Ramgopal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

In this appeal filed by the appellant under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., challenge is to the judgment dated 17.01.2000 passed by the First Additional

Sessions Judge, Morena in S.T. No.205/1996, whereby present appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to life

imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5000/and on non-depositing fine amount, he was directed to suffer two years RI additionally.

Undisputedly, the appellant Ramgopal @ Gopal was ex-sarpanch of relating Panchayat. It would be significant to mention here that along with

present appellant Ramgopal, other co-accused persons Suresh Singh, Chhotali @ Chhote Singh, Mintu @ Karan Singh were also tried in the above

mentioned sessions trial for offence punishable under Section 302 or in the alternative 302/34 of IPC, but except present appellant, above mentioned

three other co-accused persons were acquitted by the trial Court and their acquittal has not been challenged by the present respondent.

Prosecution's case in brief is that on 20.12.1995 at 9-30 AM at Police Station Bagchini, complainant Upendra Singh (PW-1), resident of village

Arhela intimated that on yesterday at 5-00 PM his uncle (Tau) Pratap Singh Sikarwar aged about 60 years was taken from Arhela by the present

appellant Ramgopal, Sarpanch, resident of village Har Gangoli and Pratap Singh went with appellant. On the next day in the morning at 8-00 AM a

boy of his village, who was son of Tota Jatav intimated him that dead body of his uncle Pratap Singh Sikarwar (Patel) was lying nearer to village

Chachiha in the way, thereafter complainant with his other family members Lalji, Rajendra Singh (PW-5), Jandel Singh, Krishnapal, Shiv Singh and

others went to village Chachiha and saw his uncle Pratap Singh's dead body which was lying nearer to the house of Bharosibaba and injuries on head

and ear were visible, wherefrom blood was oozing out. On Upendra Singh's information marg report (ExP-1) bearing marg No.20/95 was registered.

SHO Police Station Bagchini, G.C.Sharma (PW-11) after recording marg report with complainant reached to above mentioned place, where dead

body was lying and after issuing safina form (ExP-2) prepared inquest memo (ExP-3) in the presence of panch witnesses and dead body of deceased

was sent for postmortem vide application (ExP14). On 20.12.1995 at Community Health Centre, Jaura, Dr. Rajendra Singh Sikarwar (PW-10) with

Dr. Vinita Singhal started postmortem of dead body of deceased Pratap Singh Sikarwar at 2-00 PM and recorded postmortem report (ExP-15) and in

the opinion of above mentioned doctors all the antemortem external injuries were caused by hard and blunt object and deceased died due to

hemorrhage as a result of head injury and shock resulting from head injury.

Investigating officer G.C.Sharma (PW-11) seized the blood stained soil and plain soil vide seizure memo (ExP4) and also prepared spot map (ExP-

16) and in marg enquiry recorded statements of Upendra Singh (PW-1), Satendra Singh (PW-2), Lakhan Singh, Kishan Pal Singh (PW-7), Sawant,

Udai Singh, Raguveer Singh and Virendra Singh and on 20.12.1995 registered FIR (ExP17) at 22-30 hours against present appellant Ramgopal Tyagi

@ Gopal, Ex-Sarpanch, R/o village Har Gangoli. Above mentioned investigating officer arrested present appellant on 29.12.1995 vide arrest memo

(Ex-P6) and on appellant's disclosure (Ex-P10), seized an axe (ExP12) in the presence of panch witnesses and acquitted accused persons by trial

Court were also arrested. The seized materials were firstly sent to FSL, Sagar and some of the seized materials were later on sent to Seriologist,

Govt. of India, Calcutta and report (P-14) of Seriologist Calcutta was received, according to which human blood was found on seized and sent kurta,

dhoti and axe and the blood group of human blood on dhoti of the deceased was found to be of “o†blood group. After completing formalities of

investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court of JMFC, Joura, who committed the arisen criminal case to Sessions Judge, Morena, who transferred

the arisen sessions trial to above mentioned trial Court.

The trial Court framed charge for offence punishable under Section 302 or 302/34 of the IPC against present appellant and each of the three above

mentioned co-accused persons. Before trial Court in total eleven prosecution witnesses were examined. It was defence of the accused persons that

they were falsely implicated and it was specific defence of present appellant Ramgopal that deceased was a drunkard, who daily visited nearby

villages for drinking liquor and deceased died only due to drinking of liquor. Regarding above mentioned defence Matadeen (DW-1), r/o village

Chachiha was examined. After hearing, the trial Court acquitted the co-accused persons Suresh Singh, Chhotali @ Chhote Singh, Mintu @ Karan

Singh from charged offence, but convicted and sentenced present appellant Ramgopal as aforesaid, hence this appeal.

Appearing counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that alleged eye witness Sundra (PW-3) had not supported the prosecution's case and he

was declared hostile and the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the present appellant only on the basis of circumstantial evidence, whereas on

the same evidence, other three co-accused persons were acquitted by the trial Court.

