P.M. Isubu Moilar - Appellant @HASH State of Karnataka

Mr. Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J. - The judgment and order of conviction dated 24-6-2011 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, in S.C. No. 7 of 2005 is appealed against by the convicted accused. By the impugned judgment, the Trial Court has convicted the accused for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Case of the prosecution in brief is that:

Accused is the husband of the deceased Smt. Mariyamma; the deceased is the second wife of the accused; all was not well between the deceased and accused and the troubles used to shoot up. The accused was suspecting the fidelity of his second wife-deceased; on 27-9-2004, the accused took the deceased near Gurupur river situated at Kenjar Village and strangulated the neck of the deceased at a place called Pejawar with the help of her shawl; consequent upon which, the victim died at the spot; the accused took all the clothes worn by the deceased and threw the dead body on the bank of said river; the clothes of the deceased were put in a plastic bag and were thrown near Maravoor Bridge; the clothes worn by the deceased were burka, langa and nighty.

On 29-9-2004, P.W. 1-the complainant noticed the dead body which was floating in a Gurupur river and informed the same to one Kamalaksha (political leader of the locality), who, in turn informed the same to the police. Accordingly, P.W. 20-Sub-Inspector of Police, Urva Police Station, after receiving the information, went to the spot at 12.30 p.m., on 29-9-2004 and received the complaint at Ex. P. 1 submitted by P.W. 1. At about 1 p.m., the complaint-Ex. P.1 came to be registered in Cr. No. 135 of 2004 on the file of Urva Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. FIR as per Ex. P. 38 was dispatched to the Court by P.W. 20. Thereafter, investigation was handed over to P.W. 23-the CPI of Mangalore East Police Station.

During the course of investigation, accused made extra-judicial confession before P.Ws. 2 and 3 about the murder in question; accordingly, during the night intervening between 10th and 11th October, 2004, the accused was apprehended; P.W. 24-the Sub-Inspector of Police of Ullal Police Station apprehended the accused and produced him before P.W. 23-CPI of Mangalore East Police Station at 10.30 a.m., on 11-10-2004. The voluntary statement of the accused was recorded as per Ex.P. 43; the accused showed the spot, where the murder took place and accordingly, Ex.P. 2-mahazar was drawn by the police. Subsequently, i.e., on 4-12-2004, a bag containing burkah and shawl was found by P.W. 9 who was working in a boat and after passing of the said information to the police, they came to the spot and seized the clothes of the deceased under mahazar-Ex. P.3. Later, the case was transferred to Bajpe Police Station on the point of jurisdiction and the same was re-registered as Crl. No. 143 of 2004 of Bajpe Police Station on 15-10-2004. Consequently, fresh FIR was sent to the Magistrate by Bajpe Police Station. After completion of investigation, the charge was laid by P.W. 23.

In order to prove the case, the prosecution in all examined 25 witnesses and got marked 44 Exhibits and 8 M.Os. On behalf of the defence, two exhibits were got marked. The Trial Court on evaluation of the material on record and after hearing, convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences and sentenced him accordingly.

Sri Dinesh Kumar Rao, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner takes us through the material on record and submits that none of the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt; the circumstances of motive, extrajudicial confession, last seen together theory and recovery of the apparels worn by the deceased are not at all proved by the prosecution; the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in respect of these circumstances, is shaky and oscillating. Lie further draws attention of the Court to the evidence of P.W. 4, brother of the deceased and argued that accused was in fact arrested on 28-9-2004 itself and not on midnight of 10-10-2004. He further submits that P.W. 4 had lodged the complaint against the accused alleging that he had committed the murder of the deceased, but such complaint lodged by P.W. 4 is not brought on record by the prosecution. According to him, the accused is innocent and he has been falsely implicated by the police. On these among other grounds, he prays for acquittal of the accused.

Per contra, Sri P.M. Nawaz, learned State Public Prosecutor argued in support of the judgment of the Court below.

Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to note the depositions of each of the witnesses examined by the prosecution.

P.W. 1 is the complainant; he noticed the dead body floated in Gurupur River at about 9 a.m., on 29-9-2004 and he informed about the same to one Kamalaksha who was the local political leader, who in turn, informed about the same to the police of Urva Police Station.

