JUDGMENT

Madan B. Lokur, J.

1. The Appellant (Raghuvendra) is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 23rd October, 2008 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 754 of 2000. By the judgment and order under appeal, the conviction of the Appellant for an offence punishable Under Section302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was affirmed. We find no merit in the appeal and it is dismissed.

2. On 10th February, 1998 the informant Gulab Ahirwar (PW-3) found a dead body in his fields. He immediately informed the police and a first information report was recorded on the basis of his information. A few articles lying near the dead body were also recovered.

3. The dead body could not be immediately identified but subsequently, in the course of investigations in a different case altogether, the police apprehended Raghuvendra and during his interrogation on 16th March, 1998 he confessed to killing the deceased with the assistance of his uncle. Based on this statement given by Raghuvendra, the dead body was identified with the assistance of Guddi Bai (PW-13, the widow of the deceased) and Sadhana (PW-14, the daughter of the deceased).

4. It also transpired from the investigations that the deceased Bhagwan Singh was known to Raghuvendra and his uncle. They were apparently involved in several thefts and there was some dispute about sharing the proceeds. Raghuvendra and his uncle would often visit Bhagwan Singh at his residence and they would also consume liquor together.

5. On 9th February, 1998 Raghuvendra and his uncle came to the house of the deceased in Vidisha and they and the deceased left for Bilaspur the next morning, that is on 10th February, 1998. It is soon thereafter that the dead body of Bhagwan Singh was found in the fields of Gulab Ahirwar (PW-3).

6. During the course of investigations, the investigating officer also recovered, at the instance of Raghuvendra and his uncle certain articles of the deceased in Bhopal.

7. On these broad facts, a charge-sheet was filed and Raghuvendra and his uncle were charged with having murdered Bhagwan Singh and thereby having committed an offence punishable Under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Both of them pleaded not guilty and were therefore tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khurai, District Sagar (Madhya Pradesh). Vide his judgment and order dated 5th February, 2000 in Sessions Case No. 205 of 1998 the learned Additional Sessions Judge found Raghuvendra and his uncle guilty of having caused the murder of Bhagwan Singh.

8. The two principal grounds on which the conviction of Raghuvendra and his uncle was based were the statement of Guddi Bai (PW-13), Sadhana (PW-14) as well as the medical evidence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge concluded that there was no reason to disbelieve Guddi Bai and Sadhana and he was of the opinion that based on their statement, the recovery of articles belonging to the deceased at the instance of Raghuvendra and his uncle and on the basis of the 'last seen theory', there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to convict them.

9. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raghuvendra and his uncle preferred an appeal in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh which came to be dismissed by the judgment and order under appeal.

10. The High Court examined the record of the case and also found that there was no reason to disbelieve Guddi Bai and Sadhana. Both witnesses knew Raghuvendra and his uncle quite well since they were frequent visitors to their house. The High Court also came to the conclusion that the 'last seen theory' was applicable to the facts of the case since Raghuvendra and his uncle had visited the house of the deceased on 9th February, 1998, stayed overnight and left with him for Bilaspur in the morning on 10th February, 1998. It is soon thereafter that the dead body of Bhagwan Singh was recovered from the fields of Gulab Ahirwar (PW-3) tho