GUJARAT HIGH COURT
M.R. Shah and K.J. Thaker, JJ.
Ketan Hasmukhbhai Soni —Appellant
versus
State of Gujarat —Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1980 of 2010
Decided on 10.9.2015

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 302, 201 and 473—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 374(2)—Murder—Circumstantial evidence—Appeal against conviction—Approach of the Court—Missing of the deceased after he had left the house on 12.1.2008, at about 5.00 p.m.—After two days, his dead body was found lying near a bus stand—Trail Court held the appellant guilty of charge u/ss 302, 201 and 471 IPC—Seizure of weapon of assault—Report of FSL showing the blood stains matching with that of the deceased recovered at the instance of the accused and blood stains at the house—Accused, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. did not give any explanation as to how the blood was found—Motive for commission of the crime proved—Whether conviction of appellant as recorded by the trial Court was sustainable—(Yes).

       Held: In this case, as per the factual matrix, which would go to show that the case of the prosecution as it rests on circumstantial evidence, the circumstance from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, has to be cogently and firmly established. They must be of definite tendency which would point to the guilt of the accused and accused alone, the circumstances which would be taken cumulatively must and must form a chain unbroken and no escapism from the conclusion that the crime was committed by the accused and accused alone. This principle has been annunciated way back by the Apex Court in the case of Padala Veera Reddy v. State of M.P., JT 1989 (4) SC 223.

       In this case, the discovery appears to be credible. It has been accepted by the court below and there is no reason why we should discard the same. The weapon was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and it was found stained with human blood. As the results were conclusive, the accused, in his statement under sec. 313 of CrPC did not give any explanation as to how the blood was found. This discovery positively further prosecution case in the facts of this case. We are supported in our view by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of John Pandian v. State, JT 2010 (13) SC 284.

       It has been submitted by learned advocate Mr. Majmudar that there was no motive and in a case resting on circumstantial evidence, the motive plays an important role, and for which, he has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mahamadkhan Nathekhan vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2014)14 SCC 589, whereby, the acquittal of the accused was restored. The said decision of the Apex Court will not be helpful to the appellant because in the said decision, the doctor and ballistic expert have stated that there was every possibility that the gun injury would have occurred due to the accident, and therefore, motive was not there. In the present case, the factual scenario as it emerged before the learned trial Judge shows motive and we concur with the same for which the reasons given by the learned trial Judge namely; that the accused had stolen the motorcycle of the complainant who was to be his father-in-law. Used it for three years, and after selling his own motorcycle, he had replaced the number plate with his own. The second aspect is proved by certain bank accounts that certain moneys were paid by the deceased to the accused which shows that what the father came to know after the death of his son, is proved that his son knew about the illicit relations of the appellant with some other two girls and was demanding money and only with a view to see that the moneys were not to be further paid, the deceased was not returning his money. The appellant had all the motive to call him to the place of which he had one key with him.

       The finding of facts recorded by the learned trial Judge will not permit us to take a different view then that taken by the learned trial Judge. He has discussed the decisions cited before him by the accused and has threadbare discussed the same and held that the circumstantial chain is proved. In para-45 till end, he has discussed how the chain is complete, namely the motive has been proved that the deceased was suddenly asking for money and if he would convey the illicit relation of accused with other two girls, then his marriage may not be solemnized, and therefore, the appellant had designed to do away with the deceased by calling him at the place which is not accessible to all, and deceased was given several blows on the skull and because of these injuries, he had lot of surgical wounds and because of that, to cover the same because of the oozing of the blood, surgical tape was brought and applied. The dead body was tied with a rope which is also been found. The appellant had also tried to destroy the evidence and cleaned the place of offence which is also found, and that is how the chain of events is complete and there is no missing of chain and we are unable to accept the submission of Mr. Majmudar learned advocate for the appellant.

       We are in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and resultant order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court and we are of the view that no other conclusion except the one reached by the trial Court is possible in the instant case as the evidence on record stands. Therefore, there is no valid reason or justifiable ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence. (Paras 15, 16, 17, 26 & 27)

       Result: Appeal Dismissed.