangles, burnt clothe and an iron ring found on the body of the deceased. He identified these articles as belongings of his daughter Dipika. A memorandum (Ex. P/1) of identification of articles was drawn. This memorandum was signed by Dharmraj Singh, Mallu Yadav and also by Suryakant. No objection was taken by Suryakant about the identification of the aforesaid articles, which were seized from and near the dead body.
13. The evidence of Dharmraj Singh (PW-6) stood corroborated by the evidence of Mallu (PW-18), who categorically deposed that with Dharmraj and Suryakant he had gone to Police Station, Majhgawan on 15.9.2005 and that Dharmraj had identified towel, a ring and other articles shown by the police to him as belongings of Dipika. He had also signed the memorandum (Ex.P/1).
14. We are unable to accept the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the identification of the seized articles by Dharmraj (PW-6) was not reliable. It cannot be held that because the said articles were identified by Dharmraj before the police, his evidence in this regard was unreliable. It is quite natural that the identity of a person, who has died and his body has been disposed of, can only be fixed by the articles recovered and seized from the spot or from the dead body, by the police. There appears no reason to assume that Dharmraj would have wrongly or falsely identified those articles with any ulterior motive. The recovery and seizure of the articles also could not be doubted because these articles were seized even before it was known or 9 any suspicion arose about the death of Dipika Singh or the involvement of accused in her death. We, therefore, hold that it was proved beyond doubt that Dipika Singh, daughter of Dharmraj Singh (PW-6) had died and the dead body found within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Majhgawan, was that of Dipika Singh.
15. The next question before us is whether Dipika Singh died of a homicidal death? Station Officer R.P. Mishra (PW-22) deposed that on receiving information about the dead body of a woman, when he reached at the spot, he found that the body of deceased was burnt and there was piercing wound on the backside of her left chest. He had also found a fired bullet of .315 bore gun near that place. He had drawn the inquest memo (Ex.P/3) before the witnesses. On perusal of Ex.P/3, it is found mentioned that the body of the deceased was burnt and there was a pointed wound on the left side of the chest of deceased. In the opinion of witnesses, there was possibility of commission of death by any firearm and burning of the body thereafter. Postmortem examination of the dead body was conducted by Dr. Sunil Karkhur (PW-8). He found that it was the body of a woman about 20-21 years of age. There was an entrance wound 1/2" x 1/2" on the upper left part of the back and an exit wound 2"x2" above the left breast. In his opinion, the mode of death was shock due to heart injury produced by gun shot, and the burns found on the body were postmortem in nature. The postmortem reports were Ex.P/19 and P/20 and were signed by him as well as doctor Ku. Asha Saxena. He also deposed that no pellet or bullet was found inside the body and in his opinion, the wound might have been caused 10 by a single bullet.
16. The fact that the death of deceased was caused by gun shot and was homicidal in nature has not been challenged by the accused. In our opinion, it has been established that the death of Dipika Singh was caused by gun shot injury and was homicidal in nature.
17. Now we come to the point whether Dipika Singh was last seen together with the accused Suryakant and whether the inference that her death was caused by the accused can be drawn? Prosecution has led evidence of Manik Chand (PW-11) and Kashi Prasad (PW-12) to prove that immediately before her death the deceased was with her husband Suryakant. According to Manik Chand (PW-11), he knew Dipika Singh and her father Dharmraj Singh. Dipika Singh was married to Suryakant. On 12.9.2005, around 1.00 O'clock in the noon he came to know that his vehicle went out of order, therefore, he was going on a scooter. On way, near railway crossing of Iradatganj, Dipika, who was going with her husband in Maruti car, called him and asked as to where he was going. When he asked her, she told that that she was going to Maihar. For about 5-10 minutes he was there. Suryakant and two other persons were also present in the car. Dipika was wearing a green suit. In the cross-examination, he stated that he had met the father of Dipika after about 7 days of her death and thereafter he had disclosed to police that he had seen Dipika and Suryakant in the car. It is true that under the stress of cross-examination he stated that he did not make any statement to police on 26.10.2005, yet it was proved by R.P. Mishra (PW-22) that his statement (Ex. D/2) was recorded by him on 11 26.10.2005. Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the fact that the deceased called this witness was not mentioned by him in his police Statement (Ex.D/2). However, on perusal of Ex. D/2 it is found that deceased had talked with him. Learned counsel also pointed out that there was delay on the part of this witness to disclose that he had seen the deceased in the company of accused. On going through the statement of this witness, it appears natural and consistent. Merely because of the fact that he was known to the father of the deceased and there was some delay on his part, it cannot be held that he was not a reliable witness. Kashi Prasad Tripathi (PW-12) deposed that Dharamraj Singh and his daughter Dipika Singh were well know to him because he used to work as a contractor of Mining Department and Dharmraj was driver in the mines. Dharmraj had given a white Maruti Car to accused in the marriage. On 12th September 2005, at about 12.00 O'clock in the noon, when he stopped near Baba hotel, situated at Allahabad-Rewa Road, he saw Dipika and accused persons sitting on a table. They were taking lunch. Out of hesitation, he did not go before them and went on the other side leaving them there. After 4-5 days, he came to know that Dipika was murdered and her dead body was found. Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that this witness was closely associated to the father of the deceased and it was admitted by him that Dharmraj had brought him to the Court. He admitted that he used to live at Bara, but used to go Allahabad daily. On that day also he was going to Collectorate for fetching document pertaining to lease. According to him, he had read the news about the death of Dipika in Dainik Jagran 12 newspaper and it was Dharmraj, who had told to police about him and thereafter police had contacted him. He admitted that it was about 1½ months that police came to him and he himself did not go to police for giving his statement. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that, though, according to this witness, he came to know about the death of Dipika after 3-4 days of the alleged occurrence, yet he did not disclose this fact to police untill 1½ months. As such, his statement about the fact of last seen together was not reliable. It is a matter of common knowledge that even if a person knows about some fact, which may be relevant as evidence in a given case, yet it cannot be expected from him that he would take up in his mind always to go to police or to complainant to inform about the said fact unless and until he does not feel himself connected or he is so interested. This witness was not an eyewitness of the occurrence, therefore, it could not be expected from him that he should have gone to police or to the father of the deceased immediately. His conduct, on the contrary, reflected that he was not an interested witness.
18. After a close scrutiny of the evidence of Manik Chand (PW-11) and Kashi Prasad (PW-12), we find that they are trustworthy witnesses and implicit reliance can be placed on their testimony. In our opinion, trial Court rightly held that their evidence was reliable and it was established that they had seen the deceased last in the company of accused/appellant.
19. On the strength of law laid down in the case of Bodhraj vs. State of J & K - AIR 2002 SC 3164, learned counsel for the appellant 13 argued that the last seen theory comes into play where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of crime becomes impossible. It would be difficult in some cases to positively establish that the deceased was last seen with the accused when there is a long gap and possibility of other person coming in between exists. In absence of any other positive evidence to conclude that accused and deceased were last seen together, it would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of a guilt in those cases.
20. In our humble opinion, ratio of above case does not help the accused in the case in hand, as on facts the above case is distinguishable. The peculiar circumstance in the present case is that the deceased in this case is the wife of accused. It would have been natural for the accused to be seen last in the company of his wife, if the death of his wife would have occurred in their dwelling house. Here the accused and his wife were residents of Allahabad and the dead body of his wife was found around 200 Kms away near the road of Satna. They were seen last by the witnesses at Allahabad near about 12-1 O'clock in the noon and it was found that the incident occurred about 8.00 O'clock in the night. Had accused and the deceased not been related as husband and wife, it could have been imagined that deceased might have parted from the company of accused, but it cannot be presumed in the circumstances of the present case that the wife, who was going in the car with her husband from Allahabad to Maihar, would leave the 14 company of her husband and would be killed by somebody else on the same road on which they were about to proceed. It is apparent from the evidence of Manik Chand (PW-11) that deceased had