Raghuveer Singh vs State of M.P.

Conviction u/S,Sentence Awarded,Fine amount

302 IPC,Life imprisonment,Rs. 5000/- with default stipulation.

307 IPC,"05 years R.I.,",Rs. 2000/- with default stipulation.

397 IPC,07 years R.I.,"Rs.3,000/- with default stipulation.

independent witness.,,

(x) The findings of the court below are based more on suspicion, conjecture and surmise rather than legal proof.",,

Per Contra, learned counsel for the State submits hat arms and ammunition which were found missing from the armory of the DRDE Gwalior",,

were found in possession of the appellant and were seized vide Ex.P-13 at Jind. It is further submitted by referring to para 50 and 51 of the,,

impugned judgment that the stolen arms and ammunitions which were recovered from the appellant at Jind were duly proved by PW-13 Shri,,

Ramkrishna, who stated that he recognized the signature of Bheem Singh, police personnel at Jind in whose presence the said arms and",,

ammunition were recovered from the appellant. It is further submitted that there was no requirement of holding of TIP as the seized articles were,,

having unique registration number which matched with the registration number of those articles which were reported to be stolen. It is also,,

submitted by the State counsel that no explanation has come forth from the appellant in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. to explain his absence at the,,

time of his night duty in the intervening night of 10th and 11th November, 1996. It is lastly submitted that the appellant deserves no benefit from this",,

Court in view of his subsequent conduct of fleeing from captivity while he was being brought back in custody from Jind to Gwalior.,,

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, considering the facts circumstances and evidence brought on record, this Court is of the considered",,

view that the prosecution has successfully proved the chain of circumstances connecting the appellant to the crime of theft in dwelling house.,,

7.1. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant that police personnel in whose presence the stolen arms and ammunition were recovered at,,

Jind (Haryana) were not produced before the Court, is of no avail to the appellant in view of the fact of PW-13 Shri Ramkrishana having proved",,

the said recovery and seizure by submitting that Bheem Singh ( police personnel at Haryana) in whose presence the stolen articles were recovered,,

from the appellant at Jind, was known to him and he recognizes his signature. More so the arms and ammunition which were stolen are things",,

neither of common usage nor are available in the open market. Each weapon and ammunition has a unique registration number which is engraved,,

or embossed over it which cannot be obliterated without damaging the arms / ammunition. It is not disputed by the defence that the weapons and,,

ammunition recovered from appellant were the same which were stolen from the armory at DRDE Gwalior. Thus, this argument of the defence is",,

untenable. More so the fact of the appellant being on night duty along with deceased and the injured is matter of record and has been proved by,,

the prosecution. The deceased was found dead and the injured was found in unconscious state in close vicinity of the armory. The lock of the,,

armory was found broken with arms and ammunition as reported by the DRDE to be missing. The broken butt of carbine was found close to the,,

dead body and the injured. The appellant alone was found missing along with the weapon allotted to him. Thereafter the appellant was,,

apprehended the very next day at Jind (Haryana) in unlawful possession of the same weapons and ammunition which were allotted to him and,,

which were found missing from the armory. The appellant was thus arrested and the said weapons and ammunition were recovered from him which,,

on the basis of unique identification marks matched with the arms and ammunition missing from armory.,,

7.2 After having found the appellant liable for the offence of theft in dwelling house (armory), it is to be seen whether in the available facts and",,

circumstances the appellant can be convicted for the murder of the deceased Tej Singh and for attempt to murder of injured D.B. Shahi.,,

7.3 The facts which are undisputed and have been found proved by the prosecution are to the effect that the appellant along with deceased Tej,,

Singh and the injured D.B. Shahi in and around the area was deputed for night sentry duty at and around the armory of DRDE Gwalior. More so,,

besides the said three persons (the appellant, deceased Tej Singh and injured D.B. Shahi) there was no one else in and around the area where the",,

incident took place. The appellant was missing from his sentry duty, from the time when the incident occurred during night intervening 10th and",,

11th November, 1996 till his arrest by the Jind (Haryana) Police on 12.11.1996 in unlawful possession of arms and ammunition which were found",,

missing from DRDE armory. There is total absence of any explanation on the part of appellant about his absence from sentry duty in the intervening,,

night of 10th and 11th November, 1996 and as to how and why he was found in possession of stolen arms and ammunition at Jind, Haryana.",,

7.4 It is not the case of the appellant that he was on leave. It is further not the case of the appellant that he was absent from sentry duty because of,,

some compelling circumstances. It is also not the case of the appellant that there was any fourth person besides the appellant, injured D.B. Shahi",,

and deceased Tej Singh at the place and time when the incident took place.,,

7.5 The incriminating circumstance found proved against the appellant as enumerated above coupled with the failure of the appellant to offer any,,

explanation, provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances making it complete. Similar view was taken by the Apex Court in the case of",,

Trimukh Maroti Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2007 Cri.L.J. 20 ( Para: 16 & 17) which is reproduced below:-,,

In a case based on circumstantial evidence where no eye- witness account is available, there is another principle of law which",,

must be kept in mind. The principle is that when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and the said accused either offers,,

no explanation or offers an explanation which is found to be untrue, then the same becomes an additional link in the chain of",,

circumstances to make it complete. This view has been taken in a catena of decisions of this Court. [See State of Tamil Nadu v.,,

