High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
T. C. Shrivastava and Shiv Dayal, JJ.
JAMNADAS PARASHRAM - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - Respondents
Criminal Appeal 264 Of 1962
Decided On : 07/27/1962
CRIMINAL LAW - MURDER - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - SUFFICIENCY - CONVICTION UPHELD - SENTENCE OF DEATH CONFIRMED - APPEAL AGAINST ACQUITTAL - THEFT AND RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY - CONVICTION UPHELD - SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT IMPOSED.
Fact of the Case:
Jamnadas, a bearer in a refreshment room at Bhopal railway station, was convicted of murdering Mr. Raghuraman, a lecturer in a polytechnic institute, in a running train between Bhopal and Itarsi. The trial court also convicted Shaukat, another bearer, of offences under Sections 201 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The State appealed against the acquittal of Jamnadas of the offence under Section 392 IPC and also for setting aside the acquittal of Shaukat of the offences under Sections 201 and 411 IPC. Jamnadas preferred an appeal from his conviction.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the circumstantial evidence against Jamnadas was overwhelming and established his guilt beyond any doubt. The court found that Jamnadas had boarded the train at Hoshangabad or immediately after it started from that station and had committed the murder between Hoshangabad and Itarsi. The court also found that Jamnadas had taken away a gold chain and a wrist watch of the deceased and that these articles were received and retained by Shaukat either with the knowledge or with reason to believe that they were stolen articles. The court dismissed Jamnadas's appeal and confirmed the death sentence imposed by the trial court. The court allowed the State's appeal in part and convicted Jamnadas of the offence under Section 392 IPC and sentenced him to 3 years rigorous imprisonment. The court also convicted Shaukat of the offence under Section 411 IPC and sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment, but maintained his acquittal under Section 201 IPC.
Issues: 1. Whether the circumstantial evidence against Jamnadas was sufficient to establish his guilt beyond any doubt? 2. Whether Jamnadas was guilty of the offence under Section 392 IPC? 3. Whether Shaukat was guilty of the offences under Sections 201 and 411 IPC?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Yes, the circumstantial evidence against Jamnadas was sufficient to establish his guilt beyond any doubt. The court found that Jamnadas had boarded the train at Hoshangabad or immediately after it started from that station and had committed the murder between Hoshangabad and Itarsi. The court also found that Jamnadas had taken away a gold chain and a wrist watch of the deceased and that these articles were received and retained by Shaukat either with the knowledge or with reason to believe that they were stolen articles. 2. Yes, Jamnadas was guilty of the offence under Section 392 IPC. The court found that Jamnadas had taken all precautions he could possibly think of to conceal his crime, but that the trousers he had abandoned at the scene of the crime had an unfailing identifying mark which connected him with the crime. 3. Shaukat was guilty of the offence under Section 411 IPC, but not guilty of the offence under Section 201 IPC. The court found that Shaukat had received and retained the stolen articles either with the knowledge or with reason to believe that they were stolen articles, but that there was no evidence that he had the intention to screen Jamnadas.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed Jamnadas's appeal and confirmed the death sentence imposed by the trial court. The court allowed the State's appeal in part and convicted Jamnadas of the offence under Section 392 IPC and sentenced him to 3 years rigorous imprisonment. The court also convicted Shaukat of the offence under Section 411 IPC and sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment, but maintained his acquittal under Section 201 IPC.
( 1 ) THE Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad, has convicted Jamandas of the offence under Section 302, I. P. C. , and sentenced him to death, 'holding him guilty of the murder of Mr. Raghuraman on July 12, 1961, in a running train between Bhopal and Itarsi. The trial Judge has made the reference (Criminal reference No. 2 of 1962) for confirmation of the sentence, while Jamnadas has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 264 of 1962 from his conviction. Jamnadas was tried for the offence under Section 392, I. P. C. also but has been acquitted. The other accused, Shaukat, who was jointly tried with Jamnadas for offences under sections 201 and 411, I. P. C. , has been acquitted of both the charges. The State has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 283 of 1962 for setting aside the acquittal of jamnadas of the offence under Section 392, I. P. C. , and also for setting aside the acquittal of Shaukat of the offences under Sections 201 and 411 I. P. C.
( 2 ) MR. Raghuraman, a young man of 25, was a lecturer in Civil Engineering in the government Polytechnic Institute, Khandwa. He resided in the hostel of that institute. On July 9, 1961, he left for Bhopal on duty, (per statements of Lecturers bhargava, P. W. 20 and Anthony, P. W. 21, and Principal Ramchandra, P. W. 24 ). On the 12th July, 1961 he reached Bhopal railway station to commence his return journey to Khandwa by 58 Up Pathankot Express. The train had not arrived but he was told that in pursuance of a message, that there was no accommodation in the first class compartments, booking for the first class was withheld. He, therefore, purchased a secondclass ticket. However, he approached the Assistant Station master to help him in getting accommodation in the first class. The Assistant station Master assured him to contact the Conductor and get him accommodation in a first class compartment, if possible. When the train arrived, the Conductor was seen by the Assistant Station Master for providing accommodation in a first class compartment. The Conductor disclosed that one first class coupe was vacant, as it was reserved from Savda to Bbusawal for Shri Kannamwar, a Minister. Savda is a station beyond Khandwa (between Khandwa and Bhusawal ). And since Mr. Raghuraman was to travel only up to Khandwa, he could be accommodated in that coupe. Mr. Raghuraman, there-fere, occupied that coupe (marked 'c in bogie FCQ 2836 ). He was all alone in that compartment. He had an attachee and a hold-all. The train left Bhopal at 12. 28 hours. He was killed somewhere before the train arrived at Itarsi at 14. 30 hours. These facts, which are proved by Assistant Station master P. N. Tiwari, (P. W. 8) and Conductor K. S. Rawat (P. W. 1), are not in dispute.
( 3 ) CONDUCTO'r Khusalsingh Rawat says that he was in charge of the train between jhansi and Itarsi only; he was to hand over to another con-doctor-guard at Itarsi. When the train reached Hoshangabad, he seated a lady passenger in a first class compartment. However, her husband requested him to provide her accommodation in a Ladies' compartment. When the train reached Itarsi, he accommodated her in a Ladies' First Class compartment, and thereafter he started giving over to Conductor Ghesas. He was explaining to him which passengers were seated where and how far they were to travel. He specifically mentioned about the reservation of 'c' compartment for Shri Kannamwar and that in that compartment there was a passenger going upto Khandwa. In the course of this conversation, when he passed the 'c' compartment of the first class bogie, he happened to notice that the attachee case was lying open on the table inside the compartment and its contents scattered, and the passenger lying dead on the floor of the compartment in a pool of blood. He posted a police constable there and reported the matter in the police station. He returned from tbere with the Station House officer. Both the doors of the 'c' compartment were locked and the bogie was detached f
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.