N.N. Mathur, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13.11.1990 gassed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh, convicting the appellant of offence under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to further undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment. He has also been convicted of the offence under Section 201 IPC and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- and in default to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment.
(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that P.W. 4 Jeevan Singh, Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Siyana, under the signatures of P.W. 1 Girdhari and some other villagers submitted a missing written report of Deu D/o Girdhari aged 15 years, on 18.3.1988 at Police Station, Rashmi. It was averred that Mst. Deu disappeared at 1 P.M. a day before, at that time she was wearing ornaments like Kandora etc. In the morning, appellant Uda had asked her to prepare food for him and thereafter she was not seen. On enquiry from Uda, he stated that she was being kidnapped by some dacoits and taken towards Indore. Thus, they expressed suspicion on appellant Uda. On this information, police registered a case for the offence under Sections 363, 366, 365 and 342 IPC. Appellant Uda was arrested on 10th April, 1988. On 23rd June, 1988, police gave a Final Report in the case. However, the case was re-opened on 24.10.88 on the information given by P.W. 14 Badrilal to the effect that there was bad smell from the house of Uda which was closed for long time. He suspected that his sister, who had disappeared sometime back, might have been killed and her dead body buried in the house. On receiving this information, the accused was re-arrested vide Ex.P. 5 on 24.10.1988 at 4 PM., and in pursuance of the information given by him vide Ex.P. 26, the dead body of Mst. Deu was recovered from the house of the appellant vide Ex.P. 6. After further investigation, police laid a chargesheet against the appellant for the offence under sections 302, 201 IPC. Appellant denied the charges levelled against him and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of the case examined 19 witnesses and produced certain documents. Appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the correctness of the prosecution evidence appearing against him. The learned trial Court found the circumstantial evidence produced by the prosecution sufficient to conclude that Mst. Deu was killed by the appellant. Accordingly, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant Uda as noticed above.
(3.) We have heard Mr. K.K. Shah, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. I.S. Pareek, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and scanned the prosecution evidence carefully. The prosecution has relied upon the following piece of circumstances : (i) The deceased Deu was last seen in the company of appellant Uda; (ii) Recovery of the dead body of Mst. Deu in pursuance of the information given by the appellant; (iii) Recovery of clothes of the deceased Deu in pursuance of the information given by the appellant; (iv) Recovery or ornaments of the deceased Deu in pursuance of the information given by the plaintiff; (v) Conduct of the appellant.;