Recovery evidence is not vitiated merely because independent witnesses turn hostile if the investigating officer’s testimony is credible and consistent. Furthermore, minor investigative lapses do not invalidate a conviction if the overarching circumstantial chain successfully establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT

PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.

1. The present criminal appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 21.06.2012 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 2330/2007. By the impugned judgment and order High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and upheld the order of First Additional Sessions Judge, Satna [hereinafter referred to as “Trial Court”] passed in Session Case No. 405/2002 thereby convicting the accused-appellant under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 18603 and sentencing him to life imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for 1 year.

BRIEF FACTS

2. The factual matrix of the case is that on 20.07.2002, around 6:05 Hours in the morning, information was received at PS City Kotwali, Satna by one named Anupam Shukla [hereinafter referred to as “informant”] that his cousin brother Rajesh Shukla could not be reached out after he met him on 18.07.2002. Upon visiting the house of Rajesh Shukla on the morning of 20.07.2002, the informant found the back door of the house open and, on entering the premises, discovered Rajesh Shukla, his wife Madhu Shukla, his son Prabhanshu Shukla and his sister Vinita Shukla lying dead with injuries on their bodies [hereinafter referred to as “deceased persons”].

3. It was in this background that the First Information Report Case No. 515/2002 was registered under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereinafter referred to as “IPC”]. On lodgement of the FIR, the criminal machinery was set into motion and the investigating agency proceeded to collect the evidence. By conducting the usual formalities of investigation namely, visiting the scene of offence, seizure of various articles found on the scene of offence such as blood stained clothes, bedsheet and empty phials of calmpose injections from the toilet seats was made and these articles were sealed. The dead bodies were sent for autopsy. The postmortem report received by the investigating officer revealed the cause of death is excessive haemorrhage due to injuries caused by the sharp object/weapon. Brothers and sisters of deceased Rajesh Shukla found that the jewellery worn by the deceased persons as well as jewellery kept in the almirah was stolen. Accordingly, the offences under Sections 382 and 404 IPC were added. In the process of investigation, it was further revealed that the accused Devendra Singh, neighbour of the deceased Rajesh Shukla had an evil eye over deceased Vinita and he used to tease Vinita. It was also revealed that accused Devendra Singh used to be in the company of the accused Upendra Khare (who is present Appellant) before this Court. In the investigation, it was revealed that the accused persons namely Devendra Singh, Upendra Khare, Gyanchand @ Chunni, Neeraj Kumar, Babua @ Abhishek Singh, all together entered the house of deceased Rajesh Shukla on 18.07.2007. The accused persons were armed with country made pistol, cartridges and gupti. Initially, the accused persons administered calmpose injections to the deceased and caused their death by causing injuries to them. The arrest of the accused persons was effected by drawing arrest panchnama Ex P-55, 56, 57, 58, 59 and 60.

4. The investigating agency recovered certain articles from the accused persons namely 315 calibre country made pistol, three live cartridges, stolen jewelleries from th