Jagdish vs State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors

This Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. by the sole appellant being aggrieved by judgment and sentence dated 17.10.2005

passed by the learned Sessions Judge Guna in Sessions Trial No.325/2004.

Vide aforesaid judgment, the appellant has been convicted under the provisions of Section 302 of IPC and has been sentenced to life imprisonment

with fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of depositing the fine, additional one year rigorous imprisonment has been directed to be undergone by the convict.

The prosecution story in short is that the present appellant and another accused Anita Bai W/o Raju hatched a conspiracy and on 27.10.2004 at

Bhargava Colony Guna between 3.30 a.m. and 4.00 a.m. murdered Raju, as a result of which, they were charged under the provisions of Section 302

read with Section 34 of IPC and in alternate under Section 302 of IPC. They were also charged under Section 120-B of the IPC. It was alleged that

there was illicit relations between Jagdish and Anita Bai, as a result they eliminated Raju.

Prosecution witness Santosh Bai (P.W.1) is the wife of elder brother of Raju, namely Bhagwanlal Ojha, whereas Bhagwanlal Ojha was examined

as P.W.7 and father of Raju namely, Ramchandra was examined as P.W.10. Similarly, Pawan (P.W.5) and Shrivallabh Ojha (P.W.6) were examined

and they are sons of elder brother of Raju namely Bramhanand Ojha. Ramchandra (P.W.10) is maternal grandfather of accused Jagdish.

As per the prosecution story on 27.10.2004, when R.S.Chouhan (P.W.11) was posted as Sub Inspector at Police Station Guna, he received an

intimation on his wireless set at about 4.30 to quarter to 5 a.m. that there are some unusual noises being made at Bhargava Colony Guna. On such

intimation, R.S.Chouhan, S.I. (P.W.11) reached Bhargava Colony, where complainant Santosh Bai informed him about murder of her brother-in-law

Raju. Santosh Bai had recorded Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/1) to the effect that Raju was sleeping in the room on the first floor when she heard noise and

reached to his room when she saw Jagdish jumping from roof of their house to his own house, which is situated in the neighbourhood. When she

reached to the room of Raju, she found that Raju was lying in a blood pool and blood was oozing out from his body and he was not in a position to

speak anything. She called her nephew Pawan (P.W.5) and Shrivallabh (P.W.6) and with their help had taken him to hospital where he died. She had

categorically mentioned in the Dehati Nalishi that her sister-in-law Anita Bai had illicit relationship with Jagdish, as a result, there was no talking

relationship between Raju and Jagdish and she categorically gave the statement that Raju has been murdered by Jagdish with the help of knife due to

illicit relationship between Jagdish and Anita Bai. She further mentioned that Anita Bai was involved in hatching of this conspiracy and therefore she is

making the report.

On the basis of such Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/1), FIR (Ex.P/3) was recorded regarding Crime No.0/2004 under the provisions of Sections 302, 120-

B/34 of IPC and the matter was taken up in investigation. Body was sent for post mortem and the post mortem report was received, which is

enclosed as Ex.P/11, in which it was found that there were as many as nine injuries on the body of the deceased Raju, which are as under :-

Stab wound over sternal region just above epigastric region at the level of 6th rib. Margins inverted and clear cut. Shape oval. Size 2.5 x 1.5 cm.

Stab wound over epigastric region 10 cm. above umbilicus tunkliceus. Shape oval. Margins inverted and clear. Size 2 x 0.5 cm.

Stab wound left side of chest at midauxiliary line area 5th rib. Shape oval. Size 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 cm.

Abrasion left shoulder 0.5x0.5 cm.

Abrasion left side of chest 5x0.5 cm. transverse.

Abrasion below left eye 2.5 x 0.5 cm. upwards to downwards.

Abrasion left side of nose 0.5 x 0.3 cm.

Abrasion left side of neck size 0.5 x 0.3 cm.

Abrasion right elbow 1 x 0.5 cm.

Out of the aforesaid injuries doctor found that Injuries No.1,2 and 3 were caused by sharp edged and pointed object, whereas injuries No.4 to 9 were

caused by hard and blunt object. It was also opined that injury No.1, 2 and 3 were fatal, whereas injuries No.3 to 9 were simple. Dr. opined that the

deceased died of haemorrhage and shock and cause of death is stab injury to heart and liver and duration since death was within 24 hours. Thus, it is

apparent that death of the deceased Raju is homicidal in nature.

