MATHUR, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is preferred from Jail against the judgment dated 15. 9. 2000 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Abu Road convicting the appellant of offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-; in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. He has also been convicted for offence under Section 201 IPC and sentenced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-; in default to further undergo one month rigorous imprisonment.
(2.) THE prosecution case as unfolded during trial is that the appellant Hemant a resident of Village Kojara, District, Sirohi lived with his sister at Bombay in the locality known as Naga Supra. He developed friendship with deceased Uma a neighbour working in a beauty Parlor. He made proposal for marriage with Uma to her mother P. W. 13 Anandi Devi. Agitated of cold response, he threatened to kidnape Uma. Soon thereafter both of them disappeared on 2. 3. 1998. No missing report was lodged. On 6. 4. 1998 both of them talked to P. W. 13 Anandi Devi on telephone and assured that they would be returning to Bombay soon. Both of them visited village Kojra in the month of March and stayed in the temple. THE family house in the village was made open and entry was made, after performing religious rites in presence of the sisters and other family members. THEy again visited the village in June and stayed in the house. THEreafter deceased Uma was not seen with the appellant. On 5. 07. 1998, Police receiving an information that a dead body wa lying the the Haveli reached on the spot. P. W. 1 Lal Shanker submitted a written First Information Report Ex. P78 to S. H. O. , Police Station, Pindwara stating inter alia that while it was raining at about 9. 00 A. M. , he claimed on the terrace of the house of the appellant Hemant to see the view of the tank. On the terrace, he found the ventilator of the room opened. He peeped into the ventilator of the room and found a dead body lying therein. He informed the police. THE police broke open the lack. THE dead body was highly decomposed condition. THE dead body was identified as the wife of appellant Hemant. On this information police registered as case for offence under Section 302 I. P. C. and proceeded with investigation. THE police prepared the inquest report and the site plan. Bangles and some other ornaments were taken from the body. THE appellant Hemant was arrested on suspicion. It is alleged that in pursuance of the information given by the appellant his own trouser stained with blood and ornaments of the deceased were recovered. THE statements of P. W. 2 Rajendra Trivedi and P. W. 8 Bharat Prabhu Lal were recorded under Section 164 Cr. P. C. After usual investigation, police laid charge-sheet against the appellant and one Puran Kumar (since acquitted) for offence under Section 302 & 201 IPC. The appellant denied the charges leveled against him and claimed trial. The prosecution adduced oral and documentary evidence to prove the charges levelled against the appellant. The trial court held the appellant guilty of committing murder of Mst. Uma and convicted and sentenced in the manner noticed above. We have heard Mr. Shreedhar Purohit learned amicus curaie appearing for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. We have carefully scrutinized and evaluated the evidence on record. The prosecution has relied upon the following piece of circumstances:- (1) That the deceased was last seen in the company of the appellant. (2) Misleading information given by the appellant with respect to the whereabouts of deceased Uma. (3) Recovery of the key of the room wherein the dead body of deceased Uma was found. (4) Recovery of the ornaments of the deceased in pursuance of the information given by the appellant. (5) Non-explanation of presence of human blood by appellant on his trouser. At the first instance, we may refer the medical evidence to satisfy that Mst. Uma died of homicidal death. P. W. 20 Dr. Suresh Mathur has stated that the postmortem of dead body of the deceased Uma was conducted by the Medical Board of which he was one of the member. He has proved the postmortem report Ex. P17. The Board has noticed the condition of the dead body as follows:- Skin of scalp is hardened, hairs are fallen. (I) A linear tear on the skin is present on the left side of the forehead which vertical is of about 4 cm. Long. (ii) Another linear tear of the skin is present of left eye brow region, which is about 3 cm. Long. After removing the skin from the skull "vertical fracture" of frontal bone of left side (frontal eminence) is