(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA)

1. This appeal is preferred from the judgment and order dated 30.3.2001 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Veraval in Sessions Case No.422 of 1999 whereby the appellant is convicted for the offences punishable under sections 302, 392 and 394 of IPC and section 135 of Bombay Police Act, 1951 with consequent orders of sentences and fines and default stipulations.

2. On 30.8.1999, an FIR came to be lodged by PSI, Sutrapada, District Junagadh, on the basis of an anonymous call received at 07.45 a.m. According to the FIR (Ex.48), the PSI made an entry and went to the spot near GHCL factory where a dead body and a gray coloured ambassador car No.GTQ 7771 were found. The dead body lying on the road had multiple injuries and, during the inquest panchnama, a driving license was found from its pocket whereby the deceased was identified to be Mukesh J. Davda, resident of Vadinar, District Jamnagar (described hereinafter for convenience as "the deceased"). The car had marks and stains of blood on the seats and floor. As the investigation proceeded and evidence was collected, the appellant was found to be involved and chargesheet was filed pursuant to which charge for the aforesaid offences was framed on 21.9.2000.

3. The prosecution case as unfolded before the trial Court was that the appellant had gone to the residence of the deceased and was introduced by him to his wife on 26.8.1999. The deceased victim and the appellant had talked about requirement of Rs.60,000/- for submitting a tender. Thereafter, the deceased had asked his wife about availability of fund and since she had only Rs.25,000/- with her, the deceased had approached his parents and brought the remaining amount of Rs.35,000/-. Thereafter on 29.8.1999, the deceased had left his house with Rs.60,000/- in ambassador car No.GTQ 7771 after telling his wife that he would go only if the appellant-accused would be available. On the next day, the father of the deceased called the wife to break the news of death of her husband and she told her father-in-law that the deceased had gone with Rs.60,000/- to Sutrapada with the appellant for submitting tender. Thereupon, father of the deceased went to enquire about the appellant at his residence in village Timbdi but he was told that the appellant had gone away on the previous night. During the investigation, a sum of Rs.59,850/- was recovered from the appellant's house and blood-stained clothes, knife and a blood-stained stone were discovered at the instance of the appellant who was taken into police custody for investigation.

4. The prosecution mainly relied upon depositions of Chhayaben, wife of deceased (PW.1 Ex.12), Jayantilal Liladhar, father of deceased (PW.2 Ex.14), Damayantiben, wife of Jayantilal (PW.3 Ex.15), Dr.Dipakkumar J. Sinha (PW.4 Ex.17), Sarman Mensi Vaja, Panch (PW.5 Ex.19) and Vaja Samat, Panch (PW.8 Ex.25) and documentary evidence as under:

Postmortem note at Ex.18, Panchnama of the scene of offence Ex.20, Panchnama Ex.21, 26, 28, 30, 31 and 32 and notification dated 29.7.1999 of District Magistrate, Junagadh under section 37 of Bombay Police Act.

The investigation officers deposed at Ex.51 and 58, whereas PSI Kalubhai A.Odhedhra deposed at Ex.61 to prove the panchnama (Ex.32) by which the amount of Rs.59,850/- was recovered from the house of the appellant who was present there and as yet not arrested on 31.8.1999. In the statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C., the appellant adopted the stand of complete denial and ignorance about the evidence appearing against him. In his further statement at Ex.64, he claimed to be holding a license of a fair price shop and the money recovered from him were stated to have been meant for payment into the treasury for the foodgrains.

5. Even as there was no eye witness and the prosecution case rested upon strong circumstantial evidence, the trial Court, after careful scrutiny and elaborate discussion of evidence, arrived at the finding