Appellant/accused abjured his guilt and submitted that he has been falsely implicated. Appellant had examined defence witness Nannulal S/o

Nandram (D.W.1), who has deposed that on 26.10.2004 appellant Jagdish had reached village Dhanouriya at about 10-11 a.m. on the motorcycle. He

did work of painting till 7-8 p.m. on 26.10.2004 and as the work of painting was not over, Jagdish had stayed at the place of Nannulal on 26.10.2004

and had also taken meals alongwith Nannulal. On 27.10.2004 at about 7 a.m. after taking tea etc. he had gone for the work of painting and this work

was completed at 10-11 a.m., thereafter Nannulal and Jagdish had returned to Guna at about 12 noon on his motorcycle. While returning home,

motorcycle met with an accident with a jeep as a result motorcycle was left at a shop of the mechanic and they both had reached Kotwali at about 2

pm. He admitted that no complaint was made against the jeep owner. He further admitted that father of accused Jagdish namely Govindram is his

nephew and Jagdish is engaged in the work of painting for last 5-7 years. In view of such submission, plea of alibi has been taken by the appellant that

he was not available in Guna at the time of the incident.

Learned sessions court has acquitted Anita Bai and there is no appeal filed by the State against such acquittal. However, appellant Jagdish has been

convicted under Section 302 of IPC on the basis of the evidence of prosecution witness Smt. Santosh Bai W/o Bhagwanlal Ojha (P.W.1), deposition

of Pawan (P.W.5) and Shrivallabh (P.W.6), besides Dr.Milind Bhagat, who had conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased and that of I.O.

Shri R.S.Chouhan (P.W.11).

Santosh Bai (P.W.1), who is author of the Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/1), on the basis of which FIR (Ex.P/3) has been recorded, has remained consistent

in her statement and in the cross examination, she has remained firm on her testimony that house of father of the appellant Jagdish namely Govindram

is on the eastern side of the house of Santosh Bai (P.W.1). Kitchen of the appellant Jagdish is adjacent to the wall of the complainant's houseÂ

where room of Govindram is made. She further deposed that room of Raju is just above her room and another room is just above the room of Pawan

and Shrivallabh. That means, there are two rooms on the first floor. There is an extension in front of the room of deceased Raju, on which a toilet has

been constructed. There is window in the passage but no window in the room. She admitted that her husband Bhagwalal (P.W.1) had gone to Myana

and had returned after the report (Ex.P/1) was lodged. She admitted that police had arrived for which she had not given any intimation, Raju had taken

to hospital. She further deposed that she had heard Raju screaming and had reached to his room when she saw appellant Jagdish running out of his

room and then she had called Pawan and Shrivallabh. She further admitted that at the time of taking Raju to hospital, there were 10-15 local people

available and after post mortem of Raju, dead body was brought home. She further admitted that accused Anita Bai had visited hospital alongwith the

deceased. She further deposed that Anita Bai had come back from hospital prior to the dead body but she was not allowed to enter inside the home,

inasmuch as they were not interested in her meeting with her own sons Monu and Akash for the reason that, that would have caused problem later

on. She also admitted that after being released on bail, she had visited her matrimonial home and at that time her son Monu was not at home. He was

at village. She was sitting at the door up to 10 p.m. and was crying. She further admitted that till the date of incident, there was no dispute between

her and Anita. She admitted that she had not given any intimation at the Police Station but when police had visited her house, she had given intimation

about the incident. She also admitted giving statements to the police as are contained in Ex.D/1. She also deposed that she had not seen Jagdish

stabbing Raju but she had seen Jagdish running out from his room. She further deposed that police had brought sniffing dog and had taken him to

house of Jagdish. She denied suggestion that she had not seen the incident. In a specific question as to why wall was raised between the house of

Santosh Bai and Jagdish, she categorically stated that the purpose was that Jagdish should not be able to come towards the side of Raju and nobody

could travel from the side of Raju to the house of Jagdish.

