SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE accused appellant Ashok Raghuvanshi (for short the accused) was indicated before the learned Sessions Judge Jaipur District in Sessions Case No. 6/94 for having committed murder of his wife Rajni and daughter Harshita. THE learned Sessions Judge after finding the accused guilty convicted and sentenced him vide judgment dated December 14, 1995 as under- U/s. 302 IPc to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 100/- in default to further suffer one month imprisonment U/s. 203 IPc to suffer six months RI. THE sentences were directed to run concurrently. Against the judgment of conviction that the action for filing the instant appeal has been initiated by the accused. THE State of Rajasthan sought enhancement of sentence by filing a separate appeal.
(2.) THE prosecution case as unfolded during the trial may be briefly stated thus- (i) On the basis of written report Ex. P. 1, submitted by the accused himself FIR No. 319/93 was registered at Police Station Sanganer on September 6, 1993 at 11. 20 p. m. for offence punishable under section 302 IPC. It had been interalia stated in the report that the accused had returned to his house at around 9. 30 p. m. THE lights in the house were not found on. THE door at the back side on the house was not found open as usual. THE accused stopped his scooter and called his wife. He knocked the door, rang the call bell. THEreafter he found the front door locked. THEse happenings were unusual, therefore he went towards the house of Surendra Kumar Saxena and brought him to him house. Both of them pushed the back door. THE door opened with a slight push. In the torch light they found that behind the rear door a stone had been placed. THE glare of the torch when fell inside the house. dead bodies of Rajni wife of the accused and Kumari Harshita the daughter of the accused were found in the Kitchen and in the dining room respectively. (ii) In the course of investigation S. H. O. PS Sanganer inspected the site. On September 7, 1993 the accused is alleged to have submitted another application Ex. P. 5 to the Incharge Police Station Sanganer. It was stated therein that Rs. 8,000/-, four gold bangles, three gold rings, one gold pendant, a pair of gold ear rings and a pair of silver anklets were found missing from the house. THE police further added offence punishable under section 380 IPC. During search of the house few letters and medical reports of Smt. Rajni and Kumari Harshita were also recovered. In the course of investigation the police came to the conclusion that no theft had been committed. THE articles which according to the accused had been allegedly stolen, were recovered from the custody of the accused as these articles were found lying in the almirah belonging to the accused which was placed in his office situated in Birla Planetorium. Autopsy on the dead bodies were conducted. Blood samples were lifted from the scene of occurrence. Photographs were taken. During investigation the accused was taken into custody and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against him. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Sessions Judge Jaipur District. Charges under sections 302 and 203 IPC were framed against the accused who denied the charges and claimed trial. THE prosecution examined as many as 28 witnesses in support of its case. In his explanation under section 313 Cr. P. C. the accused stated that the witnesses were telling lies. He stated that he had been falsely roped in as his in laws were annoyed with him. THE report from the Forensic Science Laboratory was false and fabricated. THE accused also submitted a written statement. Two witnesses Rajendra Kumar Jain and Rajendra Godha were examined in defence. After hearing final submissions, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused as indicated hereinabove. Mr. S. R. Bajwa, learned Senior Counsel vociferously canvassed that the learned trial judge has erred in law in holding the accused guilty on the basis of perverse appreciation of evidence. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are for from being conclusive in nature. No conviction on the basis of circumstances which can be explained away on hypothesis other than leading to guilt alone. The prosecution has failed to prove that the accused had any ill will or enmity against his own daughter Kumari Harshita. There could not be any motive on the part of the accused to take the life of his own daughter. There is no cogent and convincing evidence available on record to infer muchless to conclude that there was any bad blood between the accused and his wife Smt. Rajni. There could be no motive for the accused to commit murder of his own wife. The contemporaneous events fail to point out conclusively that the murders must have been committed by the accused and none else. There is strong probability that some intruders barged into the house with some ulterior design like robbery and confronted with stiff resistance they caused two murders and thereafter some intervening factors might have prevented them from committing robbery and the possibility cannot be ruled out that they had to leave the house suddenly without achieving their ultimate goal. So far as evidence collected on the basis of site plan Ex. P. 2 is concerned, the same is neutral in nature. Medical evidence including the post mortem reports is also neutral in effect. Letters Ex. P. 4 and Ex. P. 29 do not conclusively point out that the accused had been designing to liquidate his wife and his daughter. Recovery of Rs. 8000/- and gold ornaments etc. is fake and fabricated. The recovery of a hammer vide recovery memo Ex. P. 57 is false and frivolous. The investigating agency has planted these articles to connect the accused with the alleged offence. The learned trial judge has based the conviction on the basis of sheer surmises and conjectures. Reliance was placed on various authorities that shall be considered in the later part of the judgment. Per contra Mr. S. S. Rathore, learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. S. R. Surana, learned counsel for the complainant supported the impugned