present. This fracture is about 3 cm. Long "horizontal fracture" of the frontal bone just above the it. Eye brow is present. Liquification of brain tissue is present. In the opinion of the Board the cause of death wad coma resulted due to head injury P. W. 9 Nilesh identified the dead body, that of deceased Uma. Thus, prosecution has succeeded in establishing that deceased Uma died of homicide death. In order to prove first circumstances of "last seen" the prosecution has examined P. W. 8 Bharat Prabhu Lal the cousin brother of the appellant. He has stated that in the last week of March 1998 appellant visited the village Kojra. He was accompanied by a girl. He introduced her as his wife named Uma. It was made known that the appellant had contracted love marriage with Uma. The couple stayed in the temple. Next day, they went to a nearby village named Malgauv. He returned after 3-4 days along with his sisters Kamla, Usha, Hansa etc. Deceased Uma was also with them. They performed religious ceremony of house warming. After 15-20 days the appellant and Uma visisted the village and stayed for two days. Lastly on 5th June appellant along with deceased Uma met him. He offered him dinner but he stated that he will take dinner at Sirohi as he had to proceed to Bombay. They spent night on the terrace of the temple. In the morning of 6th June he found Hemant along. He was getting ready for going to Bombay. Thereafter Uma was not seen alive. It was only or 6. 07. he came to know that Uma has been murdered.
(3.) P. W. 9 Nilesh stated that he was known to appellant Hemant. He owned a house in village Kojra. He visited the village in the month of March along with a girl to whom he introduced as his wife named Uma. He also stated that he had contracted court marriage with her. He stayed there for about two days. Thereafter the couple left for the village Malgauv. He returned along with his wife and sisters. He again met him on 30. 03. 1998. He wife Uma was with him. Thereafter he had no seen Mst. Uma alive. Similar is the statement of P. W. 12 Raju P. W. 13 Mst. Anandi Devi is the mother of deceased Uma. She has stated that the appellant kidnapped her daughter Mst. Uma in March, 1998. On 6. 04. 1998 both of them talked to her on telephone. They assured that they will return to Bombay within 15-20 days. The statements of the witnesses leads to the irresistible conclusion that the deceased was last seen in the company of the appellant. Thus, the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the first circumstance of last seen. As regards the second circumstance, P. W. 8 Bharat Prabhu Lal has stated that on 6. 06. 1998 on inquiry the appellant disclosed that his wife Uma had gone to Jhadoli to meet her maternal uncle and from there she will join him at Sirohi. He further stated that they will go to Bombay from Sirohi. On 17-18 June, 1998 he received a message from Bombay through Raju Ram to inquire about whereabouts of the wife of Hemant. it was reported that appellant Hemant had returned to Bombay alone. He was not accompanied by his wife Uma. He inquired from his sister and also visited the village Malgauv. he also inquired from appellant Hemant. He told him that Uma had gone to village Gol. Thereafter he stated that she had gone to his sister Dodva or Pandiv. When he confronted him as to why he was misleading them, he told him that he has left Uma at Nala Supra Railway Station, Bombay with her mother. On 30. 06. 1998 the appellant again visited along with his friend Puran. When he again inquired about Uma he gave misleading informations. He went to the Haveli on the pretext that he has to close the ventilator. Similar is the statement of P. W. 9 Nilesh. He has also stated that the appellant was giving misleading informations about deceased Uma. The statement of P. W. 12 Raju is also almost on the same line. Thus, adverse inference it to be drawn against the appellant for giving misleading informations about the whereabouts of Mst. Uma. Thus, the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the second incriminating circumstance against the appellant. As regards the third circumstance the appellant was arrested vide Ex. P. 16. While in custody he gave information vide Ex. P73 leading to the recovery of the key of the room in which the dead body of Uma was found. It is contended that recovery of key is of no consequence as the lock was broke open by the police. The contention deserves to be rejected. There is evidence to show that the recovered key is of the lock broke for opening the room. Thus, this circumstances also points out towards the guilt of the appellant. ;