Rakesh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

S.K. Awasthi, J

(1) This appeal takes exception to judgment dated 06.05.2014 passed by Sessions Judge,Indore in Sessions Trial No.642/2014 by which, appellant

came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and sentenced to suffer rigorous

imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.

(2). The prosecution case in short is that on 12.01.2010 at about 13.15 hours Wasim, the Manager of Dilip lodge, 3 Nyasiya Road Indore made a

complaint to station house officer Police Station Chhoti gwaltoli, Indore contending that on 08.01.2010 two persons visited the hotel and registered

themselves as Ritesh Sharma S/o Ramesh Sharma, aged about 23 years, R/o Station Road, Neemuch and Rohit aged about 23 years. They booked

one room of the hotel at a rent of Rs. 100/- per day and gave an advance of Rs. 200/-. They were allotted room No.13 of the hotel. Next day, on

09.01.2010, room was found locked. Thereafter on 12.01.2010, foul smell emanated from the said room. The door of the room was locked from the

outside, therefore he broke the lock and opened the room, where dead body of Ritesh Sharma was found lying in between two coats. One injury was

noticed in the neck of Ritesh and a lot of blood was found splattered in the room. Complainant suspected that the other person Rohit could have killed

the deceased and escaped. On the basis of the above the Station House Officer Mr. D.K. Jain recorded the Dehati Nalisi (Ex.P/1) and sent the same

to the police station Choti gwaltoli Indore for registration of offence under Sectioin 302 of I.P.C.,pursunt to which crime No 14/2010 was registered.

(3). In course of investigation, S.H.O. D.K. Jain prepared the inquest report and sent the dead body for postmortem examination. Police recorded the

statement of witnesses. Spot Panchnama is drawn, alongwith seizure memo in respect of sample of blood, earth control,one white bed sheet having

blood stains,one empty plastic vial of vicks vaporub, three empty plastic bottels of Limca, Sprite and liquior. Police seized visitor register of the lodge

on the instance of Mohammad Wasim, Manager of the Hotel. On verification of names and address shown in the register were found to be false .

During investigation the deceased was identified as Vijay S/o Bagdi Ram Pawar R/o Nagda Junction. Police recorded the statement of Ajay, the

brother of the deceased who disclosed that Vijay was working as Carpenter in Indore and residing with him in Nagin Nagar Indore. He further stated

that on 08.01.2010 at about 04:00 pm Vijay left the house informing his wife that he is going to Bhopal alongwith his friend Rakesh (present appellant)

for interview and he will come back after three days. But he did not return then he tried to talk to him on his mobile phone bearing No.8109483430

however his mobile phone was switched off. Then he searched him but he could not be traced. He received some message from the mobile phone of

Vijay by which it is informed that he is fine and he asked that he gave Rs.10,000/- to Rakesh (present appellant) which he borrowed from him. After

that he contacted Rakesh and in order to search his brother, he went to various other places, during this appellant Rakesh was also accompanied with

him. After drawing a blank he went to police station Nagda and lodged a missing person report of Vijay. Accused Rakesh was interrogated by Nagda

police because he was suspected to have something to do with the disappearance of Vijay. On receiving information that a crime has been registred in

police station Choti gwaltoli Indore in connection of murdur of Vijay the accused was handed over to the said police Station. Police recorded his

disclosure statement under section 27 of Indian evidence act. In pursuance to which he got recovered his mobile phone, blood stains knife, his cloths

wearing at the time of incident, mobile phone and various belongings of deceased Vijay. Test identification parade of accused was also arranged,in

which he was identified by Mohammad Wasim as the person who was accompanied with the deceased. Calls details of seized mobile phones were

taken and studies in which it was found that the mobile phone of deceased Vijay was using by the accused even after his death. The specimen

handwriting of the accused was obtained which was forwarded to the handwriting expert alongwith guest register of Dilip lodge.Seized incriminating

articles had examined by forensic science laboratory. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the court of Judicial

Magistrate First Class Indore, who committed the case to the sessions judge, Indore for trial.

(4). The learned Sessions Judge framed the charges against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. to which he pleaded

not guilty and claimed to be tried. Defence of appellant is of total denial and of false implication. The accused in support of his defence has not

examined any defence witnesses.

