IMPORTANT POINT
If in a given case, the prosecution can successfully prove that the offences of robbery and murder were committed in one and the same transaction and soon thereafter the stolen properties were recovered, a court may legitimately draw a presumptipn not only of the fact. That the person' in whose possession the stolen articles were found committed the robbery but also that he committed the murder.

JUDGMENT

M.K. Mukherjee, J. -Mukund @ Kundu

Mishra and Deva @ Dev Kumar, the appellants before us, were put up for trial before the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, to answer charges under Sections 449,394/ 397 and 302/34 IPC. The charges were based on the allegations that in the night intervening January 17 and 18, 1994 they trespassed into the residential house of Anuj Prasad Dubey, committed murders of his wife and their two children and looted their ornaments, other valuable articles and cash. On conclusion of the trial the learned Judge found them guilty of all the above charges and accordingly convicted them. For the conviction under Section 302/34 IPC both of them were sentenced to death and, for the other convictions, to different terms of rigorous imprisonment. Against their convictions and sentences they preferred individual appeals which were heard by the High Court alongwith the reference made by the learned Judge under Section 366 Cr. P.C. In disposing of them by a common JUDGMENT the High Court dismissed their appeals and confirmed the death sentences. Hence these appeals by special leave.

The case of the prosecution, brieflystated, is as under:

(a) Anuj Prased Dubey along with his-wife Sarlta Dubey, daughter Jyoti (aged about 6 years) and son Deepak (aged about 4. years) used to reside at Panchwati Colony in the town of Bilaspur. However, at the material time Anuj Prasad Dubey (P.W. 9), was In Bombay In connection withhis business. Sohan LaIDixit (P.W. 1), Kumari Shredhdha Dixit (P.W. 6), Dr. Awadhesh Kumar Singh (P.W. 7), and Smt. Shailja Singh (P.W. 8) were, amongst others, neighbours of Anuj Prasad. The appellant Mukund happens to be the son-in-law of one Santosh Dubey, a cousin of Anuj Prasad and he was also a resident of the same town. In view of the above relationship, Mukundused to visit the house of Anuj Prasad even when he was out of station in connection with his business.

(b) About 7 or 8 months prior to the incident with which we are concerned in these appeals Mukund had taken a loan of Rs. 10,000/from Anuj Prasad assuring repayment thereof within a week. On his failure to keep the promise Anuj Prasad approached Santosh Dubey and he repaid the loan after about three months. Three months later Mukund demanded another sum of Rs. 10,000/- from Santosh Dubey but as he declined to pay, Mukund started pestiring Anuj Prasad. Mukund used to tell Anuj Prasad that either he should accommodate him or persuade Santosh Dubey to do so.

(c) In the evening on January 17, 1994 Shailja went to the house of Dubeys and after having a cup of tea here when she left, Sarita, as was her wont, locked up her compound gate.

(d) On the following day, that is January 18, 1994, at about 12noon Shailja called one bangle seller to purchase some bangles. Expecting that Sarita might also be interested in purchasing bangles, she sent a girl to call her. The girl came back and reported that Sarita could not be found in the.drawing room or in the court -yard. Shailja then went to the house of Sarita and entering her bed room found her lying dead on the floor with hands and legs tied with a. coir strip and the two children lying dead on the bed. She further found household articles lying scattered all around the room and the steel almirah open. Immediately thereupon Shailja came out of the house screaming and called the neighbours including Dr. Awadhesh Singh who rushed to the spot. Dr. Singh then sent a message to Anuj Prasad at Bombay and thereafter went to Sarkanda Police Station and lodged an information.

(e) On that informatfon (Ext. P /26) Shri R.K. Roy, Station Incharge registered a case and took up investigation. He went to the house of Dubeysalohgwith other police officer a photographer and a scientist of Forensic. Science Laboratory (F.S.L.) department. After holding inquest upon the three dead bodies found there he sent them for postmortem examination. He seized a number of articles from the spot including