The sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to establish guilt in a murder and theft case.

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

1. Phool Chand has been convicted for murdering Dr. Shanti Raj, removing gold bangles and two gold rings from her body, committing theft of the household goods from the house of the deceased vide impugned judgment dated August 30, 2000 and directed to undergo imprisonment for life for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for offence punishable under Section 404 IPC vide order on sentence dated September 08, 2000.

2. According to the prosecution it proved fourteen circumstances to convict the appellant of which except circumstance Nos.4 and 8, the learned Trial Judge held that the same had been proved. However, to fill in the gap in respect of circumstance Nos.4 and 8, the learned Trial Court pressed in explanations under Section 313 Cr.P.C which were found to be false and thus convicted the appellant. The circumstances pressed in by the prosecution are:

“(1) That deceased Shanti Raj was an old lady, aged about 76 yrs.and was putting up alone at the ground floor at the house No.R-901, New Rajender Nagar, and one Gopal was working as a domestic help in her house.

(2) That Gopal was requesting the deceased to leave her services as domestic help and he was absent for two days prior to the murder of Dr.Shanti Raj.

(3) That on 10-9-96 deceased had gone to her sister Dr.Leela Raj in the noon time for taking lunch at her house at 569, Double Storey, New Rajender Nagar and the deceased took leave of her sister at about 4 p.m. by saying that she had an appointment with a servant at her house at 5 p.m. who was to work in place of domestic servant Gopal.

(4) That accused Phool Chand @ Prem was employed as domestic servant, in the evening of 10-9-96, to work as domestic servant in the house of the deceased and on 11.09.96 he was found missing from the house of the deceased.

(5) That previous domestic servant Gopal had not left the service of the deceased and on 11-9-96 in the evening Gopal informed Dr.Leela Raj that he had gone to the house of Dr.Shanti Raj where he found that the doors of her house were open and lights were on and there was no response from the house to the door bell.

(6) That Dr.Leela Raj went to the house of the deceased and found dead body in the kitchen of the house and she found that one gold bangle, two gold rings and one wrist watch were missing from the dead body of her sister.

(7) That Dr.Shanti Raj was seen alive for the last time on 10-9-96 at about 4 p.m. and she died a homicidal death on 10-9-96.

(8) That accused was seen in the house of the deceased at 5 p.m. on 10-9-96 and he was talking to the deceased.

(9) That on 12-9-96 complainant Dr.Leela Raj gave a list of the articles found missing in the house of deceased Dr.Shanti Raj which included one Colour T.V. make Sony with remote control, one Seiko Quartz time piece, one white bed cover, two ladies umbrellas, one blue T.V. cover and some clothes.

(10) That accused was apprehended on the basis of a secret information on 18-9-96 and he made his disclosure statement stating inter-alia that he removed Sony T.V., remote control, Seiko watch, some sarees and shawl and other articles and the jewellery and kept the T.V. and the other articles in a bag in the jhuggi of one Ram Prasad residing at DBG Road, Karol Bagh Trl. and concealed the jewellery in the ridge area under a stone.

(11) That accused after his arrest pointed out to ground floor house no.R-901, New Rajender Nagar as the place of the occurrence vide pointing out memo Ex.PW17/B.

(12) That accused pointed out to the Jhuggi No.C-43/44 of Ram Prasad near Karol Bagh, Bus Trl. and the ridge area from where the police recovered the stolen articles found missing from the dead body and from the house of the deceased.

(13) That in consequence of the disclosure statement of the accused, police recovered the T.V. and other articles in a bag from