Similarly, Hajarilal Verma (P.W.2) is the author of FIR (Ex.P/3) which was recorded on the basis of Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/1). He admitted that

FIR was transmitted to CJM, Guna on 27.10.2004 at about 10 a.m.

Sanjay Singh (P.W.3) is the witness to seizure of clothes of deceased Raju and all the sealed samples which he had handed over to S.I. Shri

Chouhan, who had prepared Japti Panchnama (Ex.P/4).

Pawan (P.W.5) has supported the statement of Santosh Bai (P.W.1) and deposed that Santosh Bai had called them i.e. he and his brother

Shrivallabh. He further deposed that Santosh Bai had informed them that she saw Jagdish Ojha coming out of the room of Raju and jumping towards

his side. He further deposed that the relations with the family of Jagdish are sore because of illicit relationship between Jagdish and Anita Bai, as a

result wall was erected between the two houses but Jagdish used to call Anita Bai. He further deposed that when he had reached at the scene of

crime, Anita Bai was present in the room of Raju. He further admitted that he alongwith his brother Shrivallabh had taken Raju to hospital in an auto-

rickshaw which he had gone to call on his bicycle. While they were sitting in the auto-rickshaw, Shrivallabh and Nannulalji were with them.

On the similar lines, statements have been given by Shrivallabh (P.W.6) that he had reached to the room of Raju after the incident and was

informed by Santosh Bai that she had seen the appellant running out of the said room and jumping towards his side of the house from the wall.

Bhagwanlal (P.W.7) admitted that when he had returned back from Myana, his wife Santosh Bai (P.W.1) had narrated the incident to him and

further deposed that there was illicit relationship between Anita and Jagdish, as a result of which there was no talking relationship between Raju and

Jagdish. To terminate such illicit relationship bot the parties were counselled but despite the counseling there was no change in the attitude as a result

wall was constructed over the roof.

Babulal (P.W.8) deposed that arrest memo (Ex.P/8) was prepared in front of him vide which appellant Jagdish was arrested and it contains his

signatures from “B†to “B†part. He also agreed that on memo (Ex.P/9) his signatures are from “B†to “B†part. He further

deposed that the knife i.e. Article A was recovered in his presence and he had made signatures from “B†to “B†part. Similarly, pieces of

bangles namely Article C and D were also confiscated in front of him and he had signed at seizure memo (Ex.P/7) from “Bâ€​ to “Bâ€​ part.

Dr.Milind Bhagat (P.W.9), who was posted as Medical Officer at District Hospital Guna, had conducted post mortem over the body of the

deceased Raju and had opined that injuries No.1,2 and 3 were fatal whereas injuries No.3 to 9 were simple in nature and were caused by hard and

blunt object. The cause of death was stab injury caused to heart and liver within 24 hours of post mortem. He proved post mortem report (Ex.P/11)

containing his signatures from “A†to “A†part and further deposed that whether these injuries could have been caused with knife Art. A.

P.W.3 admitted that such injuries No.1,2 and 3 could have been caused with such a knife and had returned the knife. He further verified quarry report

(Ex.P/12), which contains signatures from “Aâ€​ to “Aâ€​ part. There is no cross examination on this doctor to contract his statement.

Ramchandra (P.W.10) has been examined to testify illicit relationship between Anita Bai and appellant and also to testify that a wall was raised

between two houses because of such illicit relationship though appellant was real grandson of the deponent. 18. R.S.Chouhan (P.W.11) Sub Inspector

and I.O. deposed that when he had reached Bhargava Colony on intimation that there was sound of noises coming from that colony, Santosh Bai had

informed him about the incident, on which he had recorded Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/1), which contains his signatures and that of Santosh Bai. He had

prepared spot map (Ex.P/3), which contains his signatures and that of Santosh Bai. After recording of the Dehati Nalishi, he had reached Police

Station Guna, where FIR was lodged. He has confiscated certain pieces of bangles vide Ex.P/7 and thereafter had recorded statement of Santosh Bai,

Pawan Ojha, Shrivallabh, Bhagwanlal, Ramchandra Ojha, as per their version. He had prepared Safina form (Ex.P/5) and Naksha Panchayatnama

