- (1.) RAM Sewak has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 20-5-1980 of Sri Dinesh Chandra, IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow convicting the appellant under Section 302, IPC and sentencing him to imprisonment for life.
(2.) THE machinery of law was set into motion by ICallu Chaukidar of village Nabipanah, P. S. Mall district Lucknow who lodged an FIR on 22-2-1979 at 10. 30 a. m. at P. S. Mall, district Lucknow inform ing that a dead body of an unidentified man wearing a sweater and Pyjama was lying in the Arhar field of Bharoscy in village Bhagwantkhera. A case was registered and A. S. I. Malhura Singh started investigation. He went to the post; prepared Panchayat-nama Ext. Ka. 6, site-plan Ext. Ka-11 and sent the body for post-mortem examina tion in a scaled cover. THEreafter inves tigation was taken up by Sri Babu Ram on 24-2-1979. Eventually it was discovered that the dead-body was not a man but it was of one Indra Devi, mother of P. W. 3 Lal Babadur Singh, resident of Maurawan S. Maurawan, district Unnao. THE Inves tigating Officer got the dead-body iden tified by Lal Bahadur Singh and Poornima Devi, son and daughter respectively of the deceased. Identification was done after the post-mortem examination which was con ducted on 26- 2-1979. The post-mortem examination of the deceased was held by Dr. D. K. Saxena, P. W. 10 which reveals 25 incised wounds on the person of the deceased. The doctor opined that the death was due to shock and hemorrhage on account of multiple in juries. After completing investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge-sheet against the appellant who was com mitted to the Court of Session. At the trial, the appellant pleaded not guilty. In support of its case, the prosecu tion examined 11 witnesses in all. They are RW. 1 Kalloo, P. W. 2 Ram Prasad, P. W. 3 Lal Bahadur Singh, P. W. 4 Gaya Baksh Singh, P. W. 5 Jagannath Prasad, P. W. 6 Kalpraj Singh. Hcad-moharrir, P. W. 7 S. I. Mathura Singh, P. W. 8 G. S. Bhatnagar, Assistant Chemical Examiner. P. W. 9 S. I. Ram Babu, P. W. 10 Dr. O. K. Saxena and P. W, 11 Ram Lakhan Yadav. The appellant also examined two witnesses, i. e. D. W 1 D. C. Tiwari and D. W. 2 Chhofta. After scrutinizing the evidence, the learned Ses sions Judge convicted and sentenced. he appellant as mentioned above. The appel lant has not come up in appeal in this Court.
(3.) WE have heard Kr. Shanti Prakash, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Anundi Bancrji, learned State counsel and have perused the evidence. In this case there is no eye-witness and the case rests on circumstantial evidence. One of the important links of circumstantial evidence is the evidence of last seen. On this point, the prosecution has examined Lal Bahadur Singh alias Munna, son of the deceased, who has deposed that about three days prior to the incident his mother had gone in the com pany of the appellant at about 8. 45 p. m. without anything. He has further stated that when even after three or four days his mother did not return, he became worried. He added that the appellant came and took away his belongings from the house of the deceased and when the wit ness asked the appellant regarding the whereabouts of his mother, the appellant simply denied any knowledge -"\d left without telling anything. We have scrutinised the evidence of this witness and we are of the opinion that the evidence of this witness is unworthy of credence. The evidence reveals that the deceased had lost her husband about four years prior to the incident and since then the deceased and the appellant came very close to each other and the deceased and the appellant started frequenting each other. On the other hand, relations between the witness and his mother Indra Devi (deceased) were far from being cordial. The defence has filed copy of the F. I. R. Ext. Kha-2 lodged with the police by the deceased on 4-9-1978, i. e. only five months prior to the incident against witness Lal Bahadur Singh. The F. I. R. reveals that the deceased had com plained the police that her son was a wayward type of person and was always demanding more and more money from the deceased. She further complained that the witness used to loiter here and there and not only abused the deceased but was also extending threats to kill her. The report has been proved by D. W. 1 Dinesh Chandra. Learned counsel for the appel lant has urged that the circumstances of the case go to show that it was P. W 3 Lal Bahadur Singh who was instrumental in the murder of the deceased and by getting the deceased murdered, Lal Bahadur Singh killed two birds with one stone. On the one hand he got rid of the deceased and on the other hand he got his mother's paramour, i. e. the appellant implicated on a false charge of murder as the witness was having lot of grievance with the appellant on account of deceased's close relation ship with the appellant. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant has sub stance. Evidence of Lal Bahadur Singh leaves one guessing as to why Lal Bahadur Singh remained tight lipped regarding disappearance of his mother (deceased Indra Devi) for several days. Lal Bahadur Singh has staled that the appellant was carrying on a cycle repair shop in Mohalla Thakur-ganj, Lucknow and he sometimes used to dine with the deceased at her house. Later on, he started living in the house of the deceased with her. The witness has further that the appellant had purchased a of land in Newajganj, but the pur chase price was paid by the deceased. In these circumstances it was quite natural for witness Lal Bahadur Singh to turn hos tile towards the appellant who was an out sider and was not only carrying on with his mother but had also induced her to pay the price of the land purchased by the appel lant. In his cross-examination the witness admitted that he had repeatedly asked his mother why she was allowing the appellant to frequent her, but the deceased gave no reply. The witness further stated that he disliked the meetings of the appellant with his mother Indra Devi. It may be observed here that if the prosecution case that the deceased was having illicit affair with the deceased is correct, it must be bringing ridicule to P. W. 3 Lal Bahadur Singh, son of the deceased and such relationships generally end in enmities. The son would be hating the conduct of the appellant as well as his mother. In this very connection, we may again refer to Ext. Kha-2 F. I. R. lodged by the deceased against P. W 3 Lal Bahadur Singh with the allegation that Lal Bahadur Singh was extending, threats to murder her. The fact that Lal Bahadur Singh maintained complete silence regarding disappearance of his mother and did not at all make any enquiry about her for several days also casts serious doubt on his conduct. Lal Bahadur Singh has ad mitted that he did not search for his miss ing mother and till he learnt the news of her murder, did not even tell anybody regarding the deceased going away and disappearing.;