The judgment establishes the principle that circumstantial evidence, including movements, presence at the crime scene, and physical evidence, can be sufficient to prove guilt in a murder case.

Judgment

S. JAFER IMAM J. : In these appeals the appellants were convicted for the murder of Malchand Bhadani. A charge under S. 302, Indian Penal Code, had been framed against each of them. The Sessions Judge found that the murder had been committed in the furtherance of their common intention. In his opinion as appellant Bipin Behari Sarkar had actually committed the murder he convicted this appellant under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He convicted the appellant Bishnu Charan Saha under Ss. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. He sentenced both the appellants to death. The appellants appealed to the Calcutta High Court while the Sessions Judge made a reference for the confirmation of the death sentence passed by him. The High Court found the appellants guilty under Sections 302/34 of e Indian Penal Code.It accordingly confirmed the sentence of death imposed on the appellants by the Sessions Judge.

2. According to the prosecution, one Tarachand Bhadari had a cloth shop at Mathabhanga in the district of Cooch Bihar. He was joint in business and mess with his two sons, Prithiraj and the deceased Malchand. The annual turnover of the shop was between Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 60,000. On December 18, 1956, Tarachand had gone to Rajasthan and Prithiraj had gone to Falakata Hat. Accordingly at the shop on that day Malchand was the only person incharge of it. At about 8-30 p. m., after the close of the day s business, Malchand was counting the cash in the iron safe in an ante-room of the shop when the appellants with one Sanatan Das, who was acquitted at the trial, called at the shop. Malchand came out of the ante-room into the shop to attend to these late customers. He had left open the safe and one of its drawers on the floor. The appellants purported to make certain purchases and examined various pieces of cloth. After selection of the cloth they were put into packets. Cash memoes in duplicate were prepared and signed by Malchand and the appellant Bishnu Charan Saha. The cash memoes had been completely filled in. Two of them had been separated from the cash-memo book, but before the 3rd cash-memo could be detached from the book, Malchand was struck down by the appellants with a heavy cutting instrument which they had carried. The neck was so severely cut that the head was nearly severed from the trunk. Just about then, a neighbour called out to Malchand by way of casual enquiry before retiring for the night. This so frightened the miscreants that they fled. The money in the open safe was left untouched. The motive for the murder was to steal the money form the safe.

3. On December 25, 1956, the police seized a sharp cutting weapon variously described as a sword or a dagger. It was found lying close to some shrubbery near Malchand s shop. It was stained with human blood.

4. It was a practice of the shop of Tarachand Bhadani to despatch from time to time, after obtaining Hundis , the accumulated proceeds of the business to Calcutta. On the morning of December 18, 1956 Prithiraj, before he went to Falakata Hat had made enquiries from the firm of Bhairabdan Bhowrilal whether any Hundi was available. As Bhowrilal was not able to supply him the Hundi the cash remained in the shop. The contents of the safe showed that on December 18, 1956 before Malchand was murdered there was a sum of Rs. 3,913 in cash and 8 1/4 tolas of gold. There was, therefore a substantial amount in the safe at the shop which would have been stolen were it not that the miscreants fled after murdering Malchand because of a neighbour calling out to him.

5. The conviction of the appellants, as pointed out by the High Court, depended entirely on circumstantial evidence. The High Court did not rely upon the confessional statement made by the appellant Bishnu Charan Saha to a Magistrate, as, in its opinion, it was not a voluntary statement. Reference will be made to the circumstantial evidence, upon which the High Court relied, in due course. Before we deal with that aspect of t