Jamnadas Ramchandani vs State of Madhya Pradesh

P.K. Jaiswal, J.—Since all the three appeals arise out of common judgment of conviction and order of sentence, hence they are being decided by this common judgment. Criminal Appeals No. 977/07, 993/07 and 1000/07 have been filed by Jamnadas, Manoj and Dhanwantri respectively, against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.8.2007, passed by VIth Additional Sessions Judge Indore, in Sessions Trial No. 366/06, whereby they have been convicted for offences u/s 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 15, 000/-each. In case of default in the payment of fine each accused to further undergo an additional imprisonment of one year each. Appellant Dhanwantri is also convicted u/s 201 of IPC and sentenced her to undergo 3 years'' RI with fine of Rs. 5, 000/-and in lieu of payment of fine to undergo 3 months'' RI.

Brief facts leading to these appeals are that, marriage of Bhoomi @ Richa daughter of Rajesh Nachani (PW22) was solemnized with accused Manoj on 22.4.2006 at Indore. After her marriage, she was jointly residing along with her husband and inlaw''s at 40, Sarvodaya Nagar, Indore. On 16.9.2006, she was murdered and her dead body was found in two packets at Sevaram, Gilani Garden, Patel Nagar, Indore, wrapped in a bed sheet. Accused Jamnadas is father-in-law and accused Dhanvantri is mother-in-law of the deceased. Vishal, who is brother-in-law of the deceased was also arrayed as accused in the case. The allegation against him was of causing disappearance of the evidence, but in absence of any material he has been acquitted by the trial Court.

As per prosecution story on 16.9.2006 at about 7.50 (19.50 hrs.) PM constable Nirmal Kumar (PW19) during his duty hours at Police Control Room received an unknown telephonic call that an unidentified middle aged lady came on a scooty and threw two bundles (packets), wrapped in a bed sheet and some blood-stains were found therein in the Sevaram Gilani Garden, situated at Patel Nagar, Indore. This information was entered into the general diary of police control room by constable Nirmal Kumar Patil (PW19) vide Exhibit P/33 and passed on to Sudhir Saheb and Manoj. This information was also transmitted to head constable, Mahavar, by Manoj at 7.55 PM (19.55 hrs) vide Exhibit P/34. Based on this information, head constable, Ashraf Ali (PW17), left for the place of occurrence along with constable Mohmmed Musdik Ahmed (PW12) and reached the spot, where they met Mukesh Jaiswal (PW1), who narrated the incident and stated that in the evening, he regularly used to go to temple for doing Seva and today also when at around 5.30 in the evening, he was sitting at the temple along with Manohar @ Mannu (PW5), Udhavdas (PW4), Narayan (PW3) and Phuggulal (PW2), they asked Phuggulal to go and bring milk and cigarettes. After sometime, Phuggulal (PW2) returned and stated that one pocket wrapped in coloured bed sheet is lying near the track on which blood spots are visible at various places. On this, they reached the place of occurrence and they saw one packet and nearby to this place one more packet wrapped in coloured bed sheet was lying and on the second packet blood spots were visible on it. On opening of it a dead body of young lady cut into two pieces with multiple injuries on her body was found. On the basis of information given by Mukesh Jaiswal (PW1), head constable - Ashraf Ali (PW17), recorded Dehati Murg intimation (Exhibit-P/1) at 7.30 PM (19.30 hrs) in the evening on 16.9.2006. Thereafter, sudden death information (Exhibit P/25) was recorded by Radheyshyam Sharma (PW11), u/s 174 of Cr. P.C; at 8.15 PM (20.15 hrs) on 16.9.2006. The murg was investigated by Mohanlal Purohit (PW35). On the basis of murg enquiry report FIR was registered vide Crime No. 431/2006 on 17.9.2006 at 10.30 AM (10.30 hrs) by Mohanlal Purohit (PW35) vide Exhibit P/76 and Exhibit-P/83. As per FIR one lady wearing blue colour Salvar suit came on silver colour Honda Activa bearing registration No. MP-09/JX-7556, threw the dead body in separate packets wrapped in two different bed sheets with blood-stains on it at Patel Nagar Park. The offence was registered against unknown persons. Thereafter, police statements of Mukesh Jaiswal (PW1), Manohar @ Mannu (PW5), Udhavdas (PW4), Narayan (PW3) and Phuggulal (PW2), were recorded by the Investigating Officer Mohanlal Purohit (PW35). He seized controlled earth, bed sheet with blood-stains from the place of occurrence and were exhibited as Exhibit P/5. He also prepared an inquest report on 17.9.2006 vide Exhibit P/6. On 17.9.2006 at about 12.30 PM dead body was identified as Bhoomi @ Richa by her cousin Sanjay Chhabra (PW6). Photographs of the dead body were taken vide Exhibit-P/8 to Exhibit-P/18. Corpus was sent to M.Y. Hospital, Indore for autopsy. Exhibit-P/27 is her PM report. Exhibit P/4 is spot map, which was prepared on 17.9.2006. Viscera and hair of the deceased were seized vide seizure memo Exhibit P/23. Exhibit-P/26 is seizure memo of brain and uterus of the deceased.

During the investigation, on 17.9.2006 house of the accused persons situated at 40 Survodaya Nagar was searched and articles, blood swab and other material, necessary for investigation were taken in the presence of seizure witnesses Suresh Neema (PW30) and Ramesh (not produced). Exhibit-P/77 is seizure memo by which lock of the house was broken. Exhibit-P/54 is map prepared in presence of Suresh Neema (PW.30). Some blood-stains were found in the house of accused Jamnadas and the same was taken and seizure memo was prepared vide Exhibi-P/54. Blood stains which were found on Silver colour Activa bearing registration No. M.P. 09/JX-7556 were also taken and seized vide memo Exhibit-P/56 some blood stains which were also found in the Kitchen of the said house was taken and seized vide Exhibit-P/57.

