Back
1997 Supreme(MP) 574
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
S. K. DUBEY, RAJEEV GUPTA
ASHOK KUMAR - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF M.P. - Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL 839 Of 1989
Decided On : 09/04/1997
A.K.KHASKALAM, P.S.DAS GUPTA, SAVITA TIWARI
Incriminating circumstances, when proved beyond a reasonable doubt, can be sufficient to establish the guilt of an accused person, even in the absence of direct evidence.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - MURDER AND ROBBERY - INCRIMINATING CIRCUMSTANCES - SUFFICIENCY - CONVICTION UPHELD - SECTION 397/34 IPC - ILLEGAL - CONVICTION CONVERTED TO SECTION 394 IPC.
Fact of the Case:
Appellants Ashok Kumar and Hariom were convicted of murder and robbery under Sections 302/34 and 397/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The prosecution's case rested on circumstantial evidence, including eyewitness testimony, seizure of bloodstained clothes and ornaments, and fingerprint analysis.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the incriminating circumstances proved against the appellants were sufficient to establish their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court upheld the trial court's finding that the appellants had committed the robbery and murder of the deceased, Manjia Bai.
Issues: 1. Whether the incriminating circumstances proved against the appellants were sufficient to establish their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellants under Section 397/34 of the IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the incriminating circumstances proved against the appellants, including eyewitness testimony, seizure of bloodstained clothes and ornaments, and fingerprint analysis, were sufficient to establish their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. The court held that the trial court erred in convicting the appellants under Section 397/34 of the IPC because the prosecution failed to establish that both appellants were armed with a deadly weapon or had caused grievous hurt to the deceased.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appellants' appeals and upheld their conviction under Section 302/34 of the IPC, with a sentence of imprisonment for life. However, the court converted their conviction under Section 397/34 of the IPC to one under Section 394 of the IPC, and sentenced them to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment each.
( 1 ) THE judgment of the Court was delivered by Rajeev Gupta, J.- This judgment shall govern the disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 973/1989 also.
( 2 ) APPELLANTS Ashok Kumar and Hariom stand convicted under Ss. 302/34 and 397/34 of the Indian Penal Code, with sentences of im-prisonment for life and 10 years' R. I. each respectively, vide judgment dated 29-6-1989, passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in S. T. No. 110/1988.
( 3 ) THE short facts of the case, essential for deciding these appeals, are that Mst. Manjia Bai (since deceased) was married to prosecution witness Balkishan Gupta, who is real brother of Satairam, father of accused Ashok Kumar. Balkishan Gupta used to reside on the first floor of Qtr. No. 12, at Street No. 2 of Sector No. 6, in the town of Durg. In the night of 12-8-1987, Balkishan Gupta, after handing over an amount of Rs. 1,500/- to his wife, received by him as commission in the transaction of sale of land, had gone with his friend Mota Bhai Mansukhlal, on motor cycle. When he was coming back, his brother Satairam invited him for taking dinner with him. After taking his dinner, he came back to his house at about 9. 15 p. m. and after parking his motor cycle in the garage, when he was going upstairs he saw his nephew Ashok Kumar coming downstairs with his companion. Balkishan Gupta did not take a serious note of their presence, as he felt that his nephew Ashok Kumar might have come to meet his aunt. As soon as he reached in the veranda, he saw blood-stains. On opening the doors, he found his wife lying dead, on the ground, in a pool of blood with several external injuries on her body. He came out shouting that his wife was murdered and at this juncture, his nephew Ashok Kumar and his companion fled away on their Hero Majestic moped. Balkishan Gupta tried to chase them on his motor cycle, but as in the meantime the gate at the railway crossing got closed, he came back and informed his brother Satairam and his friend Mota Bhai, about the unfortunate incident and lodged the First Information Report, at P. S. Bhilai. During the course of investigation, finger prints from the articles, lying on the place of occurrence, were gathered. Hair, found in the fist of the deceased was also seized. Accused Ashok Kumar was arrested on 15-8-1987, and his pant and shirt were seized. On his information, one hawai chappal was seized. Accused Hariom was arrested on 17-8-1986 (1987), and his pant and shirt were also seized. On his information, given under S. 27 of the Evidence Act, silver and gold ornaments were seized. On post-mortem examination, 22 external injuries were found on the body of deceased Mst. Manjia Bai. The Autopsy Surgeon has opined that Manjia Bai had died due to shock and haemorrhage, resulting from the injuries. After completing the investigation, Police, Bhilai Nagar filed charge-sheet against the accused persons for the commission of the offences under Ss. 302/34 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the 'ipc' ).
( 4 ) THE accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded false implication to the charges, framed by the trial Court, under Ss. 302/34 and 397/34 of the Indian Penal Code, against them.
( 5 ) AT the trial, prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. The accused persons chose not to examine any witness in their defence. The trial Court, on the evidence led by the prosecution, found it proved that deceased Manjia Bai had sustained 22 external injuries in the night of 12-8-1987, and had died a homicidal death. Relying upon the evidence, led by the prosecution for establishing the incriminating circumstances against the accused persons, the trial Court held them guilty of having committed murder of Mst. Manjia Bai, and of having robbed her of her ornaments, and therefore, convicted and sentenced them, as mentioned above.
( 6 ) WE have heard Shri P. S. Das, for appellant-Ashok Kumar in Cr. A. No. No. 839/89, and Smt. Savita Tiwari, for appellant-Hariom in Cr. A. No.