P.W. 2 is the treasurer working in Jumma Masjid, Kinya Kendra. Pie had attended the marriage of the accused with the deceased; the couple has got female child, however, the relationship was not cordial subsequently; after the accused returned from Abroad, he did not go to the house of the parents of the deceased, where she was residing and did not meet her; P.W. 2 was informed by P.W. 3 that accused killed his wife and about extra-judicial confession. He has deposed about the extra-judicial confession made by the accused before him. He further deposed that the accused also showed the spot, where he committed the murder of the deceased and the spot, where he had thrown the clothes of the deceased. He is a witness for seizure panchanama-Exs. P.2 to P.5.

P.W. 3 is another witness, who has deposed about the extra-judicial confession made by the accused. The accused came before him and confessed about his act of committing murder and he pleaded for help from P.W. 3. He has also deposed the motive for commission of the offence. He informed about the extra-judicial confession so made by the accused not only before him but also before Ullal Police. He is also a witness for panchanama-Ex. P. 2.

P.W. 4 is the younger brother of the deceased. He has deposed about the motive for commission of the offence and about the non-cordial relationship. He has deposed about the convening of panchayath to resolve the dispute between the deceased and accused. He identified the photograph of the deceased. He is a witness for Exs. P. 4 and P. 5.

P.W.5 who was supposed to depose about the last seen circumstance has turned hostile.

P.W.6 is the formal witness and his evidence is not much help either to the prosecution or to the defence.

P.W.7 is the material witness. She is the daughter of the accused and deceased. She has deposed regarding the quarrel between the deceased and 1st wife of the accused. Further evidence of P.W.7 discloses that after her school hours, i.e., in the afternoon of 27-9-2004, accused took P.W.7 and her mother (the deceased) to another house at Panambur and left P.W.7 in the said house; subsequently, the accused went along with the deceased and on the next day, her father came back alone. She identified ear studs and ear gold ornaments of the deceased at M.O. 2. She also identified M.Os. 1, 4 and 6.

P.W. 8 is the owner of the house situated at Panambur, wherein P.W. 7 was left by the accused in the afternoon of 27-9-2004. He has deposed about the accused leaving P.W.7 in his house in the afternoon of 27-9-2004 and thereafter, he did not return even after two days.

P.W. 9 is the worker in a boat. He has seen the bag containing Burkah-M.O.1. He has witnessed for seizure-Ex.P.3 under which Burkah was seized.

P.W. 10 is the 1st wife of the accused. Though she has treated hostile by the prosecution, she has given certain favourable answers in favour of the prosecution during her cross-examination. She has deposed in her cross-examination that there was quarrel between the family members of the deceased and accused.

P.Ws. 11 and 12 are the witnesses for inquest panchanama and both of them have turned hostile.

P.W. 13 is another witness who has turned hostile. Her evidence is of no help to either of the prosecution or to the defence.

P.W. 14 is a contractor. He transported the dead body of the deceased to the burial ground and buried the same after post-mortem examination.

P.W. 15 is the Doctor who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body. Post-mortem report is at Ex. P. 35. The evidence of P.W. 15 and the P.M. report-Ex. P. 35 reveal that there was clear ligature mark on the neck of the deceased. However, the uterus of the deceased was empty.

P.W. 16 is the Jewellery shop owner. He has issued Ex. P. 5 the receipt from his shop regarding sale of ear rings (M.O. 2).

P.W. 17 is another witness for inquest mahazar-Ex. P. 32. He has also turned hostile.

P.W. 18 is the worker working under one Prabhakar; he buried the dead body and he is a signatory to Ex. P. 36-panchanama.

P.Ws. 19 and 21 are the Police Constables; both of them have participated during the course of investigation at difference levels.

P.W. 20 is the Sub-Inspector of Police of Urva Police Station. He went to the scene of offence on 29-9-2004 and received the complaint from P.W. 1 as per Ex. P.1 and the same was registered in Cri. No. 135 of 2004 in Urva Police Station.