(5). To establish charge leveled against the appellant, the prosecution in all examined 17 witnesses and has commenced its evidence on examining

Mohammad Wasim (PW-1), the manager of Dilip Lodge, Ajay@ Bharat (PW-2) the brother of the deceased. Dimpal Mavar (PW-3), the sister-in-

law of the deceased, Ashok Malviya (PW-4) witness of memorandum and seizure memo. Laxmi Narayan Karmkar (PW-5) another manager of Dilip

Lodge, Rajesh Neema (PW-6) witness of inquest, Smt. Poonam Mavar (PW-7), the wife of deceased, Sonu Kumar (PW-8) Nodal Officer Tata Tele

services, Assisant sub inspector Ajit Singh Jat (PW-9), Constable Sanjay Chaturvedi (PW-10), Makhan (PW-11), witness of inquest, D.K. Rathore

(PW-12) ASI Police Station Nagda, Dilip @ Saleem (PW-13), the owner of the Dilip Lodge, Dr. N.M Unda (PW-14), who performed the

postmortem of deceased, Tehsildar Pratul sinha (PW-15) who conducted the test identification Parade of the accused, D.K. Jain (PW-16), the then

station house officer, Chhoti gwalitoli, who investigated the matter, Santosh Jadhav (PW-17) Nodal Officer reliance communication.

(6). Learned Session Judge on considering the evidence and documents on record convicted the accused as aforesaid, hence this appeal.

(7). Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the appellant. It is submitted that the trial court

has erred in passing the impugned judgment without appreciating the facts of the case and hence the judgment is contrary to law. It is contended that

the trial court has failed to consider that there is no evidence on record to show that the appellant was last seen in the company of the deceased.

Counsel contended that the call records sought to be relied upon do not establish that the appellant had any contact with the family members of the

deceased after the death of the deceased. It is next contended that the Mohammad Wasim (PW-1) accepted in his cross-examination that one mobile

phone found in the pocket of the deceased but prosecution showing the recovery of the said mobile from the appellant which clearly indicates that the

appellant is falsely implicated in the present crime. It is further submitted that appellant was shown to the Mohammad Wasim at the police station,

therefore, test identification parade has no value. It is also submitted that there is no evidence on record to establish that the appellant was having any

transaction with the deceased or they were any amicably relationship therefore, appellant was not having any motive to cause death of the deceased.

It is further submitted that the statement of the Mohammad Wasim shows that the room was booked by Ritesh sharma who was found dead in hotel

room which shows that the deceased himself haired the room under a pseudo name. It is therefore contended that there is no clinching evidence

establishing involvement of appellant in the present case. In these circumstances, learned counsel prays for acquittal of the appellant.

(8). Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State has submitted that prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt.

It is contended that the medical, electronic and other ocular evidence clearly point towards the guilt of the appellant, therefore, the learned sessions

judge has not committed any error in convicting the appellant for the said offence, hence he prays for rejection of the appeal.

(9). We have heard learned counsel for the parties, examined the trial court record and also considered their rival submissions.

(10). Admittedly, the conviction is based on circumstantial evidence as no one has seen the accused committing murder of the deceased. While

dealing with the said conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should in the

first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should also be consistent with only one hypothesis i.e. the guilt of the accused, which

would mean that the onus lies on the prosecution to prove that the chain of event is complete and not to leave any doubt in the mind of the Court.

(11). The law with respect to circumstantial evidence has been well settled by the Apex Court in a catina of judgements.The judgement reported as

Hanumant Govind Nargundkar Vs. State of M.P. AIR 1952 SC 343, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:

It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in

the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the

circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other

words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it

must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.

(12). The Supreme Court in Padala Veera Reddy Vs. State of A.P. 1989 Supp (2) SCC 706, opined as under.

Before adverting to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel, we shall at the threshold point out that in the present case there is no direct evidence to

connect the accused with the offence in question and the prosecution rests its case solely on circumstantial evidence. This Court in a series of decisions has

consistently held that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence such evidence must satisfy the following tests:

(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;

(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;

(3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was

committed by the accused and none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any

other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with

his innocence. (See Gambhir v. State of Maharashtra, (1982) 2 SCC 351)

(13). In C.Chenga Reddy & Ors. Vs. State of A.P.,(1996) 10 SCC 19,3 the Hon'ble Apex Court while considering a case of conviction based on the

circumstantial evidence, held that :

In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such

circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further,

the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence. In the present case the

courts below have overlooked these settled principles and allowed suspicion to take the place of proof besides relying upon some inadmissible evidence.