Lash (Ex.P/6) and thereafter had sent the body for post mortem. He had arrested accused Anita Bai vide Panchnama (Ex.P/13) and then Jagdish

vide Panchnama (Ex.P/8). Thereafter, he had recorded memorandum of Jagdish under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (Ex.P/9) containing his

signatures and signatures of witnesses Bhagwanlal and Babulal. He had confiscated the knife as per intimation given by Jagdish vide Japti Panchnama

(Ex.P/10) and had sought quarry in regard to seized knife on which he had received intimation from the doctor vide Ex.P/12. FSL report was sought

by Ex.P/14 and was received as Ex.P/15, which categorically mentions that Ex.D i.e. knife contains some small dark brown spots on both the sides of

the blade. This report further clarified that human blood was present on Article A, C-1, C-2, D, E and F. He denied the suggestion of the defence

that false case has been prepared at the instance of Santosh Bai. In reply to the question that in Ex.P/11 doctor has opined that deceased had suffered

some injuries with sharp object and some with hard and blunt object, therefore on suggestion as to whether Raju was hurt with two weapons, this

witness categorically opined that some injuries were caused with knife and some injuries could have been caused even with scratching of nails. He

categorically denied that two instruments were used in the incident.

On the basis of such evidence, conviction has been recorded by the learned Sessions Judge.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he has been falsely implicated in the matter and it is purely a case of circumstantial evidence where

chain of circumstances has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, acquittal should be recorded in favour of the appellant. Learned

counsel submits that guilt has been recorded against the evidence on record and there is grave contradiction in the evidence of prosecution witness.

There is no eye witness to the incident avialable and conviction has been recorded merely on the basis of circumstantial evidence. Learned Sessions

Court has acquitted Anita Bai, whereas appellant Jagdish has been convicted on the basis of same set of evidence, though there is contradiction of the

defence witness to the effect that the appellant had gone to village Dhanouriya for the work of painting and had stayed at village Dhanouriya and had

returned back on 27.10.2004 to Guna. Therefore, he could not have been involved in the incident, which had taken place on the early morning of

27.07.2004, but overlooking such evidence, appellant has been convicted which needs to be set aside.

Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Batham Vs. State of M.P. as reported

in (2002) 2 JLJ 373, wherein the ratio is that in a case under Section 302 where the case is based on circumstantial evidence, it is bad to first presume

the accused guilty and thereafter to rely material against him. If circumstances not proved to be beyond reasonable doubt, conviction can not be based

on such circumstantial evidence. It is further submitted that circumstantial evidence should be of such nature that chain of circumstances should be

proved to show that within all human probabilities the act must have been done by the accused. It is further submitted that merely on the basis of

suspicion accused can not be convicted and the fundamental and basic presumption in the administration of criminal law and justice delivery system is

the innocence of the alleged accused and mere suspension is no effective substitute for legal proof. It is further submitted that this murder may be a

result of conspiracy by family members to eliminate Raju so to usurp his property as he was doing well in his business. It is also submitted that the

theory of illicit relationship can not be presumed on the evidence of tutored witness and therefore this is a fit case for acquittal.

Under such circumstances, the evidence, which has come on record is to be appreciated. It is true that Santosh Bai (P.W.1) had not seen the

appellant stabbing the deceased but when she had heard cries of the deceased and had reached his room on the first floor, she saw the appellant

coming out of the room and jumping the wall, therefore, it is a case of last scene evidence and it is well settled principle of law that in such cases the

court must adopt a cautious approach while basing conviction purely on circumstantial evidence. In fact there is no difference between the direct and

circumstantial evidence, however, the only difference is that as the former directly establish commission of the offence whereas the latter points to the

probability by placing circumstances which lead to irresistible inference of guilt. Circumstantial evidence is indirect mode of proof by drawing

inference of facts closely connecting the fact in issue as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Liyakat Vs. State of Uttarakhand

as reported in AIR 2008 SC 1537.

It is also settled principle of law that the chain of evidence furnished by those circumstances, must be so far complete as not to leave any

reasonable ground for a close consistent with the innocence of the accused, as has been held in the case of Deonandan Mishra Vs. State of Bihar as

reported in AIR 1955 SC 801 so also in the case of Laxman Naik Vs. State of Orissa as reported in AIR 1995 SC 1387 and further it must be such

as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused, as has been held in the case of Bakshish Singh Vs. State of

Punjab as reported in AIR 1971 SC 2016, so also in the case of G.Parshwanath Vs. State of Karnataka as reported in (2010) 8 SCC 593. In the case

of Sidhartha Vashisht Alias Manu Sharma Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) as reported in 2010 (6) SCC 1 it has been held that the close nature of

association of the accused with certain persons is a very important piece of evidence where the case is based upon circumstantial evidence.