On 18.9.2006, Mukesh Jaiswal (PW1), reached police station accompanied with ''Dainik Bhaskar'' News Paper (Exhibit-P/ 3), on which the photograph of accused appellant-Dhanvantari, mother-in-law of the deceased was published, identified as lady who came to the garden of Patel Nagar on 16.9.2006 and who threw the alleged two packets. On 18.9.2006, police statements of Heena @ Madhuri (PW32), daughter of the accused Jamnadas and Dhanwantari, Rajesh Kumar Nachani (PW22), Rajendra Kumar Ahuja (PW23), Keshav Kumar Nachani (PW24), Sonam (PW25), Umesh Nara (PW26) and others were taken. On 19.9.2006, all the three accused - appellants were arrested vide arrest memo Exhibit P/35 to Exhibit P/37. Their memorandum u/s 27 of the Evidence were recorded and on the basis of their memo blood-stained clothes of accused persons and blood stained clothes of deceased Bhoomi @ Richa were seized, documents pertaining to Activa scooter were seized and seizure memo to this effect was prepared vide Exhibit P/38 to Exhibit P/48. Cut nails of accused Dhanwantari was seized. Accused Dhanwantari was medically examined by Dr. G.L. Sodhi (PW27). Exhibit P/50 is her MLC report, according to which simple injuries were found on her person. Co-accused Vishal was arrested on 23.9.2006 vide arrest memo Exhibit P/52. Knifes and other articles were seized as per seizure memo Exhibit P/53.

The case of the prosecution is that a luxury car was demanded as dowry and due to non-fulfillment of the said demand she was subjected to cruelty and was harassed mentally and physically by the accused persons. It was also revealed that the accused persons suspecting that deceased was having illicit relations with her friend Pankaj Nagpal (PW21) and due to the aforesaid reasons they committed the murder of the deceased.

After investigation charge - sheet was submitted against the accused persons under Sections 302, 201/34, 304B and 498A of the IPC and thereafter, the case was committed for trial. The trial Court framed charges against the appellants u/s 302, 302/34, 201, 304B and 498A of IPC. Against Vishal who has been acquitted by the trial Court charge u/s 201 IPC was framed. The prosecution examined 36 witnesses and proved 83 documents in support of their case and the accused have examined Parmanand (DW1) in their defence.

After trial all the three appellants have been acquitted of the charges u/s 304B and 498A of IPC and Jamanadas and Manoj have been u/s 201 of IPC. Accused - Vishal has been acquitted of the sole charge u/s 201 of IPC. Accused - appellants Jamnadas and Manoj have been convicted u/s 302/34 IPC, while accused appellant Dhanvantri has been convicted u/s 302/34 and 201 of IPC and sentenced them as afore-noted.

It is submitted by the learned Senior counsel for the appellants that the prosecution tried to create motive as demand of dowry and subsequently they built up a new story regarding illicit relation of deceased with Pankaj Nagpal (PW15) but the findings of the trial Court that there was no motive for murder. He further submitted that till 18.9.2006 the investigating agency was not sure as to what shape should be given to the prosecution case. The police has concocted the story at the instance of Keshav Nachani (PW24). He also submitted that Narayan (PW3) had admitted that when he had been to police station -Juni Indore along with Mukesh (PW1), he saw all the four accused persons in custody of police at about 11.00 AM on 18.9.2006 and they were in police lockup. This shows that the police was deliberately taking time to give shape to the prosecution case. He also submitted that there is delay in sending the report to learned Magistrate u/s 157 Cr. P.C. The case is based on circumstantial evidence and there is no circumstance which conclusively proved the guilt of the appellants. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the complete chain of evidence and the circumstances which have been shown against the appellants have been properly explained by them and duly proved by way of cross examination as well as by examining the defence witness, but the learned trial Court has committed an error in not appreciating the evidence properly. In respect of recovery, it is submitted that on the date of alleged incident residential and business premises of the appellants were in possession of the investigating agency. The alleged recovery of the articles and other materials is highly doubtful. The FIR is anti dated and anti-time. He also pointed out to numerous contradictions and improvements in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction be set aside and all the three appeals filed by the accused persons separately be allowed and they be acquitted of the charges.

On the other hand, Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Government Advocate has submitted that where the case of the prosecution has been proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of material produced before the Court the motive loses its important. The failure to discover the motive of an offence does not signify its non existence. The failure to prove motive is not always fatal as a matter of law. Proof of motive is never an indispensable for conviction. The facts of the case are clear. The absence of proof of motive does not brake the link in the chain of circumstances connecting the accused with the crime nor militates against the prosecution case. He submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts and circumstances of the case established the guilt of the accused beyond the ''shadow of doubt'', the learned trial Court has not committed any legal error in convicting the accused persons and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

It is not in dispute that deceased Bhoomi @ Richa was daughter-in-law of accused Jamnadas and Dhanwantri and wife of accused Manoj and she died within six months from the date of her marriage. Her body was cutted into two separate pieces and then wrapped in a bed sheet with blood-stains on it, and was thrown by the accused at Sevaram Gilani garden, situated near Patel Nagar, Indore. PW1 Mukesh and 4 other witnesses (PW1 to PW5) had seen that one lady came on a scooty and threw two packets wrapped as above in the garden and blood was oozing from it. They immediately reported the matter to police control room by dialing 100. The same was recorded by PW19, Nirmal Kumar Patil at 7.50 PM (19.50 hrs) on 16.9.2006 (Exhibit P/33). On receiving the said information Head Constable Asraff Ali (PW17) immediately reached the spot, opened the said wrapped packets and saw the body of a young woman cut into two pieces. The said dead body was identified by PW6, Sanjay Chhabra on 17.9.2006 as of Bhoomi @ Richa. The autopsy of the body was conducted by Dr. N.M. Unda (PW15) on 17.9.2006 at 2.00 PM in the after noon. As per postmortem report following injuries were found on her body:

I. Four incised wound present on the left side face including lateral part eye lid to the ear sizes (1) 11 x 1 1/2

(2) 10 x 1/2 (3) 9 x 0.75 (4) (7 x 2) cm all are vertically placed extending up to fore head left side.