 (14). In Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy Vs. State of A.P., (2006) 10 SCC 17,2 the Hon'ble Supreme Court again considered the case of

conviction based on circumstantial evidence and held as under:

It is now well settled that with a view to base a conviction on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish all the pieces of incriminating

circumstances by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form such a chain of events as would permit no conclusion other than one of

guilt of the accused. The circumstances cannot be on any other hypothesis. It is also well settled that suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot be a substitute for

a proof and the courts shall take utmost precaution in finding an accused guilty only on the basis of the circumstantial evidence. (See Anil Kumar Singh v. State of

Bihar, (2003) 9 SCC 67 and Reddy Sampath Kumar v. State of A.P., (2005) 7 SCC 603).

(15). The Apex court In the case of Sattatiya vs. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 3 SCC 210, held as under:

We have thoughtfully considered the entire matter. It is settled law that an offence can be proved not only by direct evidence but also by circumstantial evidence

where there is no direct evidence. The court can draw an inference of guilt when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be totally incompatible

with the innocence of the accused. Of course, the circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and

have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances.

This Court further observed in the aforesaid decision that:

At this stage, we also deem it proper to observe that in exercise of power under Article 136 of the Constitution, this Court will be extremely loath to upset the

judgment of conviction which is confirmed in appeal. However, if it is found that the appreciation of evidence in a case, which is entirely based on circumstantial

evidence, is vitiated by serious errors and on that account miscarriage of justice has been occasioned, then the Court will certainly interfere even with the concurrent

findings recorded by the trial court and the High Court - Bharat v. State of M.P., (2003) 3 SCC. In the light of the above, we shall now consider whether in the present

case the prosecution succeeded in establishing the chain of circumstances leading to an inescapable conclusion that the appellant had committed the crime.

(16).In G. Parshwanath vs. State of Karnataka, (2010) 8 SCC 593, the Hon'ble Apex Court elaborately dealt with the subject and held as under :

In cases where evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should, in the first

instance, be fully established. Each fact sought to be relied upon must be proved individually. However, in applying this principle a distinction must be

made between facts called primary or basic on the one hand and inference of facts to be drawn from them on the other. In regard to proof of primary

facts, the court has to judge the evidence and decide whether that evidence proves a particular fact and if that fact is proved, the question whether

that fact leads to an inference of guilt of the accused person should be considered. In dealing with this aspect of the problem, the doctrine of benefit of

doubt applies. Although there should not be any missing links in the case, yet it is not essential that each of the links must appear on the surface of the

evidence adduced and some of these links may have to be inferred from the proved facts. In drawing these inferences, the court must have regard to

the common course of natural events and to human conduct and their relations to the facts of the particular case. The court thereafter has to consider

the effect of proved facts.

(17).In the case of Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik vs. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 4 SCC 37 the Hon'ble Court observed as under:

“12. There is no doubt that it is not a case of direct evidence but the conviction of the accused is founded on circumstantial evidence. It is a settled principle of law

that the prosecution has to satisfy certain conditions before a conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be sustained. The circumstance from which the

conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established and should also be consistent with only hypothesis i.e. the guilt of the accused. The circumstances

should be conclusive and proved by the prosecution. There must be a chain of events so complete as not to have any substantial doubt in the mind of the court.

Irresistibly, the evidence should lead to the conclusion which is inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and the only possibility is that the accused has

committed the crime.

To put it simply, the circumstance forming the chain of events should be proved and they should cumulatively point towards the guilt of the accused alone. In

such circumstance, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstance are found to be incompatible with the innocence of

the accused or the guilt of any other person.

(18). Keeping these principles in mind, we have analyzed the prosecution evidence. Following are the circumstances which the prosecution has

endeavoured to established complete the chain of circumstances-:

(I). Homicidal death of the Vijay.

(ii). Recovery of mobile phone of deceased from the possession of the appellant.

(iii) Recovery of blood stains cloths of the deceased and appellant stated to be worn by them at the time of murder.

(iv). Motive.

(v). Recovery of certificate / other articles of the deceased from the house of the appellant.

(vi).Messages sent by the appellant from the mobile phone of the deceased even after his death.

