Baiju Alias Bharosa vs State Of M. P.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1978 Supreme(SC) 19

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. MUTRAZA FAZAL ALI AND P.N. SHINGHAL, JJ.
Baiju, Appellant
Versus
State of M.P., Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 128 and 129 of 1977
Decided on 19-1-1978.
Advocates appeared
Mr. P. C. Bhartari, Advocate Amicus Curiae (in Crl A. No. 128/77) and Mr. R. K. Jain, Advocate Amicus Curiae (in Crl. A. No. 129/77) for Appellants; Mr. I. N. Shroff, Advocate for Respondent in both the Appeals.

Advocates:
I.M.SHROFF, P.C.BHARTARI, R.K.JAIN

Headnote:
Evidence about its identification – Jurisdiction – Claim of compensation - Therefore went to the house of her parents at village with her father-in-law appellant, in the mean time, persuaded to go with him to an adjoining for performing some religious rites, killed him there and threw his dead body - He then went back to house, took Smt. to another place in the same killed her there and threw her dead body also in the "nala". It has further been alleged that the appellant went to the house of and killed his mother Smt. Bhagwanti and his nephew Rambakas while they were sleeping there. He ransacked the house, broke open the boxes and took away a number of articles including a transistor, a watch, a bicycle, torch, two "addhis" gold, clothes, ornaments – Held, As has been stated, the prosecution has succeeded in proving beyond any doubt that the commission of the murders and the robbery formed part of one transaction, and the recent and unexplained possession of the stolen property by the appellant justified the presumption that it was he, and no one else, who had committed the murders and the robbery. It will be recalled that the offences were committed on the night intervening January 20 and 21, 1975, and the stolen property was recovered from the house of the appellant or at his instance on January 28, 1975. The appellant was given an opportunity to explain his possession, as well as his conduct in decoying Smt. Lakhpatiya and the other persons who died at his hand, but he was unable to do so. The question whether a presumption should be drawn under illustration (a) of S. 114 of the Evidence Act is a matter which depends on the evidence and the circumstances of each case. Thus the nature of the stolen article, the manner of its acquisition by the owner, the nature of the evidence about its identification, the manner in which it was dealt with by the appellant, the place and the circumstances of its recovery, the length of the intervening period. the ability or otherwise of the appellant to explain his possession, are factors which have to be taken into consideration in arriving at a decision. We have made a mention of the facts and circumstances bearing on these points and we have no doubt that there was ample justification for reaching the inevitable conclusion that it was the appellant and no one else who had committed the four murders and the robbery. In the face of the overwhelming evidence on which reliance has been placed by the High Court it is futile to argue that the murders could not have been committed by a single person. As has been stated there is satisfactory evidence on the record to show that the dead bodies of Ramdayal and Smt. Fulkunwar were found at two different places near the "nala" so that it cannot be said that they were murdered together, As regards Smt. Bhagwanti and Rambakas, the evidence on the record shows that they were murdered while they were asleep in the house, and there is no reason why a single person could not have committed their murders also - Appeals dismissed

JUDGMENT

SHINGHAL J.:— Ramdayal (deceased) son of Ranglal (P.W. 2) lived in his house at village Gauripur, district Sarguja, with his two wives Smt. Fulkunwar (deceased) and Smt. Lakhpatiya (P. W. 1), his father Ranglal, his mother Smt. Bhagwanti (deceased) and his nephew Rambakas (deceased). Although Ramdayal married twice, he did not have a child and he and his family were keenly interested in having a child somehow. It is alleged that in the month of Kuar appellant Baiju alias Bharosa gave out that he had been sent by one Niranjan Gauntia and introduced himself to the family as a sorcerer or wizard who could bring about the birth of a child in the family with his extraordinary powers. He visited the family several times and practised sorcery. In those days Smt, Fulkunwar was suffering from small-pox and the appellant therefore went away saying that he would return after her recovery. He went there again in the month of Kartik of his own accord and practised sorcery in Ramdayals house for two nights. He went to Ramdayals house again in the month of Aghan and practised sorcery. He had a wall of Ramdayals house dug in and took out a piece of bone which, according to him, was an evil omen and prevented the birth of a child. He started taking Ramdayal and his wives to an adjoining "nala" at midnight on the pretext of driving away the appellant spirit. In this way, it is alleged, the appellant gained the confidence of the entire family and went and stayed at Ramdayals house in the month of Paus from January 11, 1975 to January 19, 1975. He demanded cloth and some articles for performing sorcery, but that was resented by Smt. Lakhpatiya.

2. It is further alleged that on January 19, 1975 the appellant asked Smt. Lakhpatiya to go to the house of her parents, without her ornaments and money, and promised that he would reach there and perform some ritual to drive away the evil spirit from her. At the same time he prevented Ramdayal, on false pretext, from accompanying her to the house of her parents. Smt. Lakhpatiya therefore went to the house of her parents at village Narainpur with her father-in-law Ranglal (P. W.2) on January 20, 1975. The appellant, in the mean time, persuaded Ramdayal to go with him to an adjoining "nala" for performing some religious rites, killed him there and threw his dead body in the "nala". He then went back to Ramdayals house, took Smt. Fulkunwar to another place in the same "nala", killed her there and threw her dead body also in the "nala". It has further been alleged that the appellant went to the house of Ramdayal and killed his mother Smt. Bhagwanti and his nephew Rambakas while they were sleeping there. He ransacked the house, broke open the boxes and took away a number of articles including a transistor, a watch, a bicycle, torch, two "addhis" gold, clothes, ornaments.

3. On the following morning, i. e. on the morning of January 21, 1975, Ramdayals neighbours, including his nephew Jai Ram (P. W. 4), became suspicious because of the unusual calm prevailing in his house and peeped inside. They saw the dead bodies of Smt. Bhagwanti and Rambakash with blood all around. They also found open boxes and articles lying there, Jai Ram therefore went to Police station Prem Nagar where he lodged report Ex. P. 3B before Head Constable Jagannath (P. W. 24). The Head Constable went to village Gauripur the same day, saw the dead bodies of Smt. Bhagwanti and Rambakas inside Ramdayals house and the broken boxes and articles lying all around. He also found that a stone was lying near the dead body of Rambakas and a piece of wood was lying over the head of Smt. Bhagwanti. He searched for Ramdayal and Smt. Fulkunwar but could not find them. Inquest reports were prepared in respect of the dead bodies and they were sent for post-mortem examination. The dead body of Smt. Fulkunwar was found on January 22, 1975 and the Head Constable prepared its inquest report. Sub Inspector P. K. Singh reached village Gauripur on January 21

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1978 Supreme(SC) 19

Cases Referred (2)