II. Multiple incised wound present on the right face 11 in (Eleven) number with muscle deep size 1.5cm x 1.0 cm to 1x1 cm size on upper lip. Rest on cheek and zygomatic area.

III. Contusion present on the right zygomatic part between 2 incised wound 3.5.x 1.3cm size transversely placed.

IV. Stab wound present on the right side cheek just lateral to angle of mouth 3x1.5cm x deep tongue skin deep 3.2cm other smaller incised on its medial and size 2 x 1cm size this also deep skin. Injuries as on the neck Anteriorly 3x1.0 cm sizes 2 wounds present just lateral to med in a right side and 2 wounds later mid line on left side. Wound deep to neck tissue structure but anteriorly no large vessel cut of wound deep to the sub cut to neck tissue all the soft tissue structure attach to the trachea on right side shows cut marks. Back of the neck chop wound present on the back mid line part size 6.9cm x 2.5cm x deep to the vertebral column transversely placed with 2 infliction overlapping each other mid line size measured 4.5.cm wound all the muscles and deep structure injury show cut marks.

V. 2 incised wounds present on the chest 4.0cm medial to the left nipple size 3.0x 1.2cm at 6th rib other on right side 3.0cm lateral to mid line at 7th rib size 2.8 x 1.0cm depth to the bone. Multiple very small and fine linear large marking wound present on the chest 0.1cm deep present with varying length.

VI. Wound on right side upper limb measuring deep wound 15 x 6 cm size deep to muscle up to bone but no cut mark seen. Muscles deep with two other injuries 5x2 cm and measuring with 3 superficial injury mark. Forearm multiple superficial injury longer size obliquely placed and fine linear type. Size not mentioned. At right wrist obliquely placed 2 injury 6 x 2 cm deep to bone on dorsal part 6 x 0.3 cm this also present... medial to it defence type wound. 3 incised wound present on right forearm posterior medial bored measuring 1x0.4cm at upper 1/3rd part second at lower 1/3rd part 3.0 x 1.0cm and 2.7 x 1.3.cm with oblique slashing effect. One wound on the dorsal of the thumb right side 1.2 cm x 0.2 cm skin deep. 5 wounds present on the right four finger 10cm to 1.4 cm and size width 0.2 to 0.3cm deep to bone and at knuckle contusion also present.

VII. Injury on left upper limb 4 incised wound present on the left upper limb (1) 4x2cm (2) 3.5x 2.0cm (3) 1.5.x 1.0cm and (4) 1x1.cm size. All are muscle deep. 3 injury present on the back of the arm (1) 6x3cm (2)3x1cm (3) 2.5x1.0cm all deep to muscle. Left forearm anterior middle part 4x2cm size deep to muscle. Paralleled 3.4 amputated part (Size of the wound 6x4.0cm).

VIII. One stab wound present on the abdomen deep to cavity

3.9 cm x 2.0cm and other 6 incised wounds present on the abdomen varying size small deep to subcutaneous tissue.

IX. Four incised wounds present on the buttock (1) 2x1 (2) 3x 11/2 (3) 2 x 1 1/2 (4) 3 x 1 1/2 cm on right side buttock and below buttock all deep to muscle.

X. Two stab wounds present on the thigh femoral triangle L/3 part size of the wound 9.2 x 3.5cm deep to the bone part with slight extension effect total depth of the wound 8.5cm all the tissues and vertical part structure cut wound rectal in nature object is very sharp there is very less and very slight contused direction of wound is anterior posterior. 2 wounds incised measuring 5.2cm meet each other with overlapping.

As per opinion of Dr. N.M. Unda (PW15), who performed the postmortem examination on the dead body of Bhoomi found multiple injuries on her body, death was due to excessive bleeding and shock. All the injuries on the body were antemortem and postmortem in nature and opined that the death was homicidal in nature. These injuries according to PW15, was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

It is a case of circumstantial evidence. Madhuri @ Heena (PW32), daughter of accused Danwantri and Jamanadas and sister-in-law of the deceased deposed that the deceased was residing at her matrimonial home situated at 40, Sarvodaya Nagar, jointly with her in-laws and husband. She in paragraphs 1 and 14 of her statement deposed that when her sister-in-law died she was residing with them at 40, Sarvodaya Nagar, Indore. Apart from this prosecution witnesses Keshav Nachani (PW24), Rajesh Kumar Nachani (PW22), Umesh Nara (PW26) and Sonam (PW25) in their statements deposed that at the time of her murder the deceased was residing with her in-laws at Indore. This fact also finds support from the statement of defence witness Parmanand Sharma (DW1). He also stated that the deceased was residing jointly with the accused persons at 40, Sarvodaya Nagar, Indore.

Admittedly, there is no eyewitness of the occurrence. The entire case of the prosecution rests only on certain pieces of circumstantial evidence to substantiate the charges levelled against the appellants. The important question for determination is whether the appellants can be held guilty for these offences. There is no direct evidence, in the sense of an eyewitness account, to connect the appellants with the crime. The prosecution, however, relies on the following circumstances in order to establish the charges of murder levelled against them.

