SHARMA, J. - (1.) GREED of silver-anklets forced the killer to enter into the lonely room of an old and infirm lady Manphooli Devi (since deceased) and to chop off her ankles in the intervening night of July 25 and 26, 2003. The killer, subsequently identified as Hukam Singh, appellant herein, was put to trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), No. 1, Jaipur City Jaipur. Learned Judge vide judgment dated December 20, 2004 convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:- U/s. 302 IPC: To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. U/s. 397 IPC: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years. Sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) IT is the prosecution case that on July 26, 2003 informant Gopal Lal (Pw. 5) handed over a written report (Ex. P-3) at Police Station Brihmapuri Jaipur stating therein that his mother Manphooli Devi, an old and infirm lady was residing alone in a room near the well. On July 25, 2003 as usual the informant provided food to her and remained with her till 9. 00 PM. Around 12. 30 AM while the informant and his cousin Sri Narayan proceeded to field to watch cattle, the informant called his mother but she did not respond. He then lit the match-stick and found his mother lying on the ground. Her both ankles were amputated and silver anklets were missing. She was removed to SMS Hospital Jaipur where she was declared dead. On that report, case under sections 302 and 397 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. Necessary memos were drawn, statements of witnesses were recorded, appellant was arrested and on the basis of his disclosure statements incriminating articles got recovered, necessary memos were drawn and 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) No. 1 Jaipur City Jaipur. Charges under sections 302 and 397 IPC were framed against the appellant, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 27 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Crpc, the appellant claimed innocence. One witness was examined in defence. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated above. We have heard the submissions advanced before us by learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor and with their assistance scanned the material on record. There is no ocular version of the incident and the prosecution entirely based its case on circumstantial evidence. The standard of proof required to convict a person on circumstantial evidence is now well established by a series of decisions of Supreme Court. According to that standard the circumstances relied upon in support of conviction must be fully established and the chain of evidence must be so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn have not only to be fully established but also that all the circumstances so established should be of a conclusive nature and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and should not be capable of being explained by any other hypothesis, except the guilt of the accused and when all the circumstances cumulatively taken together should lead to the only irresistible conclusion that the accused alone is the perpetrator of the crime. Having regard to these principles enunciated with regard to the proof of guilt by circumstantial evidence we shall now examine the various circumstances said to be appearing against the appellant. According to prosecution following circumstances are found established against the appellant and they form a complete chain so as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the appellant:- (i) Death of Manphooli Devi was homicidal in nature. (ii) The appellant on the date of incident was found watching film `itihas' on TV alongwith Ram Kishore (PW. 16) in the house of Badri Narayan. The film was to continue till 12. 30 AM but the appellant did see the film till 11 PM only and left the house suddenly without assigning any reason. Around 12. 45 AM Ram Kishan heard that ankles of Manphooli Devi were chopped off. (iii) After the incident all the villagers gathered at the place of incident but the appellant was conspicuously absent. (iv) On the basis of disclosure statements of appellant incriminating articles viz. Silver anklets, axe, and clothes stained with blood got recovered from his house in the presence of Motbirs Prabhu Narayan (Pw. 13) and Sita Ram (Pw. 14) by Anoop Singh IO (Pw. 25 ). (v) As per FSL report (Ex. P-31) `a' Group human blood was found over the clothes of deceased, the axe and clothes recovered at the instance of appellant. (vi) The silver anklets were identified before the Magistrate by the son of the deceased as belonging to the deceased.
(3.) TURNING to the first circumstance we find that the death of Manphooli Devi was homicidal in nature. Vide postmortem report (Ex. P-8) following antemortem injuries were found on the dead body:- 1. Abraded bruise is an 3 x 2cm Lt. side neck with reddish colour at the level of thyroid on further dissection the linear abraded bruise about 3 in number on further dissection of neck sub cutaneous under the above injury & muscle hematoma on further dissection of neck muscle hematoma b/l of thyroid cutting reddish in colour on further dissection of thyroid cutting from Ly. coral of hyoid cartilage with anti thick reddish colour clotted blood Lateral & Trident conjoint & heavy deepling committed on B/l neck & thyroid cartilage. Chopped incised wound with with amputated of B/l leg 1/3 part with multiple incised wound at the end of B/l leg step. The wound margins are regular clear cut & were diffuse with anti mortem clotted blood. Dr. N. L. Disaniya (Pw. 8), who performed autopsy on the dead body, opined that cause of death was hemorrhagic shock due to ante mortem injuries. Coming to second and third circumstances we find that they relate to abnormal conduct of the appellant prior to the incident. According to Ram Kishore (Pw. 16) the appellant on the date of incident was watching film `itihas' on television in the house of Badri Narayan, but around 11. 00 PM the appellant abruptly left the house in the middle of the film whereas the film continued till 12. 30 AM. The incident occurred around 12. 45 AM and all the inhabitants of small village gathered at the place of incident, but the appellant conspicuously remained absent. The conduct of accused is made relevant by Section 8 of Evidence Act. It is well settled that only that piece of conduct can be held inculpatory for which accused has no reasonable explanation except the hypothesis that he is guilty. In the instant case when testimony of Ram Kishore was read over to appellant under Section 313 Crpc, he replied "galat Hai (It is incorrect ). He did not explain as to why he left the house of Badri Narayan in the middle of the film at 11. 00 PM and where had he gone. In the explanation under section 313 Crpc the appellant however stated as under:- ;