told to him that they were going to Maihar. We are, therefore, of the definite opinion that it has been amply established that the accused Suryakant was seen last in the company of his wife in the car when they were on way to Maihar (district Satna). Prosecution had also adduced evidence to prove that a .315 bore Katta was recovered at the instance of accused. Dharmraj Singh (PW-6) deposed that on interrogation by police Suryakant disclosed that Katta used by him in the offence was concealed by him in a bush. The memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was recorded by R.P. Mishra (PW-22). On the said information, when police went to Satna road, a Katta was recovered and was seized by the police vide seizure memo Ex. P/16. On perusal of Ex.P/16, it is seen that a country made Katta of .315 bore was recovered near the road beneath the bushes. Similar facts were reiterated by Ram Kumar Singh (PW-19). According to this witness, a country made Kutta was recovered on the information given by the accused and there was an empty cartridge in the chamber of said Katta. He had signed the seizure memo (Ex. P/16). The evidence of these witnesses gives support to the evidence of Investigating Officer R.P. Mishra (PW-22), who recorded the memorandum of information (Ex.P/15) and recovered the Katta and empty cartridge at the instance of accused kept concealed under a bush. R.P. Mishra (PW-22) categorically stated that accused took out Katta kept beneath the bush. He further stated that accused was arrested on 15 17.9.2005 and the Katta seized at his instance. According to him, it was seized and sealed at the spot. Since it was printed in the form that seized articles were sealed, it was not separately recorded. According to him, seized Katta and the cartridge were sent to ballistic expert. On perusal of the ballistic expert's report (Ex.P/35) it is revealed that Article- A was a country made .315/8 mm bore pistol. It was in working condition. On chemical examination of its barrel, it was confirmed that it was fired in the past, though it was not possible to give opinion with certainty about the time when it was fired. The expert had also examined the bullet (Article H), which was seized by the police on 13.9.2005 near the place of incident. It was a copper jacketed soft nose bullet. It was a bullet of .315/8 mm cartridge. Though barrel marks were present on the bullet, but they were not sufficient for comparison. However, it was opined that the bullet was fired by a weapon like Article A/1. From the postmortem report, it has been proved that the deceased had died of gun shot injury. A fired bullet was seized by the investigating officer from the spot on 13.9.2005 and the Katta from which the said bullet could have been fired was recovered at the instance of accused. This clearly indicates that the Katta seized from the possession of the accused was used in commission of the offence.
21. According to prosecution, the deceased was shot dead while she was in the car. It is natural that some stains of blood and the mark of the bullet could have been found in the car, but the car, which was said to have used by the accused for taking away the deceased, was got washed and its seat covers etc. were changed. The car was also repaired 16 by denting and painting soon after the occurrence. According to Dharrmraj Singh (Ex. P/6), Maruti car UP-70-AB-4754 was seized by the police vide seizure memo Ex.P/14. According to him, this car was parked at the place where Suryakant lived. On perusal of Ex.P/14 though it is found mentioned that the car was seized from the house of Dharmraj Singh, however, it was noted in it that the car was parked in front of the house where Suryakant Singh resided. Jeetlal (PW-16), who ran a garage of painting in Allahabad, deposed that he knew Suryakant. He had a Maruti-800 car. He had worked on that car on two occasions. He painted the rear door of the car where the paint was scratched. When he had brought the car, the dent on the rear door was already removed and he had painted on that very spot. The evidence of Jeetlal (PW-16) finds support from the evidence of Shiv Kumar @ Bablu (PW-21), who happened to be an electrician in the same garage. According to him, Suryakant brought his car in the garage for painting on the rear door of the car. Suryakant had told that an iron bar had pierced at the end of rear door. Painter Jeetlal (PW-16) had applied 'Putti' and painted at the spot.
22. From the above evidence, in our opinion, it is established that after occurrence the dent of the car was got repaired by the accused. It was stated by Dharmraj (PW-6) that before going to police station when Suryakant came to him he noticed that the car in which Suryakant had come was washed and its seat covers were changed. At that time he felt suspicion as to why the car was washed at that time. This indicates that Suryakant, with a view to screen the commission of offence, changed the 17 seat covers, mattings etc. and got the car repaired.
