Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The case of the prosecution can be summarized in a narrow compass as under:

2. On 01.09.2015, Sachin Jungari (PW1) received information on the phone that his father-in-law/Dr. Jogi and mother-in-law/Mrs. Sudha Jogi are no more and therefore, he alongwith his wife Smita (PW14) and other relatives came to village Nanda. When they entered into the house of Dr. Jogi, they found that Dr. Jogi and Mrs. Jogi were lying in the pool of blood and they were murdered by some unknown person. Articles in the house were scattered. On search, Sachin (PW1) and Smita (PW14) found that one LED TV, DVD player, one set-top box, gold and silver ornaments, cash amount, coins, mobile phones and others articles were missing. On the complaint lodged by Sachin (PW1), offences under Section 302 and 460 came to be registered against unknown persons and police machinery was set into motion. The incriminating articles were seized from the spot. The investigating officer referred the dead bodies for post-mortem and prepared spot panchanama, inquest panchanama and questionnaire for the Medical Officer. Thereafter, clothes of the deceased were also seized.

18. Let's consider the next circumstance; recovery of a set- top box of TataSky company connected to the house of the deceased couple at the instance of the appellant in the presence of Govindprasad Gupta (PW2), other panchas and the investigating officer. Govindprasad Gupta (PW2), Assistant Teacher has deposed that on 19.03.2016, the appellant was present in the police station and he confessed that, an LED TV and a set-top box have been concealed by him and showed his readiness to handover the same. The memorandum panchamana (Exh.62) came to be prepared and thereafter, the appellant took them near a Nalla. The appellant entered the said Nalla and took out one set-top box of TataSky Company which was seized under recovery panchanama (Exh.63) and then police took six photographs. This witness has identified the said set-top box produced by the prosecution in Court as Article-1.

11 apeal102.19.odt Inspite of searching cross-examination, nothing has been brought on record by the appellant to disbelieve the testimony of this independent witness, who is an assistant teacher. His version is also corroborated by the Investigating Officer (PW18) as well as memorandum panchanama (Exh.62) and recovery panchanama (Exh.63) coupled with identification of the set-top box (Article-1) before the Court. Perusal of the recovery panchanama (Exh.63) reveals that the said TataSky set-top box contained a white coloured card bearing No.000114492705. It is also brought on record that the said set-top box was registered in the name of Sachin (PW1), the son-in-law of the deceased couple. Thus, prosecution has also established the recovery of set-top box of TataSky company at the instance of the appellant which was missing from the house of the deceased couple.

24. Possession of ornaments of deceased Sudha Jogi, the TataSky set-top box which was missing from the house of the deceased couple and the weapon i.e. iron rod are recovered at the instance of the appellant so also, the possession of Micromax mobile bearing IMEI No.911368008699620 which belongs to deceased Sudha Jogi, in the custody of appellant and the fact that the said Micromax mobile phone was being used by the appellant after the incident is self-speaking. It was for the appellant to explain as to how he got the possession of the gold and silver ornaments as well as the set-top box and the iron rod but he failed to offer any explanation of the special knowledge of possessing those articles which belonged to the deceased couple. The appellant took a defence of total denial and has filed to offer no explanation about incriminating circumstances put to him at the time of recording his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC. Appellant in his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC did not offer any explanation about recovery of these articles belonging to deceased Sudha and the murder weapon. "The mere denial of prosecution case coupled with absence of any explanation was held to be inconsistent with the innocence with the accused, but consistent with the hypothesis that 16 apeal102.19.odt the appellant is a prime accused in the commission of murder of his wife." (vide Ganeshlal Vs. State of Maharashtra 2). Therefore, he did not discharge the burden under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. As per the presumption under Section 114 illustration (a) of the Indian Evidence Act, it can be inferred that it is the accused who has stolen those articles from the house of deceased Jogi couple.