(i) The dead body, which was wrapped in bed sheet with blood stains and was found in two pieces and had multiple ante mortem, postmortem and defence injuries, found in Patel Nagar Garden was of deceased Bhoomi @ Richa.

(ii) Deceased Bhoomi was living jointly in the house of appellants situated at 40 Survodaya Nagar, Indore along with her husband and in-laws all along at the relevant time.

(iii) No information with regard to the missing of deceased was reported to her uncle and friend.

(iv) The death of the deceased was homicidal.

(v) After her murder her dead body was separated in two pieces, wrapped in coloured bed sheets was thrown in the garden.

(vi and also blood stain was found on the Activa and two blood stained bed sheets were recovered from the spot.

(vii) Deceased clothes were found at the instance of the appellant.

(viii) The appellants have not offered any explanation in respect of the incident in which deceased Bhhoomi had sustained antimortum, postmortem and defence injuries.

The defence of the appellants is that in the morning Manoj and Vishal went to their shop, the deceased was in the house till

11.00 AM with them and thereafter, she told accused Dhanwantari that she is going to her relative Keshav Nachana @ Honey (PW24) and Omprakash Nachani @ Tonney (not produced) house and she will also meet Pooja, her friend and when she did not return till 7.30 in the evening the accused Dhanwantari through telephonically informed Jamnadas, Manoj and Vishal at their shop that Bhoomi @ Richa did not return. They immediately came to their house and met Dhanwantari and also asked her whereabouts through telephone from PW24 and Pooja. At 9.00 PM, when Vishal, Manoj and Jamnadas went to lodge missing report at Juni Indore Police Station, Indore on 16.9.2006, they were arrested and put up in the lock up. At 10.00 PM, when Dhanwantari and her daughter Heena @ Madhuri (PW32) came to police station, accused Dhanwantari was arrested and put up in lock up. At 11.15 PM Keshav Nahani (PW24), Rajendra (PW23) and Sanjay Chhabra (PW6), came to police station. After sometime CSP Mr. Shukla, came there and started investigation in the matter. The plea of the appellants that they knew nothing of the crime and that they were involved falsely at the instance of relatives of the deceased.

In respect of first circumstances, the evidence of Mukesh Jaiswal (PW1), Phuggulal (PW2), Narayan (PW3), Udhavdas (PW4) and Manohar @ Mannu (PW5) proves that on 16.9.2006 at about 5.00 to 5.30 PM, when they were sitting at the Patel garden towards back side of temple, they saw that one lady came on Activa scooter in the garden and was plugging leaves from the branch of the trees, which had fallen down and, thereafter, she left. After 10 to 15 minutes, she again came on silver colour Activa along with one Potli (packet) and she threw it by pushing her leg while doing so, she slipped along with her Activa from the track. On this, Udhavdas (PW4) shouted for help to her and was coming to push her vehicle, but before he reached near to place, she got up and started her Activa and speedily left the place. Phuggulal (PW2) had gone to take milk and cigarettes, he after sometime came there and stated to them that one packet wrapped in bed sheet with blood stains was lying near the path and blood was oozing. On this Udhavdas (PW4), Manohar @ Mannu (PW5) and Narayan (PW3) went there and saw that one human leg was visible in the said packet. Thereafter, they narrated the whole incident to Sevaram Gilani (not produced), President of the temple who asked them to lodge a report. They tried to call from the hotel of Chandu, but telephone call of police station Juni Indore did not mature. Thereafter Mannu (PW5) came to temple and through mobile gave intimation to Police Control Room on telephone No. 100.

It is true that this fact has not been mentioned in the Marg Dehati Nalishi (Exhibit P/1) recorded by Nirmal Kumar Patil (PW19), but these facts have been mentioned in Exhibits P/33 and P/34, recorded by PW19 at Police Control Room. Head Constable Ashraf Ali (PW17) in his statement very clearly stated that on receiving the intimation from the Police Control Room he reached at the place of occurrence and recorded Exhibit P/1 lodged by Mukesh (PW1). Murg statements of Mukesh (PW1) and Phuggulal (PW2) were recorded on 16.9.2006. The statement of Narain (PW3), Udhav (PW4) and Manohar @ Mannu (PW5) were recorded on 17.9.2006. Though, there is delay of one day in recording their statements, but merely on that basis it cannot be said that they are not reliable. From the above, it is duly proved that two packets as mentioned in Exhibit P/33 in which dead body of a woman was found stands proved.

The trial Court also appreciated the fact that on 18.9.2006 PW1 came to the police station along with ''Dainik Bhaskar'' newspaper (Exhibit-P/3) in which photograph of Dhanwantari was published and he identified her as Dhanwantari. There is no material omission and contradiction in the statement of PW1. His conduct is natural because this fact is corroborated by the report received and recorded at Police Control Room vide Exhibit -P/33. The trial Court after appreciating the statements of PW1, PW3 and PW5 rightly held that on the date of occurrence accused Dhanwantri came on Activa scooter and it is she who threw the packets in the garden.

The defence of the appellants was that the deceased had gone to her relatives'' place and when in the evening she did not return, appellant Dhanwantari at about 7.30 PM in the night narrated this fact to her husband as well as to her both the sons. On this they phoned at her uncle''s house (PW24) and her friend''s place. Thereafter accused Jamnadas and his both sons Manoj and Vishal came to the police station -Juni Indore for lodging of her missing report, but the police in spite of lodging the report put them in a lock-up. When in the night they did not return, appellant Dhanwantari and her daughter Madhuri @ Heena (PW32) came to the police station, the police persons put Dhanwantari in the lock up and sent her daughter Madhuri to her relatives'' place.