In the present case, plea of alibi has not been proved beyond doubt. Appellant has examined Nannulal, who is the relative of the appellant and has

only deposed that appellant had visited his village for the purpose of painting. He had stayed back as work was not over and had completed work on

27.10.2004 when the deponent Nannulal had accompanied the appellant for Guna. It is mentioned here that motorcycle had met with an accident and

injuries were caused to Nannulal and Jagdish but they had not visited any doctor for consultation. He also submits that though they had gone to

Kotwali to lodge a report but the report was not lodged and at the instance of Girraj, cousin brother of Bhagwanlal police had arrested Jagdish. This

testimony in support of alibi does not inspire confidence for the reason that Nannulal is related to the appellant. He is engaged in the work of

carpentry. As per his version, appellant had reached his village for the purpose of painting of the temple and therefore it was incumbent upon the

defence to have examined either priest of the temple or some independent person to support the version of Nannulal. Secondly, the conduct of

Nannulal is unnatural, inasmuch as even if the appellant was arrested at Kotwali, Nannulal could have taken steps for lodging of FIR as a jeep had hit

the motorcycle on which Nannulal was travelling. Further Nannulal's conduct also appears to be not natural because he instead of taking the appellant

to the hospital for treatment of the injuries had gone to Kotwali. Police had not seized the said motorcycle nor any proceedings were drawn against the

owner of the jeep. Therefore, this plea of alibi having failed to inspire confidence has been rejected by the learned Sessions Court.

Secondly, plea has been taken that co accused Anita has been acquitted on the same set of evidence. In fact acquittal of Anita is based on a

different consideration; namely, she has taken defence that her husband Raju had gone to visit village Jamner to fix some telephone machine and had

not returned till late night, therefore, she being alone was sleeping with her children on the ground floor. She admitted that when she reached upstairs

after hearing the cries of her husband alongwith Santosh Bai (P.W.1) she had seen her husband lying in the blood pool. She had taken head of her

husband in her lap and had visited the hospital.

Though Pawan (P.W.5) and Shrivallabh (P.W.6) had deposed that when they reached the room of the deceased Raju, they found Anita to be in the

room but Santosh Bai (P.W.1) has not made any statements about presence of Anita Bai prior to her reaching to the room of Raju and therefore after

appreciating the over all conduct of Anita Bai, learned Sessions Judge has held her to be not guilty of murder of her husband. In fact, Bhagwanlal

(P.W.7) has admitted that even after bail, Anita Bai had visited her house but she was not permitted inside and therefore his father Ramchandra had

left Anita Bai to her parents house at Shivpuri.

At this stage, two things needs to be segregated ; one theory of illicit relationship and involvement of Anita Bai in the crime. As far as theory of

illicit relationship is concerned, onus was on the appellant Jagdish to rebut such proposition. As far as involvement of Anita in the crime is concerned,

onus was on Anita to rebut such involvement. Merely because Anita has rebutted her presence at the scene of crime and has secured acquittal does

not mean that the theory of illicit relationship will get discarded despite there being no defence evidence to this effect. However, possibility can not be

ruled out that the affection of the appellant towards the woman in question was so strong that he wanted to get rid of her husband Raju and for which

necessarily it can not be held that there was consent of Anita Bai for such elimination or there was connivance for such gruesome crime. Therefore,

acquittal of Anita will not be of any benefit to Jagdish, the appellant.

