Point of law: Murder and robbery were proved to have been integral parts of one and the same transaction and the presumption arising under illustration (a) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act was applied for holding the accused guilty of not only having committed robbery but also murder of the deceased.

JUDGMENT :

Vinod Chandran, J.

House trespass, robbery and murder are the charges on which the appellant was convicted, based only on circumstantial evidence, that too mainly on the recoveries made of the various articles which were alleged to have been stolen from the house and sold to various persons or kept in secure places. There were two accused, one of whom was convicted in an earlier trial, since the cases were split up on the present appellant absconding after the Sessions Court had taken the case on file. Later, arrest of the appellant led to the present trial in which he was convicted under Ss.449, 392, 394 & 302. Life imprisonment and fine under S.302 and various terms of imprisonment under the other provisions, with appropriate fine and also default sentences, in the event of failure to pay fines, were imposed.

2. Adv. Sruthy K.K., learned State Brief, appeared for the appellant and Sri. Renjith, learned Public Prosecutor appeared for the State. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that there is no single circumstance connecting the accused with the crime, leave alone an unbroken chain of such circumstances. There is absolutely no evidence obtained regarding the murder, either scientific or circumstantial. The motive spoken of is frivolous to say the least and there is no clear ascertainment of ownership or identity of the stolen goods from the house. The recovered goods, the MOs, were not properly identified and the proceedings sheet shows that they were missing from the court and there is no whisper as to how they were traced out. Apart from there being no proper identification of the recovered goods, even the alleged owner does not have a definite case as to the quantity of the goods stolen or its value. The fact that the goods were insured for a huge amount should normally raise a suspicion against the owner of the goods himself. The recoveries have also not been properly witnessed and many of the crucial witnesses were not examined. Neither does the investigating officer (I.O) identify the goods, as recovered on the basis of the separate recovery mahazars, nor do the attestors or persons from whose possession it was recovered. The owner of the goods does not produce a license to run the business, a stock register or even the purchase bills of the alleged stolen goods. The goods allegedly recovered from the possession of the accused and those to whom allegedly sale was made by the accused, are not ascertainable or identifiable. There is no question of the accused being found guilty for even the charge of robbery, leave alone the house trespass and murder. The learned Counsel placed heavy reliance on Tulsiram Kanu v. State AIR 1954 SC 1.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand relied on Ganeshlal v. State of Rajasthan [2002 (1) SCC 731] to put forth the contention of the house trespass and murder being a reasonable inference possible from the fact that the stolen goods were recovered at the instance of the accused based on confession statement admissible under S.27 of the Evidence Act. The various recoveries were pointed out and mahazars read out, to emphasize that the there is clear evidence of the stolen goods being in the possession of the accused. The accused offered absolutely no explanation for such possession and he was caught red handed while trying to sell the goods. The various recoveries clearly indicate the goods having been stolen from the house rented out by PW1, wherein he had kept the valuable goods dealt with in the business. The house, as per the testimonies, during daytime would be occupied only by the cook, the person who was murdered. The accused had been an earlier employee and was privy to the manner in which the employees worked and also the time on which they left the house and came back for the night. The accused had also spoken to one of the witnesses regarding the specific business carried on by PW1. He had a motive in so far as fulfilling his love affair, by starting a business