Gyanilal alias Guha Gond vs State of M.P.

Challenge has been made in the present appeal to the order of conviction and sentence dated 31-01-2007 passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Mandla in Sessions Trial No.124/2006 whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and

sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months;

and also convicted under Section 201 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of

fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months with the stipulation that both the sentence would run concurrently.

The prosecution case, succinctly stated, is that the sons of the deceased - Dhanlal Gond, namely, Gansram and Bihari were working with a

contractor at Jabalpur. The contractor had sent both the brothers to Narsinghpur. The deceased had gone to meet his sons at Narsinghpur and on

the following day Gansram and Dhanlal had come back to Jabalpur. Thereafter, the accused-appellant and the deceased had gone to Mandla from

Jabalpur. The deceased was carrying an amount of Rs.5000/- in cash with him which was given to him by his son - Gansram.

In Mandla the wife of the deceased, namely, Smt. Samrobai also met the deceased and had seen the deceased along with the present appellant

near water tank in the market. The deceased wanted to give the said amount to his wife but the appellant asked him not to give the same to her and

keep it with himself. The deceased had given Rs.50/- to his wife and told her to go to home and get the food ready. The wife of the deceased had

gone back to the village but her husband - the deceased, did not come back.

The deceased was also seen along with the present appellant by many villagers, but when he did not come back for a considerable length of

time, a missing person report was lodged at the Police Station Mandla which was registered as ''Rojnamcha Sanha'' at Sr. No.307. On suspect the

appellant was interrogated and upon his disclosure statement, the dead-body of the deceased was recovered from a concealed place beneath the

earth from the house of the appellant. On his disclosure statement, his blood stained cloths and an axe were also seized. The seized articles were

sent for forensic examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory.

After conducting due investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the competent court of jurisdiction and charge under sections 302 and 201

IPC were framed against the accusedappellant. The appellant denied the charges levelled against him and submitted that he has been falsely

implicated.

Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated and there is no direct evidence against him. Nobody would

commit murder for a meagre amount of Rs.6000/- and, therefore, the prosecution case is beyond imagination. It is also contended that recovery of

the dead-body and seizure of articles have not been proved by the seizure witnesses.

The prosecution has examined wife of the deceased, namely, Smt. Samrobai (PW-2). In para 1 of her deposition she has stated that her

husband - the deceased had met the accusedappellant in the market and when he wanted to give her money to the extent of Rs.6000/-, the

appellant had told him not to give the amount to her and keep the same with him. The deceased had given Rs.50/- to her and had told her to go

home and get the food ready for him. Thereafter, she had gone back to the village and waited for her husband but he did not come back.

Thereafter, they had been searching her husband for about one week and a missing person report was got lodged at the Police Station concerned.

From her cross-examination there is nothing to suggest that there was any reason for falsely implicating the present appellant. She has proved the

fact that the deceased was last seen along with the appellant.

PW-1, Gansram, son of the deceased had proved the fact that he had given a sum of Rs.6000/- to his father to take it to home. He had given

this money at Jabalpur and thereafter he had gone to Narsinghpur and his father had gone to Mandla. He has also deposed that his mother had

informed him that his father had gone with the appellant from Mandla.

The Investigating Officer, Jalam Singh was examined as PW-23. He stated that the missing report was registered vide Ex.P/8 at Mandla and

thereafter the case diary was sent to the Police Outpost, Tatri on 11th or 12th of September. He had investigated the said missing person report

and during investigation, on suspect an interrogation was made to the appellant and thereafter on his disclosure statement, the dead-body of the

deceased was recovered from a concealed place in the house of the accused-appellant which was buried underneath the earth. The dead-body

was recovered in presence of the witnesses, namely, Shiv Narayan and Manoj Yadav vide seizure memo, Ex.P/12. He also deposed that on the

disclosure statement of the accused-appellant, his blood stained shirt and pent were also recovered from the room which was kept in a bag and he

also recovered an axe, a sharp-edged weapon from the house of the appellant itself. This seizure was effected vide Ex.P/10. After obtaining

necessary permission from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mandla, the dead-body was exhumed from the place it was buried. The dead-body

recovery ''Panchnama is Ex.P/1. The dead-body was sent for postmortem and the seized articles were also sent for chemical analysis. The F.S.L.

report is Ex.P/27. In the chemical examination of the cloths of the appellant human blood was found. Since the seized weapon was already

washed, therefore, no blood mark found thereon. Thus, the prosecution has established a strong evidence against the accused-appellant that the

dead-body was recovered from the house of the appellant himself.

The contention of the appellant that the recovery of the dead-body and the seizure has not been proved by the seizure witnesses, has to be

tested on the touchstone of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, namely, Shiv Narayan and Manoj Yadav. Shiv Narayan has been examined

as PW-16. He has also supported the recovery of the dead-body from the house of the appellant itself and also admitted his signatures in Ex.P/12.

Another witness Manoj Kumar was examined as PW-20. He has also stated that the appellant was interrogated in his presence and on his

statement the dead-body was recovered from his own house. He also admitted his signatures in the Ex.P/12.

Thus, the recovery of the dead-body from the house of the accused-appellant himself and the seizure of the weapon and apparels of the

accused have been squarely proved by the witnesses and also by the Investigating Officer, Jalam Singh (PW-23). Recovery of the dead-body

from the house of the appellant is a strong evidence against him. As per provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act burden of proof lies on the

accused to explain as to why the dead-body was found in a concealed place in his dwelling home itself. In addition to this, human blood has been

found on the cloths of the accused which is evident from the F.S.L. report, wherein at Articles - C and D human blood has been detected. There is

no explanation by the accused-appellant regarding presence of human blood on his apparels.

Thus, in the present case last seen evidence of Samrobai (PW-2) is well corroborated with the other evidence and, therefore, on evaluation of

the entire gamut of facts and material evidence, the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond any doubt, as the dead-body has been

recovered from the house of the appellant from a concealed place underneath the earth and thereafter, human blood has been found on the

apparels of the accused-appellant, as per FSL report. In absence of any explanation to the same on behalf of defence, the judgment of conviction

and order sentence is legal and valid.

In view of the preceding analysis, we do not find any error in the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Judge against the

appellant. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Before parting with the case, we must put on record our unreserved appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by the learned amicus

curiae. The High Court Legal Services Committee shall remit fees of Rs.4000/- (Rs. four thousand only) to the learned counsel who have assisted

this Court.