P.W. 22 is the Inspector of Police who took up investigation on 16-10-2004 from P.W. 25 and conducted investigation to certain extent. Thereafter, he handed over further investigation to P.W. 23.

P.W. 23 is the Inspector of Police of Mangalore East Police Station who completed investigation and laid the charge-sheet.

P.W. 24 is the Sub-Inspector of Police of Ullal Police Station. P.W. 23 informed P.W. 24 on 10-10-2004 about the extra-judicial confession made by the accused. P.W. 24 thereafter apprehended the accused and produced before P.W. 23 with a report as per Ex.P. 6.

P.W. 25 is another Sub-Inspector of Police of Bajpe Police Station. On transfer of investigation records on the point of jurisdiction, he registered the case in Cr. No. 143 of 2004 in Bajpe Police Station and handed over further investigation to P.W. 22.

From the aforementioned, it is clear that there are no witnesses to the incident in question. The case rests on the circumstantial evidence. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are as under:

(a) Homicidal death of the deceased; the evidence of the doctor-P.W. 15 and the P.M. Report-Ex. P. 35 are relied upon.

(b) Motive for commission of the offence; P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 have deposed about the said circumstance.

(c) Extra-judicial confession made by the accused; P.Ws. 2 and 3 have deposed supporting the said circumstance.

(d) The last seen circumstance; deposed by P.Ws. 5,7 and 8. Among them, P.W. 5 has not supported the case and he has turned hostile.

(e) Recovery of apparels worn by the deceased viz., Burkah and shawl, spoken to by P.Ws. 2,3 and 9. Ex. P. 3 is the panchanama.

(f) The accused showed the scene of offence and also showed the place, wherein he threw the clothes of the deceased. P.Ws. 2 and 3 are the witnesses. Exs. P. 2 and P. 3 are the panchanamas.

(g) Abscondence of the accused from 27-9-2005 till 10-10-2004 (13 days).

It is not in dispute that the death in question is a homicidal death and the defence also does not dispute the said fact. The post-mortem report-Ex. P. 35 clearly reveals that the ligature mark is present around the neck, which is made from soft cloth; the circumference of the ligature mark measures 29 centimeters and a single knot is present in front and left side of the neck. P.W. 15-the doctor who conducted autopsy has opined that the cause of death is consistent with the history of soft ligature strangulation and that the death has occurred between 48 and 72 hours prior to post-mortem examination. From the above, it is amply clear that it is a case of homicidal death. As mentioned supra, the defence Counsel does not dispute the said aspect of the matter.

The motive for commission of the offence is that there used to be frequent quarrels between the accused the deceased; the deceased was the second wife of the accused; the accused was suspecting the fidelity of the deceased and he was of the impression that the deceased became four months pregnant when he was out of country; even otherwise, there used to be quarrels on different issues between the husband and the deceased; though any other reason has not come on record for quarrelling, the fact remains that there used to be quarrels between the accused and the deceased. P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 have deposed about the motive for commission of the offence. P.Ws. 2 and 3 have deposed that accused made extra-judicial confession before them, not only about causing of murder by him but also about the motive for commission of the offence. The accused had confessed before P.Ws. 2 and 3, who are his close friends that the deceased was not having good character and that the accused suspected her fidelity inasmuch as she became pregnant when he was out of country. P.W. 4 is brother of the deceased. He has deposed that his elder sister (the deceased) was telling him that the accused was troubling her; after the marriage, the deceased was living in the house of her parents and the accused was visiting her in the house of parents of the deceased for about two years and thereafter the accused went abroad; after coming to India, he did not come to the house of parents of the deceased; on search being made by the relatives of the deceased, they found that the accused was working as a Moilar in the Masjid at Bajpe and therefore Panchayat was held by the elders and then the deceased was sent along with the accused. These aspects relating to motive are not so seriously challenged by the defence during the course of cross-examination. Practically the motive as spoken to by P.W. 2 has remained unquestioned.

