SHARMA, J. - (1.) DEATH struck Geeta Devi, a house wife, all of a sudden, at a time, most unlikely. She was neither careful nor beware. She never thought even in her dreams that her servant, who was sleeping on the floor of her drawing room on the fateful night, would become enemy of all faith reposed in him and kill her. Narendra, the appellant herein, was nabbed for committing murder of Geeta Devi and put to trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Jaipur District Jaipur, who vide judgment dated January 22, 2003 convicted him under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months.
(2.) THE prosecution story is woven like this:- Shyam Sunder Goenka, was residing along with his wife Geeta Devi, old mother and servant Narendra in Sector 3 of Kesri Chand Chaudhari Nagar Bagru. On August 1, 1994 while his mother had gone to Jaipur to reside with his elder son, he came to his house at 10. 40 p. m. and slept in the chowk of his house. His wife was sleeping in the bedroom whereas Narendra was sleeping on the floor of drawing room. On August 2, 1994 he woke up at 6 a. m. and called his wife and servant but there was no response from inside. On entering into the bedroom he found his wife lying dead on the floor in a pool of blood. Narendra was missing from the house. Shyam Sunder Goenka submitted written report at Police Station Bagru where a case under Section 302 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. Necessary memos were drawn. Dead body was subjected to autopsy, statements of witnesses were recorded and the appellant was arrested. On completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Jaipur District Jaipur. Charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against the appellant, who denied the charge and claimed trial. THE prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 17 witnesses. In the explanation under Section 313 Cr. P. C. the appellant claimed innocence. He stated that he had no connection with the crime. While he went to police station for police verification, he was implicated falsely in the instant case. No witness in defence was however examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated herein above. We have pondered over rival submissions and with the assistance of learned counsel scanned the record. Since there was no eye-witness of the occurrence the prosecution based its case on circumstantial evidence. It is well settled that case based on circumstantial evidence must satisfy three tests:- (i) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (ii) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; (iii) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else. Circumstantial evidence is not an evidence direct to the point in issue, e. g. the statement of a person that he saw another giving a fatal blow to the deceased but evidence of various facts other than the fact in issue which are so associated with the fact in issue that taken together they form a chain of circumstances leading to an inference or presumption of the existence of the principal fact. The circumstantial evidence should be like spider's web leaving no exist for the accused to slip away. The various links in the chain, when taken in isolation, might not connect the accused with the commission of the crime but when taken together may unmistakably point out the guilt of the culprit. Bearing these principles in mind we have to adjudge the cumulative effect of circumstances that have been found established against the appellant.
(3.) A look at the post-mortem report (Ex. P-17) demonstrates that death of Geeta Devi was homicidal. She received following ante mortem injuries:- 1. Incised wound 2 x 1/4cm skin deep with clotted blood on Lt. side of neck, placed transversely. 2. Incised wound 1-1/2 x 1/2 cm x skin deep with clotted blood opposite frags of Linear placed transversely. 3. Incised wound 1 x 1/2cm x skin deep with clotted blood on Lt. side of neck lower position. 4. Incised wound 2 x 1/2 cm x muscle deep with clotted blood on Rt. lat side of neck middle posterior placed transversely. 5. Incised wound 1 x 1/4 cm x skin deep with clotted blood, on Lt. side back of chest upper 1/3rd placed transversely. 6. Incised wound 1-1/2 x 1/4 cm x skin deep with clotted blood on upper 1/3rd of back of chest in middle portion, placed transversely. 