SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1973 Supreme(MP) 34

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
A.P.Sen and J.S. Verma, JJ.
State of Madhya Pradesh
Versus
Murarilal
Decided On : Mar 22,1973

Headnote:(1) Evidence Act, 1872 - S. 27 - essential ingredients - accused naming the person to whom incriminating property given - article found with the named person - statement admissible.

       The essential ingredient of the section is that the information given by the accused must lead to the discovery of the fact which is the direct outcome of such information. Secondly, only such portion of the information given as is distinctly connected with the said recovery is admissible against the accused. Thirdly, the discovery of the fact must relate to the commission of some offence. The embargo on statements of the accused before the police will not apply if all the above conditions are fulfilled.

       In substance there is no difference between a 'named person' and 'the place' where the article is kept. The result is that if the accused gives information about a person to whom he had given the incriminating article and offers to point out that person, it is the same thing as naming the place where the article is kept and which place he offers to point out. If the article is found with the 'named person', the statement made by the accused leads to discovery and the same is admissible by virtue of section 27 of the Evidence Act. AIR 1970 SC 1934 relied on. AIR 1947 PC 67 discussed. 1967 JLJ 1053 & 14 MPLC 477, discussed. [Paras 12 & 13]

       (2) Criminal trial - defence set up in appeal - no cross examination of witnesses on that plea of fact - cannot be relied on. [Para 27]

       (3) Evidence Act, 1872 - S. 114 - incriminating property found in possession of accused - presumption of stolen properly when arises - other circumstances connecting the accused with the crime of murder and robbery also proved - question of presumption does not arise.

       (4) Penal Code, 1860 - Ss.411, 302 & 392 - incriminating property discovered on the information given by the accused - other circumstances proved connecting the accused with murder and robbery in which the articles taken - no question of presumption of being a receiver of stolen property - offence of murder and robbery made out.

       It is obvious that where the only circumstance proved against the accused is the possession of stolen property and the time gap is sufficient to suggest the possibility of the property having been disposed of to receivers, then the only presumption would be that the accused are mere receivers of stolen property. However, if in addition to the finding of stolen property there is other evidence, however small, to connect an accused with the crime itself, then there is no question of presumption alone, since this evidence strengthens the other evidence already against him. [Paras 32 & 29]

JUDGMENT :

( 1. ) THIS judgment shall also govern the cross appeal, i. e. , Criminal Appeal No. 489 of 1971, (Murarilal v. The State of Madhya Pradesh), filed by the present respondents against their conviction under Section 411, I. P. C, and the consequent sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years to each of them. The present appeal by the State is against the acquittal of both these persons for the alleged offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Sections 201 and 394, IPC

( 2. ) THE deceased Mst. Laltibai, mother of P. W. 6 Dwarka Prasad and mother-in-law of P. W. 11 Sudamabai, lived in village Hirdayanagar, district Mandla, with the aforesaid witnesses. The village is at a distance of about nine kilometers from Mandla. Nearabout mid-day on 28-1-1971, the deceas-sed, an old woman aged about 65 years, whose mobility had been considerably impaired on account of a paralytic attack, left her house and soon thereafter was seen standing near the house of accused Murarilal. That was the last time she was seen alive. Apparently, the deceased was quite affluent and When she left the house that day, she was as usual bedecked with several ornaments. She was also fond of chewing pan and it appears that she had left home at that time to get pan. Admittedly, the accused Murarilal is a Chaurasia and he carried on business of selling pans; and the other accused Darbarilal was his servant at the relevant time. The house of accused Murarilal is located at a short distance from the house in which the deceased lived along with her son and his family.

( 3. ) THE deceased not having returned till late at night on 28-1-1971, a search was made for her by her sons P. W. 6 Dwarka Prasad and Badri Prasad along Vith others, but to no avail. On failing to find his mother in the village or near about, P. W. 6 Dwarka Prasad considered the only remaining possibility that she might have gone to his sisters place in Jabalpur and so he, along with his elder brother Badri Prasad, went to look for her in Jabalpur. However, on failing to find her there also, P. W. 6 Dwarka Prasad, immediately on return from Jabalpur, lodged on 30-1-1971 a report (Ex. P-2) in Police Station Mandla, In that report it was stated that Mst. Laltibai was missing since noon of 28-1-1971; that on a search being made she could not be found; that having had an attack of paralysis she had become lame so that she was incapable of walking much and going to another village; and that she was wearing ornaments as detailed in Ex. P-2. The ornaments detailed in Ex. P-2 included a gold hasli (Article 1), weighing about 14 tolas; three gold mohars each weighing one tola, (one of which is Article 8); a silver todar (Article 9), weighing about one kilogram; and a gold nose-ring (Article 10 ). Article 1 gold hasli, Article 8 gold mohar, Article 9 silver todar and Article 10 gold nose-ring in this case have been identified as belonging to the deceased which were worn by her when she last left her house, some time after which she was, admittedly, done to death.

( 4. ) ON 5-2-1971, in a well situate in the outskirts of the village, at a distance of about six furlongs from the house of accused Murarilal, a dead body was recovered sewn in a gunny bag which was alsp filled with some bricks, apparently to keep it under water. The dead body was in a highly decomposed state. It was identified as the dead body of Mst Laltibai. After recovery of the dead body a half-chewed pan (Article 21) was also recovered from the mouth of the deceased and was seized as per seizure memo Ex. P-13. On recovery of the dead body, police being already in the village to enquire about the missing woman, a dehati nalishi (Ex. P-3) was recorded the same day (i. e. 5-2-1971 ). The investigation led to the arrest of these two accused and their consequent trial for the aforesaid offences.

( 5. ) THE prosecution alleges that on information given by accused Murarilal as per memo Ex. P. 18 dated 6-2-1971, the gold has





























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top