Raju Prajapati vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Conviction,Sentence

302 of IPC read with Section 11/13 of the M.P.

Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra

Adhiniyam, 1981.","Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.200/-, in

default of payment of fine, RI for 1 month.

Under Section 364A of IPC read with Section

11/13 of the Adhiniyam, 1981.","Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.200/-, in

default of payment of fine, RI for 1 month.

Under Section 201 of IPC,"RI for 3 years and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of

payment of fine, RI for 1 month. (All the

sentences to run concurrently).

registered on 05.07.2006, vide Exhibit P/55. He further deposed that he seized two letters from the complainant vide memorandum Exhibit P/2. On",

7.07.2006 when the bag containing note like papers was kept at the place mentioned in the ransom letter, for this Panchnama P/43 was prepared and",

when appellant-Raju reached at the spot around 23:30 in the night, after picking bag started fleeing from the spot but the police arrested him.",

Bag was seized from his possession vide seizure memo Exhibit P/53. 12. He further deposed that on 18.07.2006 in the morning memorandum Exhibit,

P/47 was reduced in writing and on the basis of memorandum, he went to Singpur Taroni and at the instance of the appellant/Raju ‘panty’of",

deceased Pooja was seized and from the surrounding of that place skull and bones were found which were also seized for which seizure memo,

Exhibit P/36 & P/48 was prepared. Complainant-Neelkanth identified the panty of deceased Pooja vide identification memo Exhibit P/42.,

He has further deposed that police remand was also taken for the appellant-Raju after his arrest and specimen writing from all the three accused,

persons were taken. Disputed letters (ransom letters) and specimen writings of all the three accused persons were sent for examination to the State,

Examiner, Government of Madhya Pradesh.",

PW-12 Shri A.K.Pauranik, State Examiner of disputed documents has opined vide Exhibit P/84 that disputed writing on ransom letter is similar to",

the writing of accused appellant.,

He has deposed that skeleton of deceased Pooja was sent for Medico Legal Institute, Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal. Report received from the",

institute is Exhibit P-57 in which it is mentioned that the bones received are of human origin. All the bones belongs to same individual aged between,

11-12 years of a female and the skull found at the spot was sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar for examination by superimposition",

of photos with skull. Exhibit P-16 is the FSL report regarding skull which depicts the possibility of skull being of the same girl which is shown in the,

photograph.,

All these investigations carried out by the Investigating Officer PW-11 is corroborated by the testimony of complainant-Neelkanth.,

Shri Shriram Tiwari (PW-8) who is witness of memorandum statement of accused (Ex.P/47), Panchnama of seizure of Bones (Ex.P/36), seizure",

of panty of deceased (Ex.P/36) and Towel (Ex.P/37) has deposed that these documents have been prepared before him which bears his signatures.,

This witness has also admitted that police has seized copies of letters from the accusedRaju and also took specimen of writing of accused-Raju on all,

the documents regarding that it bears his signature. Thus, this witness corroborated the investigation carried out by the Investigating Officer, Shri",

J.P.S. Parihar (PW-11).,

Rajesh Kumar Tiwari (PW-10) is another important witness regarding seizure of bag alleged to be containing money vide Ex.P/53. He is also,

witness of seizure memo Ex.P/33 regarding ransom letter. He has admitted signatures on the documents prepared during investigation. He is also,

witness who had last seen deceased in the company of the accused. He has deposed that he had gone to prepare sweets in a marriage and after,

returning from there at about 4 to 4.30 in the morning at Saheed Baba near Singpur Taroni he saw the accused Raju Prajapati coming with,

complainant’s daughter i.e. deceased Pooja towards hill. When asked about why and where he was going with Pooja then accused told that if he,

will tell anybody else he will kill him as he has already killed Kallu Ahirwar, so due to fear he has not told this fact to anyone. This fact that deceased",

Pooja was seen by this witness before her death in the company of accused was not challenged in the cross-examination of this witness.,

Thus accused/appellant has been seen last together with the deceased Pooja is proved by the evidence of Rajesh Kumar Tiwari (PW/10). This,

testimony at this point is not shaken by the defence.,

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bodhraj @ Bodha vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir (2002) 8 SCC 45, has held as under:",

“31. 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. …â€​,

It will not be proper to come to a conclusion of guilt in cases where there is no other corroborative evidence to conclude that the accused and the,

deceased were last seen together. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaswant Gill v. State of Punjab (2005) 12 SCC 438 has held that in the,

absence of any other links in the chain of circumstantial evidence, the appellant cannot be convicted solely on the basis of ‘last seen together’",

even if the version of the prosecution witness in this Court is believed.,

In the instant case ‘last seen together’ is not the only circumstance but also some other circumstances corroborates the guilt of,

accused/appellant. Accused/appellant was caught on the spot when he was picking bag containing ransom money and on his memorandum statement,",

skeleton of Pooja was discovered from the hillock of Taroni. Seized skeleton were sent for medico-legal examination and as per examination report,

the skeleton was found to be of a female aged between 11 to 12 years. Even on the basis of Superimposition of photo of recovered skull from spot at,

the instance of the accused, on the basis of similarity it was found to be of the deceased Pooja.",

Having considered the totality of the facts of the present case and the principles of law as above, we are left with no doubt that in the present case",

the prosecution has established beyond all reasonable doubt that it is the accused/appellant alone and nobody else who had committed the offence.,

Hence we are of the view that the conviction on the appellant by the learned trial Court will not justify any interference.,

We, therefore, in view of the above do not find any merit in the instant appeal, hence, we dismiss the appeal and confirm the impugned conviction",

and consequent sentences as imposed on the appellant by the trial Court.,

Appeal dismissed.,