Keshav Nachani (PW24), who is the uncle of the deceased and is residing at Indore, no suggestion was given to him during his cross examination that Heena @ Madhuri came to his house. Apart from this, no suggestion was given to Rajesh Nachani, father of the deceased (PW22), Umesh, maternal uncle of the deceased (PW26) and Sonam, sister of the deceased (PW25) that on the date of incident deceased Bhoomi had gone to her relatives'' place. Appreciating the above fact the learned trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that the defence of the appellants that on the date of incident deceased Bhoomi had gone to her relative is incorrect and gave a finding that Bhoomi was residing at the house of appellants and on the date of incident she was all along with them in their house and there was no explanation from them as to how she was missing and murdered and her dead body was found in two pieces and how she sustained multiple injuries. The explanation given by the appellants is found to be untrue.

The Apex Court in the case of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra, after appreciating the provisions of Section 313 Cr. P.C. and Section 106 of the Evidence Act has held that if an offence takes place inside the privacy of a house and in such circumstances where the assailants have all the opportunity to plan and commit the offence at the time and in circumstances of their choice, it will be extremely difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence to establish the guilt of the accused if the strict principle of circumstantial evidence, as noticed above, is insisted upon by the courts. The Apex Court further held that the law does not enjoin a duty on the prosecution to lead evidence of such character which is almost impossible to be lead or at any rate extremely difficult to be led. The duty on the prosecution is to lead such evidence which it is capable of leading, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Here it is necessary to keep in mind Section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.

In a case based on circumstantial evidence where no eye witness account is available, there is another principle of law which must be kept in mind. The principle is that when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and the said accused either offers no explanation or offers an explanation which is found to be untrue, then the same becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete. In the present case the appellants do not offer any explanation how the deceased received injuries or how her dead body was found in the garden and the explanation given by them that she had gone to her relatives'' place is found to be false from the statements of Heena @ Madhuri (PW32) and Keshav Nachani (PW24). On the contrary the explanation given by them is found to be untrue.It is strong circumstance which indicates that they are responsible for the commission of crime.

As per para 1 and 14 statement of Madhuri @ Heena, prior to the date of incident, her sister - in - law, Bhoomi @ Richa was residing along with her mother, father and both the brothers at house No. 40 Survodaya Nagar, Indore. Apart from this, statements of the prosecution witnesses Rajesh Kumar Nachani (PW22), Keshav Kumar Nachani (PW24), Sonam (PW25) and Umesh (PW26), it is proved that when Bhoomi @ Richa was murdered, she was residing along with her in - laws at 40 Survodaya Nagar house. This fact is also admitted by the appellants in their statements recorded u/s 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Their defence was that at 11.00 AM in the morning, she had gone to her relatives place and, thereafter, she did not return. If we see the statement Madhuri (PW32), it is clear that at 8.00 AM in the morning, she had gone to her school and when she returned from the school in the afternoon at 2.30 to 2.45 PM and after taking meal, she had gone to her room and in the evening at 6.00 PM, when she did not found her sister - in - law, Bhoomi @ Richa, she asked her mother accused Dhanwantari about her sister - in - law in which she had stated that she has gone to her relatives place and then, she phoned to her relatives Keshav Nachani (PW24), but she did not found her there. Thereafter, her mother phoned to her father Jamnadas at his shop and narrated the said fact at 8.30 to 9.00 PM. In the night Jamnadas, Manoj and Vishal came to their house and thereafter, they went to the police station to lodge the missing report of Bhoomi @ Richa, but they did not return. Later on, she along with her mother Dhanwantari went to the police station, her mother was arrested and put in lock up whereas, Madhuri (PW32) was sent along with Harish Bhatia. Though this witness has turned hostile in respect of the fact that when in the afternoon she came from the school then she saw from the hidden place that dead body of Bhoomi @ Richa was lying in the kitchen and her mother, father and brother were there, but as she was declared hostile and thus this fact was rightly not taken into consideration by the trial Court. It is trite that only because a witness, for one reason or other, has to some extent resiled from her earlier statement by itself may not be sufficient to declare the prosecution case in its entirety.

Accused persons in their statements recorded u/s 313 Cr. P.C. gave an explanation that on the date of incident Bhoomi @ Richa had gone to the house of Keshav Nachani (PW24). This is nothing but an after thought because no suggestion was given to any of the main prosecution witnesses that Bhoomi @ Richa had gone to her relatives'' place. Thus, the explanation given by the accused persons that on the date of incident, i.e., 16.9.2006 Bhoomi @ Richa had gone to her relatives place is incorrect. On the date of incident, Bhoomi @ Richa was residing along with the appellants and she was at 40 Survodaya Nagar, Indore. Thus, prosecution story succeed in leading evidence to show that shortly before the commission of crime, they were together with Bhoomi @ Richa in the house when she was murdered there. As stated herein above the accused - appellants does not offer any explanation that how Bhoomi @ Richa received injuries. The explanation offered by them in their evidence is found to be untrue, it is strong circumstances, which indicates that they are responsible for commission of the crime. The mere denial of the prosecution case coupled with absence of any explanation were held to be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused but consistent with the hypothesis that the appellants are prime accused in commission of the murder of Bhoomi @ Richa.

