Reliance on circumstantial evidence to establish guilt in the absence of direct evidence.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Garg, J. - The instant criminal appeal has been filed by the accused appellant under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 21.09.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Udaipur in Sessions Case No.100/2013 (C.I.S. No.554/2014) whereby the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as under :-

2. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

3. Brief facts of the case are that a written report (Ex.P/1) was filed by one Nathu Lal at the Police Station, Gogunda, Distt. Udaipur on 06.10.2011 stating therein that at about 1 O'clock, his mother Smt. Dhuli Bai, aged about 65 years, went for grazing buffaloes in the field of one Nana Lal. He was at the home till 4 O'clock. Thereafter, the complainant went to Amba Mata Temple. Their buffaloes returned home on their own at about 6 O'clock in the evening but his mother did not come back. His wife Smt.Geeta went to the field and searched but could not find Smt. Dhuli Bai. When the complainant returned home from the temple at about 7 O'clock, his wife told him that his mother had not returned home from the fields. The complainant, along with Padaa Meghwal, Heeralal Gurjar, Laxman Gurjar, Daulat Gurjar, Champa Gameti looked out in the fields, wells and forest to search his mother-Smt. Dhuli Bai. They found her slippers and veil in the field of Nana Lal Meghwal. On the western side, the dead body of Smt. Dhuli Bai was lying. The eyes of Smt. Dhuli Bai were punctured and her face was crushed by blows of stones. Her both legs were also crushed with stones. Both her legs had been chopped off and the silver rings and bangles worn on the feet and hands as well as the gold ear-rings worn in the nose, silver tops worn in the ears were missing. It was stated in the complaint that unknown persons killed her mother and looted the ornaments from her body.

4. On the basis of the said report, the Police registered an FIR No.248/2011 for offences under Sections 302, 397 IPC and started investigation. During the investigation, the appellant was arrested. After usual investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the accused-appellant for offence punishable under Sections 302 & 397 IPC. The case was committed for trial to the court of Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Udaipur where the charges were framed against the accused-appellant. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. At the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 23 witnesses in all and exhibited 31 documents in documentary evidence. Thereafter, the statement of the accused-appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. No witness was examined on the defence side. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Udaipur vide judgment dated 21.09.2016 convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302, 397 IPC and awarded the sentences mentioned above.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence and there is no direct evidence against the accused-appellant connecting him with commission of alleged offence. Learned counsel submitted that there is no evidence on record that the accused-appellant was last seen with the deceased. So far as the recovery of ornaments allegedly made by the police from the appellant, the ornaments were earlier shown to the witnesses so they could identify the ornaments. It is further argued that there is difference in the weight of the jewelry mentioned in the First Information Report and those recovered on the information of the accused. In nutshell, the learned counsel submitted that the recoveries are wholly unreliable and the same are liable to be discarded. In these circumstances, the learned trial Court was not