7. Incised wound 2 x 1/2 cm x thoracic cavity deep with clotted blood placed transversely obliquely on Rt. lat side of chest lower 1/3rd portion. On further discretion wound piercing skin & fascia & entering chest cavity in 8th inter costal space laterally piercing the inter costal muscle. 8. Incised wound 1 x 1/2 cm x skin deep with clotted blood, placed obliquely on upper 1/3rd of Lt. arm anteriorly. 9. Incised wound 1-1/2 x 1/2 cm 10. Incised wound 3 x 1-1/2 cm x muscle deep with clotted blood placed obliquely on medial aspect of Lt. arm lower 1/3rd. 11. Incised wound 1 x 1/4 cm x skin deep with clotted blood, on Rt. palm middle portion. 12. Incised wound 2 x 1/4 cm x skin deep with clotted blood, placed transversely obliquely on dorsum of Rt. middle finger at its base. 13. Two abraded bruises of size 4 x 3 cm & 3 x 3 cm reddish in colour placed on Lt. cheek one below another with indentation marks at their peripheries. 14. Abraded bruise 4 x 3cm reddish on Rt. cheek middle portion with indentation marks at its periphery. 15. Abraded bruise 3 x 2 cm reddish in colour opposite fragn of Rt. ear with indentation marks of its periphery. 16. Lacerated wound 2 x 1/2 cm x skin deep with clotted blood on Rt. lower eyelid. 17. Abrasion 1 x 1/2 cm on Rt. upper eyelid. 18. Abraded bruise 1 x 1/2 cm near Rt. angle of mouth with indetation marks on periphery. 19. Linear fusion 1 cm long placed obliquely with clotted blood of Rt. nostril. 20. Abrasion 1 x 1/2 cm with clotted blood on sternal region upper part. 21. Abraded bruise 4 x 1/2 cm reddish in colour on Lt. side front of chest upper 1/3rd placed obliquely. In the opinion of Doctor of P. C. Vyas (PW-7) the cause of death was hemorrhagic shock as a result of injury to vital organs i. e. liver accentuated by other multiple injuries. Thus the prosecution is able to establish the homicidal death of deceased. Then comes the evidence adduced by the prosecution at the trial. Chhitar Mal (PW-1) in his deposition stated that few years back a truck got halted at his Dhaba (small food plaza near the road) and four persons got down of the truck. They took food but did not pay the bill and made request to provide employment to one of their poor companion. He then provided temporary employment to Narendra Singh at his Dhaba, who worked for seven eight days at Dhaba. Narendra Singh during those days developed familiarity with one Pushpa Devi and on her recommendation he became servant in the house of Shyam Sunder Goenka at Bagru. Shyam Sunder Goenka (PW-5) in his deposition stated that on August 1, 1994 he did sleep in the chowk of his house, whereas his wife was sleeping in a room inside the house. His servant was sleeping in another room provided to him. The servant after killing his wife and removing a sum of Rs. 70,000/- along with three Ruby bangles, disappeared. In the morning when he woke up he found dead body of his wife in a pool of blood. He immediately called Dr. Agrawal, who declared her dead, thereafter he approached the police. In the cross-examination he stated that it was a rainy season and he slept outside. He had last seen his wife in the preceding evening around 6-7. 00 p. m. When police came to the spot he handed over the report. His relations with his wife were cordial. On the date of incident he did not have sexual intercourse with his wife. Because the coolers were on he could not hear the voices. He admitted that the dead body of his wife was in naked condition. He denied this suggestion that because he had seen his wife sleeping with the servant he became angry and therefore the servant fled away. Hanuman Singh IO (PW-14) in his deposition stated that on August 2, 1994 he was posted as Sub-Inspector at Police Station Bagru. Around 7. 15 a. m. he received wire-less message about the murder in Plot No. 3/14 Kesri Chand Chaudhary Nagar. He reached to the spot and found dead body of Geeta Devi lying in the room. Written report (Ex. P-1) was handed over to him by Shyam Sunder Goenka. He conducted investigation and drew site plan (Ex. P-2), sealed the knife lying near the dead body vide memo (Ex. P-3 ). He also seized the trouser and iron key vide memo (Ex. P-4 ). He recorded the statements of witnesses. Sita Ram Sharma, SHO PS Bagru (PW-16) deposed that on September 9, 2000 he received message from Police Station Dudu that absconder Narendra Singh of case No. 302/94 of P. S. Bagru was their custody. He along with Bhagwan Singh ASI then went to arrest him. Narendra Singh was arrested on September 9, 2000 vide arrest memo (Ex. P-44 ). ;