The judgment establishes the principle that a complete chain of circumstantial evidence, failure to explain last seen circumstances, and proved motive can lead to the conviction of the accused.

JUDGMENT :

G. D. SAXENA, J.

The Special Judge (NDPS) in the district of Gwalior while disposing of the Sessions Trial No. 322/01, vide impugned judgment and order dated 31st December 2001, convicted the appellant/accused for commission of offence punishable under sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 30,000/- ( Rs. Thirty Thousand Only) and further three years' rigorous imprisonment for offence under section 201 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The appellant Bhagwandas stood his trial on the charges for murder of Smt. Rekha Bhatnagar, a resident of Bhind, which is an offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. He was further charged for causing disappearance of the evidence with an intention to screen himself from the legal punishment, which is an offence punishable under section 201 of Indian Penal Code.

3. The facts, in short, just for the adjudication of the matter are that on 3rd June 2000, Smt. Rekha who was working as police constable at Bhind stayed for a while at her residence at Bhahodapur Gwalior with her sister-in-law (Bhabhi), named Smt. Shiksha Raje. At about 2:30- 3:00 in the noon, accused Bhagwandas reached at her residence where a hot exchange of words took place between them on account of return of money of Rs. 30,000/- which was taken by the accused as a bribe for securing her job in the police department at Sheopur. The accused somehow was not intending to return the money to her. It is further case of the prosecution that as and when she used to demand the money, the accused was on one ground or the other sought excuses. In the meantime, extra marital relations allegedly developed between the accused and deceased. On the day of incident at about 3 p.m., Smt. Rekha went with accused Bhagwandas in an auto-rickshaw and thereafter she was not seen alive. It is alleged that on 4th June 2000, in the morning when witness Jaswant (PW-13) was going to attend a natural call, he saw on the way that one dead body contained in a cloth bag was lying near the watercourse. Then, he immediately informed the police station Morar. Accordingly, a Marg Report (Ex.P/17) was written at 37/2000 under the provision of section 174 of Criminal Procedure Code and inquired into by the Probationary Sub-Inspector Dinesh Prajapati (PW-16). Subsequently, the said police officer proceeded to the spot and seized the alleged cloth packet in which a dead body was kept. Other articles vide seizure memo Ex.P/22 were seized. During investigation, the police officer received an information that the unknown dead body was of none else but of Smt. Rekha Bhatnagar, who was killed by Bhagwandas. The unknown female dead body was also identified by Smt. Kusumlata (PW-7) and Dewendra (PW-4) as their daughter and sister. The memo of dead body (Ex.P/20) on the spot after identification of the dead body was sent for post-mortem. The statements of material witnesses were recorded. The incriminating articles were seized and sent for chemical examination to the State Forensic Science Laboratory. As per post-mortem report, the mode of death was homicidal. Spot map where the dead body was lying in the watercourse was prepared. After Marg inquiry, the F.I.R. was written on 5th June 2000 and Crime No. 356/2000 was registered against the accused-appellant for offence punishable under sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code. Accused was arrested. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the criminal Court, having jurisdiction at Gwalior. On committal, the Sessions trial commenced. The learned trial Judge after hearing the prosecution and defence and on considering the evidence as adduced by the prosecution and defence found all the charges to the hilt and recorded the judgment of conviction and passed the sentence against the appellant, as mentioned above vide impugned judgment, hence this appeal.

4. The learned counsel appearing for convicted accused/appellant submitted that the j