From the evidence of P.Ws. 2,3 and 4, it is clear that all was not well in the relationship between the accused and the deceased. The deceased was living in her parents place after the birth of the daughter. However the accused was visiting the house of parents of the deceased upto two years and thereafter he went abroad; after coming back from the abroad, he did not come to the house of parents of the deceased, but he started working as Moilar in a mosque at a different place without telling anybody including the deceased. In that regard, Panchayat was held. Even thereafter, the deceased was complaining before her family members including P.W. 4 that she was being harassed by the accused. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the accused was harassing the deceased on one pretext or the other, including on the ground of suspicion generated in his mind in respect of fidelity of his wife.

It is no doubt true that the post-mortem report discloses that the uterus of the deceased was empty, which means, she was not pregnant at the time of her death. Merely because the deceased was not pregnant at the time of her death, it cannot be said that there was no motive for the accused. The accused generated suspicion against the character of the deceased. He was of the wrong opinion that the deceased became pregnant when he was out of country. In view of the same, it cannot be said that there is no motive on the part of the accused for commission of the crime.

With regard to the 3rd circumstance i.e., extra-judicial confession made by the accused in front of P.Ws. 2 and 3, we find that the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 is consistent and reliable. The evidence of P.W. 2 discloses that at about 18 to 9 p.m. on 10-10-2004 when himself and others were discussing in the premises of the Old Students Association-P.W. 3 and the accused came there; P.W. 3 told before him (P.W. 2) and others that the accused had killed his wife Mariamma; he enquired about the absence of Mariamma with the accused, but the accused did not give proper answer; however later the accused confessed about the murder of his wife Mariamma; thereafter P.Ws. 2,3 and others went to the house of the Panchayat President-Hussain Kunhi and thereafter once again the enquiry was made with the accused; even in the Panchayat also, the accused confessed before everybody including P.Ws. 2 and 3 about killing of his wife; the accused told before them that Mariamma (deceased) was pregnant and that it was a product of third person; when the accused asked Mariamma about the pregnancy, Mariamma denied about the pregnancy; the accused took the deceased to Kenjaru Pejavar Masjid to administer her oath before the Almighty; after reaching the masjid, the deceased Mariamma was not inclined to take oath before the Almighty and at that time, the accused hit her with his hand and fell her down and thereafter accused put bandage to her mouth and by using her scarf, he strangulated the neck of Mariamma, as a result of which Mariamma died due to suffocation; thereafter the accused removed the clothes of the deceased and threw the dead body as well as the clothes.

The evidence of P.W. 3 is almost consistent with the aforementioned evidence of P.W. 2. He has deposed that the accused confessed before him about the commission of murder anti thereafter he (P.W. 3) and accused went near Old Students Association and in front of everybody including P.W. 2, the accused once again confessed about the crime as well as the motive for commission of the offence. P.W. 3 in his deposition has added the words ''Saidan Bibi Darga'' along with the darga at Pejavar. In that context, Sri Dinesh Kumar, learned Advocate for the appellant submits that the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 is conflicting. Such submission cannot be accepted. Learned Advocate for the appellant further submits that the case of the prosecution is that the incident has taken place near Gurupur Maravur River, whereas the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 discloses that the incident has taken place near darga. That does not make much difference. Looking to the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3, it is clear that Kenjaru Pejavir Masjid near which the incident has taken place is almost situated on the bank of the river. After committing the murder, the deceased threw the dead body in a naked condition in the river and thereafter he threw the clothes of the deceased covering the same in a plastic cover in another place nearby. Moreover in the matter on hand, the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 clearly reveals that the accused took the panchas (P.Ws. 2 and 3) as well as the Police to the place wherein he committed murder and to the place where he had thrown the dead body and the clothes. Therefore there is no artificiality in the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3. Even otherwise, the accused is definite that the incident has taken place in the very place which he has shown and near that place itself, the dead body was recovered as well as the clothes were found. From the aforementioned discussion, it is clear that the prosecution has proved the circumstance of extra-judicial confession made by the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