(vii) Handwriting and specimen signature of the appellant matches his signature in the guest register of the hotel.

(viii) Mobile Phone calls details of the accused with respect to mobile No 9827694561.

(19) Before referring to these circumstances vis-a-vis the evidence led by the prosecution, some of the un controvarted circumstance can be mentions

as follows-:

(a) Dead body of deceased was found in room no 13 of Dilip lodge on 12.01.2010.

(b) The deceased was died homicidal death because of the injury caused to his neck by sharp cutting object .

(20) Dr. N.M.Unda (P.W.15) had conducted the postmortem examination, during the same he has noticed following antemortem injuries on the person

of Vijay-:

(i). Multiple inflections over the neck mark like butcher movement became transverse.

(ii). Incised wound over left side of the face size 5 cm x 0.3 cm.

(iii).Two incised wound over left arm, skin deep size 5 cm x 1 cm and 5 cm x 0.2 cm.

(iv).Multiple incised wound over left shoulder size 12 cm x 5 cm

According to Dr. Unda, the aforesaid injuries caused by hard and sharp object and age of the injuries were within 24 hours from the death. The cause

of death of the deceased was homicidal.

(21). The prosecution has examined Mohammad Wasim (PW-1) who is the Manager of the Dilip lodge where the deceased as stayed at room No.13

from 08.01.2010 and on 12.01.2010 is dead body was found in the room. He narrated the incident to station house officer police station Chhoti gwaltoli

Mr. D.K. Jain (PW-17) and Dehati Nalisi Ex.P/1 was registered on his statement. He also identified the accused being the same person who had

accompanied the deceased and stayed with him, next day he disappeared without informing the hotel staff. He is also the witness to the various

seizures made by the police from inside the room No.13 of Dilip lodge.

 (22). Mohammad Wasim (PW-1) clarified in his cross-examination that in the year 2010 there was no such rule that the identity proof of those

staying at the hotel should be obtained, therefore he had not obtained any identify proof from the visitors. In his examination in chief recorded on

23.12.2010 he identified the accused as person, who had accompanied the deceased and stayed with him in the hotel. He also claims to have identified

the accused/appellant in test identification parade. However his cross-examination was deferred on his request because he reported to have

fever.when he was cross examined on 22.07.2011 he admitted that the accused was shown to him by the police at police station prior to test

identification parade which was identified by him as accused person. Wasim (P.W.1) has completely changed his stand in his cross examination and

try to exculpated accused, as compared to his earlier statement recorded on 23.10.2010 in which he has inculpated accused. Apparently this witness

was won over by the accused during trail so he changed his statement.

(23). Dilip @ Saleem (PW-13) is the owner of the lodge. He deposed that one year back Mohammad Wasim the manager of the lodge informed him

that the room No.13 was locked from the outside and some foul smell was coming from the room, then on his information police reached on the spot,

the lock of the room was broken and it is found that a dead body was laying in the room. According to Dilip at that time he was not present on the

spot. Thus this witness has not supported the prosecution and turned hostile.

(24). The then station house officer Police Station Chhoti gwaltoli D.K. Jain (PW-16) deposed that on 12.01.2010 complainant Mohammad Wasim

informed him that one person who registered himself as Ritesh Sharma has found dead in room No.13 of the hotel, his dead body was lying between

two coats. He sustained injury in his neck and blood found splattered in the room. On the basis of above he recorded Dehati Nalisi Ex.P-1 and sent

the same to police station for registration of original crime number.

(25). D.K. Jain (PW-16) further stated that he prepared lash panchanama of deceased and sent his body to government hospital for postmortem. He

inspected the place of occurrence and prepared spot map Ex.P.4. The photograph of dead body was taken out and it was published in the newspaper

so the dead body can be identified. He collected the blood samples and earth control from the spot and prepared seizure memo Ex.P/5 he also seized

one blood stains bed sheet and one bottle of magic movement grain vodka. He also seized blood stains one empty of vicks vaporub, two empty plastic

bottels of limca and sprite. He recovered the guest register of the Dilip lodge and prepared seizure memo Ex. P/6. This register is Ex.P/22 in which a

entry is made regarding the name of Ritesh Sharma S/o Ramesh Sharma aged about 23 years resident of station road Neemuch who checked the

hotel on 08.01.2010 at about 01:20 pm and mobile No.9300623901 is also mentioned in the register.