As per the statement of defence witness Parmanand Sharma (DW1), he was working in the shop of the Jamnadas from last 7 to 8 years and on 16.9.2006, he opened the shop at 9.00 AM in the morning. On that day accused Jamnadas, Manoj and Vishal came to their shop at 9.30 in the morning along with their tiffin and they had taken their lunch at the shop. In the evening at 7.30 PM, they received the phone call of Dhanwantari and thereafter, they were discussing that Richa @ Bhoomi did not return home and at 8.30 PM they closed their shop and left for home. The statement of this defence witness has been disbelieved by the trial Court because this witness has deposed that all the three accused persons came in car, but he did not know the colour of the car nor he stated about the whereabouts that where the car was parked by them. In absence of the detail particulars, the learned trial Court rightly held that DW1 was an interested witness and his statement does not inspire any confidence and is not reliable.

As per statement of Suresh Neema (PW30), he was going along with his friend on 17.9.2006 and when he was passing from the house of the appellants, police persons who were there called him and in his presence as well as the presence of Raikwar (not produced) map of the house was prepared vide Exhibit-P/54. They also found blood spots on the walls of the kitchen, wall of the porch on two-wheeler and four-wheeler. A punchnama to this effect was prepared vide Exhibit-P/55 and Exhibit-P/57. The house was opened by breaking the lock and punchnama of breaking the lock was prepared vide Exhibit-P/77. Madanlal Purohit (PW35) Investigating Officer of the case in para 18 of his statement has deposed that in presence of panch witnesses Ramesh and Suresh Neema (PW30) collected the blood spots from the courtyard and prepared the seizure memo and were marked as Exhibit-P/55. In para 54 he has deposed that after breaking the lock, he entered into the house along with the FSL team and during search, they found blood spots at kitchen, window and on the stand of the kitchen sink. The defence of the appellants was that PW35 is a star witness and he was through out with Keshav Nachani (PW24) and was also present at the hospital and, therefore, his statement is not reliable and seizure were not proved. On due consideration of the statement of Mohanlal Purohit (PW35) and FSL report Exhibit P/73, which was prepared on 17.9.2006 and as per this report human blood was found on kitchen platform, parking area and some other places at the appellants'' house and no explanation was given by them as to how human blood was found there and, therefore, all these circumstances, the statement of PW35 cannot be disbelieved and held that it has been duly proved that the appellants committed the murder at 40 Survodaya Nagar, Indore. The statements of PW1 to PW5 were natural as they in their statements very categorically stated that they used to go for Seva at the temple, which is situated near the garden and when lady came on the Activa scooter at that time, there was sufficient light and they saw Dhanwantari and identified her by seen her photograph in the ''Dainik Bhaskar'' News Paper dated 18.9.2006 Exhibit P/2. Dhanwantari has been identified by Mukesh Jaiswal (PW1), Narayan (PW3) and Manohar @ Mannu (PW5).

The contention of the learned Senior counsel for the appellants that in murg Dehati Nalishi Exhibit P/1, it is not stated that one lady came on Activa and threw the packages. The object of record Exhibit P/1 murg Dehati intimation is merely to ascertain the cause of death of the person who has died under unnatural circumstances. The question regarding the details as to how dead body was brought at the spot or as to how the deceased was assaulted and the manner of assault are not required to be mentioned in the same and, therefore, brief description was recorded in Exhibit P/1.

It is contended on behalf of the appellants that the unexplained delay in dispatch of FIR (Exhibit-P/33) would create suspicion about the contents of the FIR and the evidence of PW1 to PW5, PW17, PW19 and PW35. In respect of arguments of ante-time and ante-dated FIR, it is true that that two packets were found in the garden and the said information was given by PW1 Mukesh to the Police Control Room. The said information (Exhibit-P/33) was entered in the Police Control Room by PW19 at 7.50 PM (19.50 Hrs). It is not in dispute that information to the Police Control Room was received on telephone. This information (Exhibit-P/33) was entered in the general diary of the Control Room. Based on this information PW19 Nirmal Kumar along with PW17 Ashraf Ali left for the place of occurrence. PW17 recorded the Dehati Marg intimation in presence of crowd gathered there. He in his statement has deposed that he was not wearing the wrist watch and, therefore, he asked from the crowd about the time and recorded the same in Exhibit-P/1 as 7.30 PM (19.30 Hrs). Thereafter sudden death information (Exhibit-P/25) was recorded by Radheshyam Sharma (PW11), on the basis of information Exhibit-P/1 on the same day at 8.15PM (20.15 Hrs). Considering these facts, even if there is difference in recording the timing, the difference would not be of much significance. In the circumstances, Exhibit P/1 is not affected by any legal infirmity.

The question as to whether FIR is antI-time or not must be considered having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as has been held by the Apex Court in Meharaj Singh (L/Nk.) v/s State of U.P. 1994 (5) SCC 188. Having perused the FIR we are of the view that although the same was transcribed by Mohanlal Purohit (PW35) on the basis of murg enquiry report, it contained all the material particulars. This was recorded almost immediately after completion of Murg enquiry which was conducted on the basis of Exhibit-P/33, P/34, P/1 and P/25. Exhibit-P/33 was recorded almost immediately after taking place of occurrence, the question of its being an anti timed one would not arise.

As regards delayed receipt of copy of FIR by the Court of Magistrate on 18th September 2006, in first place Exhibit-P/83 FIR register indicates that FIR was registered on 17.9.2006 and on 17th it was Sunday and, therefore, copy of the FIR which was sent to the Magistrate concerned was received by him on 18th September, 2006. Thus, the delay in receipt of copy of the FIR by the Court concerned would not be of much significance. After FIR, investigation proceeded, the police statements of the witnesses were recorded, the inquest report was prepared and the dead body was sent for postmortem examination without delay. The details of the FIR and the gist of statement recorded during inquest proceedings get reflected in the report In the back ground of the aforesaid facts, merely delay in receipt of FIR by the Magistrate in no way create doubt to the case of the prosecution. There is no other infirmity brought to our notice, nor it is the case of the appellants that they have been prejudiced by this delay. Further more, information of the witnesses including the Investigating Officers of the case (PW33 & PW35) have been examined on this point. Therefore, we are not inclined to reject the case of the prosecution case merely on the ground that there is delay in dispatch of the FIR.