Rajendran, (1999) 8 SCC 679 (para 6); State of U.P. v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal AIR 1992 SC 2045 (para 40); State of",,

Maharashtra v. Suresh (2000) 1 SCC 471 (para 27); Ganesh Lal v. State of Rajasthan (2002) 1 SCC 731 (para 15) and Gulab,,

Chand v. State of M.P. (1995) 3 SCC 574 (para 4)]. 17.Where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and,,

the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that shortly before the commission of crime they were seen together or the,,

offence takes placed in the dwelling home where the husband also normally resided, it has been consistently held that if the accused",,

does not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong",,

circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for commission of the crime. In Naika Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh AIR,,

1972 SC 2077 it was observed that the fact that the accused alone was with his wife in the house when she was murdered there with,,

''khokhri'' and the fact that the relations of the accused with her were strained would, in the absence of any cogent explanation by",,

him, point to his guilt. In Ganeshlal v. State of Maharashtra (1992) 3 SCC 106 the appellant was prosecuted for the murder of his",,

wife which took place inside his house. It was observed that when the death had occurred in his custody, the appellant is under an",,

obligation to give a plausible explanation for the cause of her death in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The mere denial of the,,

prosecution case coupled with absence of any explanation were held to be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused, but",,

consistent with the hypothesis that the appellant is a prime accused in the commission of murder of his wife. In State of U.P. v. Dr.,,

Ravindra Prakash Mittal AIR 1992 SC 2045 the medical evidence disclosed that the wife died of strangulation during late night hours,,

or early morning and her body was set on fire after sprinkling kerosene. The defence of the husband was that wife had committed,,

suicide by burning herself and that he was not at home at that time. The letters written by the wife to her relatives showed that the,,

husband ill-treated her and their relations were strained and further the evidence showed that both of them were in one room in the,,

night. It was held that the chain of circumstances was complete and it was the husband who committed the murder of his wife by,,

strangulation and accordingly this Court reversed the judgment of the High Court acquitting the accused and convicted him under,,

Section 302 IPC. In State of Tamil Nadu v. Rajendran (1999) 8 SCC 679 the wife was found dead in a hut which had caught fire.,,

The evidence showed that the accused and his wife were seen together in the hut at about 9.00 p.m. and the accused came out in the,,

morning through the roof when the hut had caught fire. His explanation was that it was a case of accidental fire which resulted in the,,

death of his wife and a daughter. The medical evidence showed that the wife died due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation and not,,

on account of burn injuries. It was held that there cannot be any hesitation to come to the conclusion that it was the accused,,

(husband) who was the perpetrator of the crime.""",,

7.6 True it is that the prosecution failed to produce and examine the injured witness D.B. Shahi who could have revealed the truth about the,,

incident but the facts remains that it was also open to the appellant to have asked for the said D.B. Shahi to be produced as a defence witness,",,

which was not done. If the appellant was innocent then above said recourse could have been adopted. Appellant not producing the injured D.B.,,

Shahi as a witness is another militating circumstance against him.,,

7.7 In view of the above undisputed facts and circumstances eliminating all hypothesis of innocence, it was for the appellant to explain as to how",,

and in what circumstances he was missing and was found in unlawful possession of the arms and ammunition by Jind, Haryana police on",,

12.11.1996 when he was apprehended.,,

7.8 These undisputed facts and circumstances form a complete unbroken chain of circumstances pointing undoubtedly towards guilt of appellant of,,

committed murder and causing attempt to murder at the time of the incident. In a case attended with similar circumstances the Division Bench of,,

High Court of Rajasthan in the case The State Vs. Mohanlal and Anr. reported in 1958 Cr.L.J. 1540 (Vol. 59, C.N. 476) in para 5 has held thus",,

:-,,

........ the law is well settled that where murder and robbery are proved to have been integral parts of a certain transaction, the",,

presumption that can be drawn from the possession of the property may, consistent with all the facts proved in the case, be that the",,

person to whom such possession was traced not only committed the theft thereof but also committed the murder which forms part of,,

the same transaction as theft. It must of course be established that, before any such presumption can be drawn, the primary thing to",,

be proved is that the accused had no satisfactory explanation to offer for his possession of property. Further, where the accused",,

offers an explanation the burden of proving the truth of that explanation affirmatively does not rest on the accused. It still rests on the,,

prosecution to prove that the explanation is not true. .......""",,

7.9 When the undisputed facts and circumstances as enumerated above and proved by the prosecution are tested on the anvil of the law laid down,,

by the Apex Court and as well as this Court, the irresistible conclusion that can be drawn is that the offence of murder of the deceased Tej Singh",,

and attempt to murder of injured D.B. Shahi respectively could not have been caused by any other person except the appellant who was on night,,

duty at the time when the incident took place and was deputed as such in and around the area where the incident took place.,,

Accordingly, we confirm the findings of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Judge vide impugned judgment dated 07.09.1999",,

passed in S.T. No. 338/1997 holding the appellant guilty of the offences u/Ss. 302, 307 and 397 IPC. The appeal being sans merit is dismissed",,

accordingly.,,