It has been suggested that Jagdish has been framed so that prosecution witnesses can usurp property of Raju. Thus, the motive has been casted

on the prosecution witnesses to suggest that they were responsible to eliminate Raju so to usurp his property. This suggestion is devoid of any merit,

inasmuch as admittedly Raju is survived by three children. Santosh Bai (P.W.1), Bhagwanlal (P.W.7) and Ramchandra (P.W.10) have revealed that

children of Anita Bai and Raju are with them. Even Anita Bai was not allowed to meet her children, therefore, they are the natural legal heirs to the

estate of deceased Raju. After acquittal even Anita is a natural heir to the estate of Raju. No appeal has been filed either by Ramchandra or

Bhagwanlal or Santosh Bai against acquittal of Anita Bai. If they would have been interested in the property of Raju and if that would have been the

motive to eliminate him, then they would have naturally not accepted the guardianship of children of deceased Raju and would have in all probability

challenge acquittal of Anita Bai. Lack of these events are sufficient to discard the theory of conspiracy in the hands of relatives of Raju.

Appellant has not been able to rebut the theory of last scene that what he was doing in the house of Raju and had to jump over the wall to reach

his house in the wee hours of the morning specially when the evidence which has come on record reveals that there were no talking terms between

Raju and the appellant.

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bodhraj @ Bodha and others Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir as reported in (2002) 8 SCC 45 has

dealt with the aspect of circumstantial evidence and last scene theory and has held that the last seen theory comes into play where the time gap

between the point of time when the accused and deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any

person other than the accused being the author of crime becomes impossible.

In the present case, when this principle is applied, then there is no delay in FIR, FIR was timely sent to the Magistrate. Santosh Bai (P.W.1) has

categorically deposed about seeing the accused jumping from the wall towards his house. Appellant has failed to take his alibi of absence to a logical

conclusion by not examining any independent person and also through conduct of Nannulal (Nannulal). So also in view of the fact that learned

Sessions Court has accepted plea of co accused Anita that she was sleeping down stares a fact which was not rebutted by Santosh Bai (P.W.1).

Santosh Bai (P.W.1) also did not support the version of Pawan (P.W.5) and Shrivallabh (P.W.6) that Anita was already available at the scene of

crime when Santosh Bai (P.W.1) had reached there after hearing the cries of the deceased, the last scene theory points out with all gravity guilt of the

appellant in view the prosecution of illicit relationship between Anita and thus except the appellant there was no other beneficiary to get rid of Raju.

Similarly, in the case of Rohtash Kumar Vs. State of Haryana as reported in (2013) 14 SCC 434, it has been held that the doctrine of “last seen

together†shifts the burden of proof on the accused, requiring him to explain how the incident had occurred. Failure on the part of the accused to

furnish any explanation in this regard, would give rise to a very strong presumption against him.

Appellant since has not been able to rebut such presumption at all, conviction needs to be affirmed. In fact, when evidence of Santosh Bai (P.W.1)

is scrutinized carefully, then in cross examination there is no suggestion to this witness that appellant was not present at the place of incident and he

was visiting some other place for the work of painting of temple. In the absence of such suggestion to Santosh Bai (P.W.1) implanting Nannulal

(D.W.1) appears to be unnatural and therefore on the touchstone of the law laid down in the case of Rohtash Kumar (supra), appellant has failed to

discharge the burden that he was not present at the last scene of crime and had not committed any wrong.

Thus, there is overwhelming evidence both in the form of circumstantial evidence and also on the principle of last scene, which points out towards

the guilt of the appellant for which purpose learned sessions court has ably connected the chain holding that as a first step prosecution has been able to

prove that complainant Santosh Bai (P.W.1) had heard cries of her brother in law Raju. As a second part of the chain, she had proved of her reaching

to the room. As a third part of the chain, she described that she had seen the appellant Jagdish jumping from the roof in front of room of Raju to his

roof. Fourthly when she reached inside the room of Raju she was his body lying in blood pool and he was speechless and then called Pawan (P.W.5)

and Shrivallabh (P.W.6) who had taken Raju to hospital. As a fifth step she depicted relationship between the two which too has not been rebutted by

the defence, then attached motive that because of such illicit relationship Raju was murdered by Jagdish because he wanted to have complete control

and unhindered relationship with his wife Anita.Â

Since all the parts of the chain have been explained by theprosecution, this court is of the opinion that the impugned judgment and sentence passed

by the learned Sessions Judge, Guna does not call for any interference and the appellant has failed to point out any material omission or irregularity so

to give him benefit of acquittal.

In view of the aforesaid, the appeal fails and is dismissed. Let copy of this judgment be communicated to the appellant, who is in jail. Records be

sent back.