23. As far as motive is concerned, Dharmraj Singh (PW-6) deposed that after about a month of marriage of Dipika with Suryakant, he and his family members started harassing Dipika and twice or thrice she was constrained to leave his house. In December 2004, Suryakant told him that he would not keep Dipika with him. Some time thereafter, Suryakant pressurized him to send Dipika back to his house and he sent her, but again he sent her back. In the month of April 2005, when the marriage of his second daughter Shalini was performed, none of the in- laws of Dipika had come to attend the marriage. Thereafter, Dipika was not inclined to go back to her husband's house. She had gone to Delhi where her sister was residing. A few days before the incident Suryakant approached to Dharmraj and requested Dipika to live with him. Wife of Dharmraj then searched out a house and Dipika and Suryakant then started living in a rented house from 7th December 2005. The relations between deceased and the accused were strained is also indicated by the suggestion put by the accused in the cross-examination of Dharmraj Singh that Dipika had close intimacy with one Hamza Usman and that she belonged to hi-fy society and used to consume liquor. The fact that the relations of accused were strained with Dipika is further established from the evidence of mother of Dipika Singh viz. Geeta Singh (PW-7), who deposed that after marriage when Dipika came back, after about a month, she disclosed that accused used to manhandle her. Third time, when Dipika came to her house, she informed that Suryakant insisted for divorce. Mallu Yadav (PW-18), who was also close to the family of 18 Dipika Singh stated that frequently there occurred disputes between Dipika and Suryakant and Dipika often went to her parents' house. There appears no reason to disbelieve the evidence of these witnesses. In our opinion, the afore stated facts clearly indicate that the relations between deceased and accused Suryakant were not cordial, rather were strained. In these circumstances, in our opinion, there is enough evidence to establish the motive for commission of the offence by the accused.
24. In addition to above circumstances, it has also come in the evidence of Dharmraj (PW-6) that when he and his wife found Dipika missing from the house of Suryakant, they tried to contact him, but his mobile remained unreachable. When Suryakant talked to Dharmraj, he informed that he had given Rs.2000/- to Dipika and had dropped her at the University for obtaining a form. On 13th , Suryakant came with his friend and informed him that he was searching for Dipika, but she was not traceable. Mallu Yadav (PW-18) deposed that when they asked to Suryakant about Dipika, he told that he had gone to Banaras to fetch a form for B.Ed. for Dipika. These explanations were clearly false.
25. In his defence, accused examined Siyaram Sharma (DW-1), to establish that on 12. 9.2005, at about 12.30 p.m. he was present in the LIC Office, Allahabad. Siyaram stated that he met Suryakant in the LIC Office at about 12.30 p.m., but after about 15 minutes Suryakant had left the office and thereafter he did not return to the office. Thus, it was not established that Suryakant remained in Allahabad for whole of the day. Though, in his statement, under Section 313 of the Code of 19 Criminal Procedure, he stated that after leaving his office he had gone to Gopiganj to meet his friend Mahendra Gupta and thereafter he returned to his house at about 12.00 O'clock in the night, but no suggestions were put to any of the witnesses and no witness was examined by him to substantiate this plea. The allegation made by him in the above statement that police officer had demanded Rs.10 lacs from him also appears to be doubtful, as no such suggestion was given to Investigating Officer R.P. Mishra (PW-22) and also no complaint was made to any officer in that regard.
26. It has been settled by the Apex Court in the case of Bodhraj (supra) that a conviction can be based solely on the circumstantial evidence, but the conditions precedent before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully established. They are :
1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must' or 'should' and not 'may' be established;
2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;
4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
27. Keeping in view the aforesaid settled principle of law for acceptance of the circumstantial evidence, when we examine the evidence adduced by the prosecution, we find that the aforesaid circumstances were proved by the prosecution by cogent and reliable 20 evidence and they had clear tendency to indicate that it was accused/appellant only, who had committed the offence. The circumstances taken together form a complete chain unerringly pointing out that appellant committed murder of his wife Dipika Singh, and with a view to conceal the offence, set fire to her body. In our opinion, it is not possible to hold that except accused, someone else took his wife from Allahabad towards Satna and caused her death. We hold that the trial Court correctly appreciated the evidence and recorded the finding of conviction of the appellant.
28. In the result, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the accused, passed by the trial Court, is affirmed. We find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.
(RAKESH SAKSENA) (SMT. SUSHMA SHRIVASTAVA)
JUDGE JUDGE
shukla
21
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
Criminal Appeal No. 2659/2008
Suryakant Singh
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh
JUDGMENT
For consideration
(Rakesh Saksena)
JUDGE
__/01/2010
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Sushma Shrivastava
JUDGE
__/01/2010
POST FOR /01/2010
(Rakesh Saksena)
Judge
___/01/2010