Here the earliest information (Exhibit-P/33) was given to the police to move to the place of occurrence. This information was the first in point of time and was entered in the general diary of the Police Control Room. The object and purpose of giving information (Exhibit-P/33) by PW1 was to request the OIC of the Police Station to reach the place of occurrence and to investigate such offence. The trial Court gave a detailed reasoning in paragraphs 69 to 76 of the impugned judgment and rightly held that Exhibit-P/1 cannot be treated as FIR.

33 As per statement of Dr. N.M. Unda (PW15) multiple ante mortem injuries, postmortem injuries and defence injuries were found all over the body of the deceased. She was brutally murdered. All the injuries were caused by hard and sharp object like knife as well as by hard and blunt object. Looking to the total number of injuries, we are of the view that this cannot be caused by a single person. There were number of persons and some of them caught hold the deceased and, thereafter, 1 to 3 persons inflicted injuries simultaneously all over the body of the deceased. At that time there must be strong resistance from the deceased side and, therefore, number of self defence injuries were found on her body. As per statement of Dr. N.M. Unda (PW15) multiple ante mortem injuries, postmortem injuries and defence injuries were found all over the body of the deceased. She was brutally murdered. All the injuries were caused by hard and sharp object like knife as well as by hard and blunt object. Looking to the total number of injuries, we are of the view that this cannot be caused by a single person. There were number of persons and some of them caught hold the deceased and, thereafter, 1 to 3 persons inflicted injuries simultaneously all over the body of the deceased. At that time there must be strong resistance from the deceased side and, therefore, number of self defence injuries were found on her body.

As per statement of Dr. Anil Kapoor (PW16), who conducted microscopic test of the brain of the deceased, he found clotting of blood over the membrane which covers the brain. His report is Exhibit-P/31. This witness in his examination-in-chief admitted that the deceased was fighting for her life and resisted till she was alive and, therefore, conjection was found on her brain. This fact also proved from the evidence of Dr. Unda (PW15) who has deposed that the deceased was having multiple defence injuries on her body.

The Apex Court in the case of Shamshul Kanwar v/s State of U.P. (AIR 1995 SC 1748), examined the scope of Section 172 Cr. P.C. and held as under:

Section 172 does not deal with recording of any statements made by witnesses and what is intended to be recorded is what the police officer did namely the places where he went, the places he visited and what he saw etc., it is Section 161 Cr. P.C. which provides for recording of such statements. Assuming that there is failure to keep a case diary as required by Section 172 Cr. P.C., the same cannot have the effect of making the evidence of such police officer inadmissible and what inference should be drawn in such a situation depends upon the facts of each case. It is well settled that the entries of the police diary are neither substantive nor corroborating evidence and they cannot be used by or against any other witness than the police officer and can only be used to the limited extent indicated above.

In the case in hand, as per statements of PW33 P.V. Shukla and PW35 Mohanlal Purohit, police statements witnesses were recorded in computer sheets and, thereafter, the same was included in the case dairy and numbered. Learned senior counsel for the appellants failed to point out any violation of statutory provisions of Indian Police Act, 1861 and M.P. Police Regulations, therefore, we are of the view that failure to keep police diary in a manner as provided in the Police Regulation the evidence of the police officer does not become inadmissible. From the aforesaid narration of facts it has been proved that the murder of Bhoomi was committed inside the house of the appellants.

In respect of explanation of injuries of accused Dhanwantari, she was arrested by Mohanlal Purohit (PW35) and arrest memo was prepared vide Exhibit-P/36. ''B'' to ''B'' part of the arrest memo shows injuries, but no details of the injuries is given in the said arrest memo nor it has been described properly, because accused was arrested by male arresting officer and, therefore, she was not physically examined by him and, thus, when after her arrest she was sent for medical examination by the lady constable to Dr. G.L. Sodhi (PW27) on 20th September 2006 number of injuries were found on her person. Dr. Sodhi (PW27) in his statement has deposed that as per MLC report (Exhibit-P/50) all the injuries were prior to 3 to 6 days of 20th September, 2006 and were simple in nature.

38 Accused Dhanwantari was also medically examined by Dr. Bharti Dwivedi (PW18) on 23.9.2006 Exhibit-P/32 is her report and as per her opinion accused Dhanwantari was physically fit and in a fit state of mind. Her memory was good and no fresh injury was found on her person. From the injuries of accused Dhanwantari it appears that there was lot of resistance from the side of the deceased and when she was resisting and fighting for her life the present appellant received injuries and defence injuries were also received by deceased Bhoomi.

The defence that accused Jamnadas and his son Manoj were at their shop is not reliable, because Dhanwantari alone cannot cause all the injuries to the deceased. Her husband and son were also present along with her and they with a common object caused multiple injuries over the person of the deceased.

In respect of contention of the appellants that their arrest was shown on 19.9.2006 i.e., 3 days after the occurrence, whereas Bhoomi was murdered on 16th September 2006. On 16.9.2006 when appellants came to the police station at that time Murg was registered against unknown persons and by that time the Investigating Officer was not sure about the fact that it is the appellants who have committed the murder. Exhibit P/35 to P/37 arrest memos signed by Keshav Nachani (PW24) and Omprakash Nachani (not produced). Both are uncle of deceased Bhoomi. He being an interested witness his statement was rightly disbelieved by the learned trial Court.