(26). Ajay (PW-2) testified that deceased Vijay was his younger brother and working as carpenter. They permanent resident of Nagda Junction

District Ujjain and at the time of incident they lived and worked in Indore. On 08.01.2010 vijay went to home at 01:00 pm after working from Sudama

Nagar site. On reaching home, he asked his (Ajay) wife to cook. After taking food, he left home saying that his friend Rakesh gets a call so he is

going to Bhopal for an interview. On receiving information about Vijay's visit to Bhopal, he tried to talk with him on his mobile No.8109483430, but his

mobile phone was switched off. Then he called Nagda and talked to his father Bagdiram, he said that Vijay has not told him anything. When Vijay did

not come home for 3 days he started looking for him. He also searched at the Hindustan Unilever Company in Bhopal and from there it was found

that no person named Vijay has come here. Thereafter messages started coming from Vijay's mobile phone to his mobile No.9669171663 by which it

was informed that I am fine, wherever I am. This was also written in the message that he has taken money by lying to the people, so that he will only

bring the money. In a massage it was informed that he also borrowed Rs.10,000/- from Rakesh so gave him this money as his sister is to get married

in February. Ajay (PW-2) further stated that he went to Ujjain on 14th January to find Vijay but he did not get there, at that time Rakesh was also

with him. Meanwhile message from mobile phone of Vijay kept coming saying I am fine. Then he got a message from the mobile phone of Vijay that

he is in trouble and sent him Rs. 4 lacs through Rakesh. Then he lodged a missing person report at Police Station Nagda. He told station house officer

Nagda about all the messages received from the mobile phone of Vijay. Then S.H.O.apprehended Rakesh and interrogated him, at first he tried to

confused him saying that vijay has gone to Ahmedabad later on he confessed to killing Vijay in Dilip lodge Indore. According to Ajay the photographs

that emerged from the computer of the police station Chhoti gwaltoli whereof his brother Vijay.

(27). The circumstances, which connects the appellant Rakesh with the crime is that blood was lifted from the spot and seized by the investigation

agency. During the investigation appellant Rakesh suffered a disclosure statement and got recovered a black colour trouser, cream colour shirt one

pair shoes , one knife, educational documents of vijay, two mobile phones from his house. one of which was the mobile phone of the deceased and

other of the accused . D.K. Jain (PW-16) Ajay (PW-2) and Ashok Malviya (PW-4) have categorically deposed that during the investigation on

05.05.2010 appellant Rakesh suffered disclosure statement and offered to get the cloths, various articles of deceased and the weapon used in the

incident from the disclosed place. Ex. P-15 is the disclosure statement suffered by the appellant Rakesh and Ex.P-13 is the memo qua recovery of the

said articles got effected by the appellant in pursuance to his disclosure statement. A perusal of the same reveals that these articles had been kept

concealed by putting them in a polythene bag. Seized cloths and knife were sent to FSL for chemical analysis and human blood was found in the said

articles. This is a material circumstance, which connects the appellant with the crime.

(28). The prosecution has projected Dimpal (PW-3) as the person which Vijay had informed that he is going to Bhopal with accused Rakesh to give

an interview. Apart from this there is evidence that accused joining with Ajay in tracing out the victim and during this, messages from Vijay's mobile

phone kept coming to Ajay regarding places where he is looking for him and this thing is only in the knowledge of the accused. It is also worth to note

that mobile phone of the accused has been recovered from the possession of the accused which clearly indicates that these messages were sent by

accused to the family members of deceased.

(29). The learned counsel for the accused would submit that the prosecution has pathetically failed to prove the motive, which is the vital link in the

chain, which having not been established, the conviction is unsustainable.