judgment and urged that the prosecution had established by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances proved form chain of events from which the only irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the accused can be safely drawn and no other hypothesis against the guilt is possible. Case law on which reliance was placed shall be referred at the appropriate juncture. We have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record. Admittedly there is no direct evidence to connect the accused with the guilt and the case is based on circumstantial evidence. The law relating to circumstantial evidence in clear and unmistakable terms has been laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Tanviben Pankajkumar Divetia vs. State of Gujrat (1 ). It was indicated thus : (Para 45) "the Principle for basing a conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidences has been indicated in a number of decisions of this Court and the law is well settled that each and every incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable and clinching evidence and circumstances so proved must form a chain of events from which the only irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the accused can be safely drawn and no other hypothesis against the guilt is possible. This court has clearly sounded a note of caution that in a case depending largely upon circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof. The Court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain of events have been established clearly and such completed chain of events must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. It has also been indicated that when the important link goes, the chain of circumstances gets snapped and the other circumstance cannot, in any manner establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. It has been held that the Court has to be watchful and avoid the danger of allowing the suspicion to take the place of legal proof for sometimes, unconsciously it may happen to be a short step between moral certainty and legal proof. It has been indicated by this court that there is a long mental distance between `may be true' and `must be true' and the same divides conjectures from sure conclusion. " These principles have been elaborately dealt with in Sharad Bidhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra Bearing the aforequoted principles in mind we propose to examine each set of evidence and to see whether taken together they are sufficient to raise inference that the victims were done to death by the accused.
(3.) THE circumstances which the prosecution presented can be recast as follows- (i) Rajni and Harshita used to remain sick and the accused wanted to get rid of them. (ii) Accused wanted to marry another woman. (iii) Rajni had apprehension of her death and she wrote in her diary that after her death her all money be given to her daughter Harshita. (iv) In the preceding months of the occurrence the accused started withdrawing money from the Bank account of Rajni. (v) Conduct of the accused after the occurrence was unnatural. (vi) Accused lodged false report (Ex. P. 1) with the Police Station. In another application Ex. P. 5 the accused falsely informed the Police Station that Rs. 8000/-, four gold bangles, three gold rings, one gold pendant, a pair of gold ear rings and a pair of silver anklets were found missing from his house. (vii) THE accused while in custody gave information leading to the discovery of cash, ornaments and blood stained hammer. (viii) THE ornaments which according to the accused had been allegedly stolen from his house, were recovered at the instance of the accused from the almirah belonging to the accused which was placed in his office at Birla Planetorium. (ix) THE ornaments were identified by the brother of deceased Rajni. (x) Blood stained hammer was recovered from the almirah at the instance of the accused. (xi) According to FSL report (Ex. P. 101) blood group `ab' of Harshita was found on hammer. In order to establish that the accused wanted to marry another woman and intended to get rid of Rajni and Harshita as both of them used to remain sick the prosecution has examined Suresh Chand Singh PW. 3, Vijay Laxmi PW. 6, Dr. Gauri Shaker PW. 13, Dr. Ashok Jain PW. 14, Sister Deepa PW. 18, and Dr. Tapeshwar Nath PW. 20. Suresh Chand Singh PW. 3 is the real brother of Rajni. In his deposition Suresh Chand Singh stated that Harshita used to remain sick since her birth and after giving birth to Harshita, Rajni also suffered from ill-health. The accused once told him that because of Rajni's illness he be permitted to enter into second marriage. Rajni was not happy with this proposal and he also opposed it. The behaviour of the accused with Rajni thereafter became cruel. About two months before the incident when Rajni visited Firojabad, she told him that accused used to harass her. He alongwith his wife came to Jaipur one month before the incident and met Rajni. She then informed him that the incidents of harassment by the accused with her were increasing and once he dragged her out of the house. She also told him that money earned by her had been withdrawn by the accused after pursuading her to sign on the blank cheques. Suresh Chand Singh got exhibited. letter Ex. P. 4 written by the accused to him whereby the accused invited him to Jaipur to have a talk. Suresh Chand Singh further deposited about Rajni's apprehension that the accused might kill her and her daughter. On September 7, 1997 he had received telephonic message that Rajni and Harshita had been killed but this information was not given by the accused. When he reached Jaipur and met the accused he found the accused disturbed but there were no marks of grief on his face. Finding Rajni's cot in the drawing room when Suresh Chandra Singh made query, the accused told him that they used to sleep on separate costs because of security purposes. Suresh Chandra Singh identified the ornaments of Rajni in the court. He identified the hand writing of Rajni in the Diary Article 3 wherein Rajni wrote that after her death all her money be handed over to her daughter Harshita. ;