The fourth circumstance is the last seen circumstance. The accused was seen last with the deceased by P.W. 7 (daughter of the deceased and the accused). Though P.W. 5 was supposed to depose about the last seen circumstance, he has turned hostile. The evidence of P.W. 7 is of utmost importance in the matter on hand inasmuch as she is not biased either in favour of the prosecution or in favour of the defence. If really P.W. 7 was innocent, she would not have deposed against the accused. On going through the evidence of P.W. 7, we find that the evidence of P.W. 7 is natural and highly reliable. We do not find any artificiality in the evidence of P.W. 7. P.W. 7 has deposed that on 27-9-2004 she came back to the house from school at about 2 p.m. and at that time, the deceased informed her that she has to go to Mangalore; at that time, the accused took the deceased as well as P.W. 7 along with him to Panambur at the first instance and left her (P.W. 7) in the house at Panambur with an assurance to her that he would come on the next day and take her; her mother (deceased) was standing by the side of the road inasmuch as she did not enter the house; thereafter the inmates of the house along with the accused went to the place wherein the deceased was standing by the side of the road; thereafter the accused and the deceased went away; on the next day, the accused alone came to the house and took her (P.W. 7) to Puttur; on the next day, one Mr. Farooq once again took her (P.W. 7) from Puttur to Bangalore and she stayed in the house of Mr. Farooq for about 13 days. This means P.W. 7 was not informed about the death of her mother for about 13 days and she was made to stay in different places after the death of the deceased. P.W. 7 has further deposed that the deceased, accused and herself left the house after taking meals in the afternoon and therefore they must have left the house at about 3 to 4 p.m. She has also deposed in the cross-examination that while going to Panambur from their native place, herself and her mother (deceased) were sitting on one seat, whereas the accused was sitting on another seat. A suggestion is made by the defence while recording the evidence of P.W. 7 (paragraph 17) that the accused sent the deceased from Panambur to her parental house. However the said suggestion is denied. Thus it is clear that an attempt was made by the defence to prove that the accused did not proceed along with the deceased from Panambur House. But such suggestion is denied by P.W. 7. From the aforementioned evidence of P.W. 7, it is amply clear that on the date of the incident i.e., on 27-9-2004, the accused and the deceased came to Panambur along with P.W. 7 and the accused left P.W. 7 in the house situated at Panambur and he went along with the deceased. This is the last seen circumstance according to the prosecution. It is also not in dispute that on the next day, the accused came alone. He did not offer any explanation as to where his wife is.

P.W. 8 is the owner of the house at Panambur in which P.W. 7 was left on 27-9-2004. He has also deposed that the accused came there along with his daughter-P.W. 7 and told that P.W. 7 will stay in her house for some days. Accordingly, P.W. 8 consented for the same and as such P.W. 7 stayed in his house. However the accused did not return back even after two days. Subsequently, a phone message was received by P.W. 8 that P.W. 7 is the daughter of the accused and her mother is murdered. Consequently, he handed over custody of P.W. 7 to her grandparents through Police inasmuch as the accused did not come back to the house of P.W. 8.

From the evidence of P.W. 7, it is clear that she is the witness who has seen the accused with the deceased last. Thereafter the deceased was not seen. The accused did not come again to the house of P.W. 8 along with the deceased to take her daughter (P.W. 7) to his house.

Having regard to the aforementioned material on record, we are of the opinion that the Trial Court is justified in relying upon the circumstance of last seen while convicting the accused.

It was the accused who took the deceased in the afternoon of 27-9-2004. Therefore it was in the exclusive knowledge of the accused as to when he parted the company of the deceased; as to why he parted the company of the deceased and as to how the death of the deceased had taken place. Absolutely no explanation is forthcoming from the side of the accused. Even in the statement recorded under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the accused has not tried to give any explanation. Even during the cross-examination of the relevant witnesses also, the defence did not make an effort to place the defence theory in that regard. In the absence of any explanation from the side of the accused about the death of the deceased, adverse inference need to be drawn against the accused. It is not open for the accused to keep silent in such matters. It is by now well-settled that non-explanation or false explanation by the accused in such matters calls for drawing up of adverse inference.