(30). In State of U.P. - Vs Hari Prasad (1974 (3) SCC 673 )the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the relevancy and necessity of motive in

a case of murder and whether absence of motive would be detrimental to the case. In the said decision, the Supreme Court observed as under :-

...... it is never incumbent on the prosecution to prove the motive for the crime. And often times, a motive is indicated to heighten the probability that the offence

was committed by the person who was impelled by that motive. But, if the crime is alleged to have been committed for a particular motive, it is relevant to inquire

whether the pattern of the crime fits in with the alleged motive.µ (Emphasis supplied)

(31). The motive to commit the crime also stands proved as Ajay (PW-2), Dimpal (PW-3) and Poonam (PW-7) categorically stated in their court

statement that Vijay gave Rs.40,000/- to Rakesh for getting his job and he was making pressure upon Rakesh for his money back because of not

getting job and this was the reason for committing his murder by the appellant/accused. This fact is also found support from the recovery of

educational documents of deceased vijay from the house of accused. That testimony of these witnesses goes unrebutted, unchallenged and

unshattered as the same was not assailed in cross-examination thus there is no reason for disbelieving their testimonies. To the question put to the

accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. relating to incriminating evidence of Ajay(PW-2),Dimpal( PW-3) and Poonam(PW-7), the accused had not

denied the aforesaid fact therefore, the above evidence clearly suggested as the driving force for the accused to commit offence stands established. In

such scenario, the motive put forth by the prosecution cannot be said to be unacceptable.

(32). Sonu Kumar (PW-8) is the Nodal Officer of Tata Teleservices Limited, Bhopal, who had produced the summons record of mobile

No.8109483430 from 1st January 2010 to 13th April 2010 as Ex. P/17 and Ex.P/18. Sonu Kumar has deposed that as per record this connection was

released in the name of one Vijay Kumar S/o Bagdiram.

(33). Santosh Jhadav (PW-17) is working as Nodal Officer in reliance communication, Bhopal. He had produced the record of mobile No.9827694561

from 01.01.2010 to 20.04.2010. He has proved the same as Ex. P/52. Santosh Jadhav has deposed that as per record, this connection was issued in

the name of one Rakesh R/o of Khachrod Road Nagda District Ujjain and the records reveals that this mobile number was in touch with mobile

number 8109483430 from 01.01.2010 to 20.04.2010 and several calls were made by Rakesh on mobile number 8109483430 from his mobile number

9827694561. These call details clearly indicates that the appellant was not only in contact with the deceased prior to his death, even after his death he

continued to use his mobile phone with the intention of showing that he is alive.

(34). The accused with intent avoid being detected hack checked in the lodge under false name and contact number and after the incident he left the

hotel without informing anyone. As per the entry made in the guest register two persons including deceased checked in room No.13 of the lodge on

8.1.2010 at 1.20 pm. The handwriting expert report (Ex P/50 ) proved that the signature in the register was that of Rakesh which also shows that the

appellant is the person who was stayed with the deceased in the hotel Dilip on 08.01.2010 and thereafter the deceased was found dead in the

aforesaid hotel room.

(35). All the above circumstances has been duly proved by the prosecution by producing cogent and convincing evidence. Statement of Ajay (PW-2),

Dimpal (PW-3) and Poonam (PW-7) could not have been shattered in their cross-examination and they are well supported by the documents prepared

during investigation and proved by prosecution. Evidence produced by the prosecution establishes each and every circumstance connect the appellant

with the said crime. It also completes the chain of the circumstances; which indicates that none other than the appellant has committed the alleged

crime i.e. the murder of Vijay. Thus, it is also proved that the appellant was the person, who stayed in Dilip Lodge alongwith the deceased Vijay with

fictitious name and false address, he was the same person, who filled the visitor register of the hotel with the name of Ritesh Sharma and it was

appellant, in whose company the deceased Vijay was last seen alive. The learned Trial Court has considered all these circumstances and the evidence

produced by the prosecution to prove them and has analyzed the same exhaustively and has arrived at logical conclusion that it was the appellant, who

committed the alleged crime.

(36). The evidence conclusively establish that appellant inflicted the multiple injuries on the neck and other part of the body of the deceased and

caused his death. It is also proved that appellant inflicted the injuries with the intention to cause his death. In any case when the evidence establish that

those injuries inflicted on the neck and other part of the body are independently sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, and on the

evidence it cannot be found that those injuries were accidentally inflicted or inflicted while inflicting some other injury. Instead it is proved that

appellant with the intention to inflict those particular injuries on that particular part of the body inflicted the injuries on the neck and face. Hence clause

thirdly of Section 300 would apply. In such circumstances the offence would come under section 302 of IPC.

(37). In view of the above circumstance, we are of the considered opinion that the trial court was perfectly right in convicting the appellant/accused

under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentencing him thereunder. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal and is hereby dismissed. The appellant

is in jail.

The copy of the judgment be sent to the concerned trial court alongwith its record for information.