As per statement of constable Smt. Savitri (PW13) accused Dhanwantari changed her clothes at lockup and her clothes were seized and Panchanama to this effect was prepared by SHO Rakshapal Singh (PW34) vide Exhibit-P/28. The witnesses of the seizure memo by which articles and blood stained clothes were seized are related to the deceased and, therefore, the trial Court has rightly held that the seizure is doubtful and disbelieved the statements of PW24 and PW34. As per FSL report human blood was found on the articles and no explanation has been given by the accused persons and thus it goes against the accused persons.

42 From the statement of Suresh Neema (PW30), Mohanlal Purohit (PW35) and V.P. Shukla (PW33) and Yogesh Gupta (PW31) it has been proved that silver colour Activa bearing registration No. MP-09/JX-7556 was seized from the house of the appellants and the registration was in the name of accused Manoj. This proves that the Activa vehicle belongs to the family of the accused persons.

It is trite to say that the substantive evidence is the evidence of identification in Court. Apart from the clear provisions of Section 9 of the Evidence Act, the position in law is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court. The facts, which establish the identify of the accused persons, are relevant u/s 9 of the Evidence Act. As a general rule, the substantive evidence of a witness is the statement made in Court. The evidence of mere identification of the accused person at the trial for the first time is from its very nature inherently of a weak character. The purpose of a prior test identification therefore, is to test and strengthen the trustworthiness of that evidence. It is accordingly considered a safe rule of prudence to generally look for corroboration of the sworn testimony of witnesses in Court as to the identify of the accused who are stranger to them, in the form of earlier identification proceedings. This rule of prudence, however, is subject to exceptions, when, for example, the Court is impressed by a particular witness on whose testimony it can safely rely, without such or other corroborations. The identification parades belong to the stage of investigation, and there is no provision in the Code which obliges the investigating agency to hold or confers a right upon the accused to claim, a test identification parade. They do not constitute substantive evidence and these parades are essentially governed by Section 162 of the Code. Failure to hold a test identification parade would not make inadmissible the evidence of identification in Court. The weight to be attached to such identification should be a matter for the Courts of fact. In appropriate cases it may accept the evidence of identification even without insisting on corroboration.

In the instant case the accused persons have been identified by PW1, PW3, PW5 and PW6 and no infirmity was noticed in their evidence. In that view of the matter we are of the view that failure to hold a test identification parade would not make inadmissible the evidence of identification in Court.

In the present case all the circumstances are duly proved. The statements of the prosecution witnesses and the statements of the accused prove one fact without doubt that they had certainly murdered deceased Bhoomi. Having appreciated the evidence on record we had no hesitation in holding that appellants Jamnadas and Manoj are guilty of offence punishable u/s 302/34 of IPC and appellant Dhanwantari is guilty of offence punishable u/s 302/34 and Section 201 of IPC for committing murder of deceased Bhoomi and for causing disappearance of the evidence. From the manner in which the crime was committed it stands proved beyond any reasonable doubt that all the accused persons murdered her with knives, scissors and by hard and blunt object. They deserve to be punished accordingly.

The learned trial Court after going through the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that some of the evidence in absence of proper maintenance of the case diary was not reliable, but it came to the conclusion that the other evidence available on record could conveniently connect all the accused persons with the ghastly crime. The medical report shows that the body of a young woman was cut into two pieces. She had number of cut injuries and the said injuries could be suffered by the deceased while defending herself. The medical report also shows that appellant Dhanwantari had also some injuries on her person. The doctor found that the injuries could be caused in a scuffle.

47 We have already held that the accused in the present appeals are guilty of the offences under Sections 302/34 of IPC and Section 201 of IPC. On the question of quantum of sentence the arguments raised on behalf of the appellants is that all the accused were respected members of the society, they had no intention to kill the deceased and it was co-incident that the death of the deceased occurred. Even if the accused are held guilty for the offence under Sections 302/34 and 201 of IPC, still it is not the rarest of rare case which would justify imposition of capital punishment, particularly in the facts and circumstances of the case.

The accused persons were not criminals. They have no criminal history and there are no special reason to record the death penalty and the mitigating factors in the present case. Merely because a crime is heinous per se may not be sufficient reason reason for the imposition of death penalty without reference to the other factors and attended circumstances.

On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate for the respondent-State has contended that the crime has been committed brutally. The manner in which the crime has been committed and the attended circumstances fully justify imposition of death sentence upon the accused.

50 There cannot be two opinions that the offence committed by the appellants is very heinous. In similar circumstances, in the case of Bantu @ Naresh Giri v/s State of M.P. (AIR 2002 SC 70), the Apex Court took the view that it was not a death caused intentionally. Lastly, there is no attempt made by the prosecution to prove on record that these accused are criminals or incapable of being reformed even if given a chance to improve themselves. While relying upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Goraksha Ambaji Adsul v/s State of Maharashtra (AIR 2011 SC 2689), the contention raised on behalf of the accused is that, it is not a case where any other alternative is available with the Court except to award death sentence to the accused and that they are likely to prove a menace to the society. It is further stated that there are contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses. The accused are neither previous convicts nor involved in any other crime. Thus, given a chance, they are capable of being reformed and be law abiding citizens.

On appreciation of evidence on record and keeping the facts and circumstances of the case in mind we are unable to hold that no other sentence, but death would be inadequate. It is also not a case where imposing any other sentence would not serve the ends of justice or would be entirely inadequate. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the evidence on record has been rightly appreciated by the trial Court and on appreciation of evidence the appellants are found guilty. Neither the reasons given by the trial Court can be termed as perverse so as to call for interference by this Court in all these three appeals. Criminal Appeals No. 977/2007, 993/2007 and 1000/2007 lack merits and are, therefore, liable to be dismissed. Hence, all the three appeals are hereby dismissed.