Regarding recovery of burkha and shawl based on the information of the accused, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3 and 9. P.W. 9 is the witness who first saw the plastic bag containing burkha. On finding such clothes, he informed the Police and thereafter he handed over the same to the Police. He is the witness for seizure mahazar-Ex. P. 3 under which burkha-M.O.1 is seized. The evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 clearly reveals that after the arrest of the accused on 11-10-2004, he lead the Police and the panchas to the place of offence; as per the instructions of the accused-P.Ws. 2 and 3 and the Police followed the accused; near Maravur Junction, the accused told the Police to stop the jeep and by passing through iron gate, the accused proceeded further and the panchas followed him; the accused showed the place wherein he fell Mariamma; mahazar of the said place was prepared; the accused also showed the place wherein the clothes of Mariamma were thrown; however at that place, the clothes were not traced; the accused also told before the Police that he threw burkha of the deceased near Maravur Bridge; then he led the panchas and the Police to Maravur Bridge; there also burkha was not found. The Police and the panchas came to the conclusion that the said clothes floated on the water of the river. From the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3, it is clear that it was the accused who lead the Police and the panchas to the scene of offence and showed the place wherein he threw burkha and other clothes of the deceased. However on that day, they could not find burkha of the deceased near Maravur Bridge.

Again on 4-12-2004, the Police took P.Ws. 2 and 3 to Maravur Bridge and seized burkha which was found at the time of extracting sand from the river bank. As mentioned supra, P.W. 9 got the burkha which was embedded in the mud of river bank. It is also relevant to note that the place wherein the burkha was found and seized is the place near Maravur Bridge. That is the very place which was shown by the accused even when he took Police and the panchas on 11-10-2004. Since the clothes were embedded in the mud of the river bank, the clothes must not have been traced by the Police and the panchas on 11-10-2004. Ultimately when P.W. 9 was extracting sand, he got the burkha in the land and informed the same to the Police. Thus it is clear that though the accused was not present at the time of recovery and seizure of the clothes, the place wherein the clothes of the deceased were recovered and seized is a very place which was shown by the accused during the course of investigation on 11-10-2004. Therefore the Trial Court is justified in concluding that the clothes of the deceased were found in the very'' place which was shown by the accused to the Police. As we have: already stated supra, the accused has shown the place of offence to the Police and the panchas and accordingly, panchanama as per Ex. P. 6 is drawn. The English translation of the relevant portion admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 made by the accused as per Ex. P. 43 reads thus:

"Now if you come with me, I will show the place where I murdered Muniyamma on 27-9-2015 at 7.15 a.m., the place where her dead body was thrown to Gurpur River, the place where her nighty and petticoat were thrown to Gurupur River and the place where the plastic cover containing her burka was thrown while going in a bus."

The last circumstance is with regard to the abscondence. According to the prosecution, the accused absconded from 27-9-2014 till the night of 10-10-2004 i.e., till the accused made extra-judicial confession before P.Ws. 2 and 3. We do not find adequate material to support the said circumstance relied upon by the prosecution. Looking to the material on record, it is clear that the accused had not absconded. No material is placed on record to show that the accused absconded. Hence in our considered opinion, the circumstance of abscondence is not proved by the prosecution.

All circumstances relied upon by the prosecution as mentioned supra (except the circumstance of abscondence) are proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses supporting the said circumstances is consistent, cogent and reliable. Merely because there are some minor variations in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, their evidence cannot be discarded. There are bound to be exaggerations and variations to a smaller extent in the evidence of the witnesses, more particularly when their evidence is recorded after long time after the incident. The records disclose that though the incident has taken place in the year 2004, the evidence is recorded in the year 2009 i.e., after the lapse of five years. Because of lapse of time, minor variations must have occurred in the evidence of these witnesses.

Looking to the entire material on record, we find that the evidence of all the relevant witnesses is highly reliable. We do not find any artificial exaggerations in the versions of these witnesses, more particularly in the version of P.W. 7, who is the daughter of the accused and the deceased. Though P.W. 7 is the child witness, she has withstood in the cross-examination. We find that all the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution not only are proved beyond reasonable doubt, but all such proved circumstances complete the chain. Consequently, the accused does not have any scope to escape. In view of the totality of facts and circumstances, we are of the clear view that the Trial Court is justified in convicting the accused for the offences under Sections 201 and 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. The judgment and order of the Trial Court is just and proper. No interference is called for.

Appeal fails and the same stands dismissed.