Judgment

FAZAL ALI, J.:- In this appeal under the SC (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction ) Act the appellant has been convicted by the High Court under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and has also been convicted under Sections 392/34 and 201/34 sentenced to seven years R. I. and fine of Rs. 1000/-, sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The case was originally tried by the Sessions judge who after considering the evidence acquitted the appellant or the charge under Section 302/34 and Section 201/34 and Section 392, I. P. C. but convicted the appellant only under Section 411, I. P. C. and sentenced him to two years R. I. Thereafter the State preferred an appeal to the High Court against the order of acquittal of the appellant by the Sessions judge which was allowed by the High Court and the appellant was convicted as indicated above. Before the High Court the appellant had also filed an appeal against his conviction under Section 411.

2. We have heard counsel for the parties at great length and have gone through the judgment of the Sessions Court and that of the High Court and are clearly of the opinion that the High Court has given cogent reasons for coming to the conclusion that the case of the appellant has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The case of the appellant rests mainly on pure circumstantial evidence and the learned Judge after full and complete consideration of the evidence has categorised the following circumstances which have been proved against the appellant :-

"As a result of the discussion aforesaid, we are of the opinion that the following facts and circumstances are fully proved, namely :-

1. The deceased Laltibai was an old woman, aged about 65 years, who had become lame as a result of a paralytic attack on account of which she was unable to walk along distance;

2. On 28-1-1971, at about 11 or 11.30, the deceased, having left her house sometime before that, was seen standing near the house of accused Murari Chaurasia and that was the last time she was seen alive;

3. Then the deceased left home, she was wearing ornaments, namely, gold Hasli (Article 1). gold Mohar (article 8), Silver Toddas (article 9) and gold nosering (article 10) which she was wearing when last seen alive;

4. The deceased was fond of chewing Pan which she always bought from accused Murarilal Chaurasia, whose house is quite close to that of the deceased;

5. The deceased had left home, to get Pan having taken her meals some time earlier as no Pan was available at home;

6. Accused Darbarilal was a servant of accused Murarilal at that time and was present in the latters house;

7. On the evening of 28-1-1971, accused Murarilal sold the Hasli (Article 2) which the deceased was seen wearing earlier the same day when she was last seen alive, in the shop of P. W. 8 Murarilal Sibarey at Mandla, a distance of about 9 kilometers from the village;

8. A sum of Rs. 1,485/- was concealed by accused Murarilal in the embankment of a field belonging to another person near about that time;

9. Accused Darbarilal was in possession of the gold Mohar (article 8), the silver Toddas (article 9) and the old nose-ring (article 10), worn by the deceased when last seen alive and bad concealed them in the embankment of a field from which place they were recovered on 5-2,1971;

10. The dead body of Laltibai was found in a well on the outskirts of the village, sewn in a gunny bag which was also filled with some bricks so as to keep it under water;

11. The deceased Laltibai was killed within a few hours of her leaving home on 28-1-1971 itself, which must have been during the day time;

12. A half chewn pan was found in the mouth of the deceased indicating that she had taken Pan shortly before she was killed;

13. Since the killing was done during day time and inside a house in the village, that house must have been one inside which she voluntarily went and took pan; and

14. No explanation has been