SHARMA, J. - (1.) GHANSHYAM @ Mool Chand, the appellant herein, was put to trial in Sessions Case No. 35/1999 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Neem-ka-Thana (Sikar), who vide judgment dated January 11, 2002 convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment for one year.
(2.) THE prosecution story is woven like this: On May 18, 1999 the informant Jagdish (PW. 7) finding his son Lala Ram, aged 12 years, lying dead in the Nala near Railway (Sikar) with the averments that he was a truck driver and had gone to Delhi. On May 16, 1999 he returned from Delhi and saw crowd near Railway crossing. He got his truck halted and reached near the crowd where he found his son lying dead having deep cut on his neck. On that report a case for the offence under Section 302 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. Dead body of Lala Ram was subjected to autopsy, statements of witnesses were recorded by the police, necessary memos were drawn 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, Neem-ka-thana (Sikar ). 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 18 witnesses. In the explanation under Section 313 Cr. P. C. , the appellant claimed innocence. 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 heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance weighed the material on 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 means the evidence afforded not by the direct testimony of an eye-witness to fact to be proved, but by the bearing upon that fact or other and subsidiary facts which are relied upon as inconsistent with any result other than truth of the principal facts. 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 exit 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 all the circumstances that were found established by the learned trial Judge. They are as under: (i) Homicidal death. (ii) Deceased was last seen in the company of appellant. (iii) Recovery of knife allegedly used in commission of offence at the instance of appellant. (iv) Blood group found on the knife matched with the blood group of the deceased. Homicidal Death :
(3.) DEATH of Lala Ram was undeniably homicidal in nature. As per post mortem report (Ex. P-27) following antemortem injuries were found on the dead body:- 1. Incised wound 6" x 3-1/2" x upto vertebral column at front of neck at junction of neck and head more on right side. All structured trachea, blood vessels and muscles are cut slight oblique upper and towards left side of neck and lower and towards medial part supraclavicular Right side area, the wound is widest at mid at Trachea antemortem in nature. 2. Incised wound 1-1/2" x 1/4" medial aspect lower part left forearm. 3. Abrasion 1-3/4" x 1" at dorsal aspect left hand. 4. Abrasion tiny 7-8 in number at right side chest wall & abdominal wall. In the opinion of Dr. O. P. Karwal (PW. 16), who conducted autopsy on the dead body, the cause of death was primary shock due to severe haemorrhage and injury to vital organ. Last Seen : The second circumstance against the appellant is that he was last seen in the company of deceased. In order to establish that the deceased was last seen in the company of the appellant the prosecution examined Prabhat (PW. 5) and Suresh (PW. 6 ). Prabhat (PW. 5) in his deposition stated that Jagdish Driver, the father of deceased Lala, was his younger brother. On the afternoon preceding to the day of recover of dead body of Lala, he had seen the appellant and the deceased together in village Dhani Piploda. In his cross-examination Prabhat deposed that he had also seen appellant wandering in the courtyard. According to this witness deceased was alone in the house. Suresh (PW. 6) in his deposition stated that around 2. 30 p. m. he had seen the appellant and the deceased together in the chowk of the village. He was told by the appellant that after leaving that village he had started residing in Mehroli. The appellant and the deceased proceeded towards village Piploda-ki-Dhani. Learned counsel for the appellant persuaded us to discard the testimony of Prabhat and Suresh on the ground that they were related to the deceased. Having closely scrutinised the testimony of Prabhat and Suresh, we find no substance in the submission of learned counsel. Testimony of these witnesses could not be shattered in cross-examination. We see no time gap between the point of time when the appellant and deceased were last seen alive and the deceased was found dead. In Ramreddy Rajeshkhanna Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (JT 2005 (4) SC 16), their Lordship of the Supreme Court indicated as under: " The last seen theory, furthermore, comes into play where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. Even in such a case courts should look for some corroboration. " ;