( 1. ) THIS is an appeal filed by the accused Kadori against judgment dated 24-1-1972, passed by Shri Ram Murti, Additional Judge to the Sessions Judge, Vidisha, in Sessions Trial No. 47 of 1971.

( 2. ) THE accused has been held guilty under section 302/394 of the Indian penal Code and he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for offence under section 302, Indian Penal Code and he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years for offence under section 394, Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences are to run concurrently. ( 3. ) THE prosecution story, in short, is that deceased Poonam Chand goyal was a registered medical Practitioner at village Lateri and he very often used to go on visits to his patients in the neighbouring villages. It is alleged by the prosecution that on such visits to the neighbouring villages, he used to keep the accused in his company, who carried the canvas bag (Art. C) containing medicines. From two days prior to the fateful day, the deceased had some Rs. 2,000 on his person and on the fateful day, i. e. , 20-9-1971, the deceased accompanied by the accused Kadori, boarded the Maulana bus at lateri at 8. 00 a. m for the village Roosai, where they got down at 9. 00 a. m. From Roosai, the deceased reached the village Badi Rusalli at 5. 30 p. m. via mawakhedi. At Badi Rusalli, the deceased had a peg to liquor for Rs. 2 at the liquor shop of Inder Singh (P. W. 10) and then the deceased accompanied by the accused proceeded towards Mundra. After having been seen together with the accused Kadori at Badi Rusalli, the deceased Poonam Chand Goyal was never seen alive thereafter by anybody. It is alleged that by greed, the accus-ed pounced upon the deceased and axed him to death during the night intervening 20-9-1971 and 21-9-1971 and robbed him of his watch (Art. A) and other ornaments. On the next morning, the dead body of the deceased Poonam chand Goyal was seen in a field near the village Lalchiya and the matter was reported to the police. On the recovery of the deceaseds watch (Art. 4) from the possession of the accused, coupled with the recovery of the blood-stained axe at the instance of the accused and the fact that the accused and the deceased were last seen together, the accused was prosecuted for the offence of murder and robbery.

( 4. ) THE accused has denied the recovery of watch (Art. A) from his possession and the recovery of Axe (Art N) at his instance. He has denied the guilt and he says that he has been falsely implicated.

( 5. ) THE trial Court recorded the evidence of the prosecution, the defence witness and statement of the accused and gave the verdict In the judgment, the first point the trial Court decided is whether Poonam Chand Goyal has died a homicidal death. After considering the evidence of Pratap Singh (P. W. 3), Hemraj (P. W. 4) and son of the deceased Ghanshyam (P. W 1), who identified the dead body of Poonam Chand Goyal; the dead body was also identified by the son-in-law of the deceased Chhabil Chand (P. W. II) and dr. R. K. Nema (PW. 19) who conducted the post-mortem and gave his opinion in his report, the trial Court came to the conclusion as mentioned above. No argument was addressed against this point. Therefore, we are also of opinion that Poonam Chand Goyal died a homicidal death.

( 6. ) THE trial Court has said that there is no direct evidence in the case, because there are no eye witnesses of the incident and there is only circumstantial evidence. The circumstantial evidence has been divided under different heads by the trial Court. They are : (a) the deceased and the accused were last seen together; (b) recovery of the deceaseds watch (Art. A)from the possession of the accused and (c) recovery of the weapon of offence-blood-stained axe (Art. N) at the instance of the accused. The trial court came to the conclusion that the recovery of watch (Art. A) was from the possession of the accused. The recovery of the watch was at t