Placing reliance on the cases of Harish Chandra Ladaku Thanga Vs. State of Maharashtra (AIR 2007 SC 2957), Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda Vs.

State of Maharashtra (AIR 1984 SC 1622), Vijay Shankar Vs. State of Haryana [(2015)12 SCC 644] and Mohd. Faizan Ahmad @ Kalu Vs. State of

Bihar [(2013)1 SCC(Cri) 872], it has been argued that the alleged motive of murder that deceased's ancestors gave beating to the ancestors of the

present appellant by tiding them with a tree was not convincing and the trial Court even did not believe on the alleged circumstance of extra judicial

confession made by acquitted accused Suresh Singh and it was deposed by family members of the deceased that for last ten years there was close

friendship and intimacy between deceased and present appellant and it is also argued that trial Court erred in believing the evidence of close relatives

of the deceased and the circumstantial evidence regarding last seen of the deceased with present appellant and the seizure of axe on the basis of

disclosure made by the appellant was also not proved beyond reasonable doubt. It was further argued that deceased's nephew Vijay Singh Sikarwar

(PW-4) deposed that he saw deceased with present appellant at about 500 PM on relevant date sitting at the shop of Srilal, but Srilal was not

examined before the trial Court and the alleged chain of circumstantial evidence was not complete, therefore, it is prayed that appeal filed by the

present appellant be allowed and he be acquitted from above mentioned offence.

It is clear from the evidence of Dr.Rajendra Singh Sikarwar (PW-10) that he with Dr. Vinita Singhal started the postmortem of deceased Pratap

Singh aged 56 years on 20.12.1995 at 2-00 PM at Joura hospital and they found that rigor mortis was present over dead body and following injuries

were also found:-

(a) Swelling all over right parietal area scalp

(b) Swelling all over left parietal area scalp

(c) Contusion all over left upper eye lid.

(d)Bleeding present from both right and left nostrils.

(e) Bleeding present from both right and left ear.

Dr. Sikarwar (PW-10) deposed that on dissection of dead body it was found that the right parietal bone, left parietal bone and mid-line of scalp

were fractured and large haematoma was present over right and left parietal lobes of the brain. In the opinion of Dr. Sikarwar (PW-10) all the

antemortem injuries to the deceased were caused by hard and blunt objects within 24 hours from postmortem and viscera of the deceased was also

sealed by him in two sealed bottles which were sent to relating police station and in his opinion cause of death of deceased was coma due to

intracranial haemorrhage (bleeding) as a result of head injury and deceased died within 24 hours from starting of postmortem.

Complainant Upendra Singh (PW-1), Satendra Singh (PW-2), Rajendra Singh (PW-5), Kishan Pal Singh (PW-7) and Ramshri (PW-8) deposed

that they saw dead body of Pratap Singh. Investigating officer G.C.Sharma (PW-11) prepared inquest memo (ExP-3) in the presence of panch

witnesses after inspecting dead body and deceased's injuries are described in inquest memo (ExP-3) also.

It is clear from the medical evidence and evidence of other prosecution witnesses that deceased Pratap Singh's dead body was having injuries,

therefore, the evidence given by defence witness No.1 Matadeen that Pratap Singh's dead body was not having any injury could not be believed.

Though Dr.Rajendra Singh Sikarwar (PW-10) and Dr. Vinita Singhal, at the time of conducting postmortem found some alcohol in the abdomen of

deceased Pratap Singh, but the doctors have not opined that deceased died because of excessive drinking of liquor, therefore, the defence raised by

appellant in his examination conducted by the trial Court under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and by the evidence of defence witness No.1 Matadeen

that deceased died due to excessive drinking of liquor is falsified by the medical evidence available on record.

During investigation, an axe was seized from the appellant Ramgopal @ Gopal, but doctors conducting postmortem have not found any incised or

lacerated wound and Dr. Sikarwar (PW-10) deposed in crossexamination (para 10) that he did not find any injury caused by stick or axe over

deceased's head. Much emphasis has been given by learned counsel for the appellant on facts deposed by doctor in crossexamination (para 10), but in

his examination-in-chief (para 7) Dr. Sikarwar clearly deposed that all injuries described in postmortem report were caused by hard and blunt object.

Such fractures on both sides of scalp could not be occurred due to falling of any person on ground, therefore, from total medical evidence and other

evidence available on record, it is clear that deceased Pratap Singh met with a homicidal death. Alleged sole eye witness Sundra @ Sunder Singh

(PW-3) deposed before trial Court that he did not see anything and he was declared hostile by the prosecution, therefore, there is no eye witness

account available on record that injuries were caused to deceased by axe or sticks, therefore, above mentioned argument appears to be meritless.

Regarding alleged extra judicial confession made by acquitted accused Suresh Singh, before trial Court Rajendra Singh (PW-5) and Brijesh Singh

(PW-6) were examined, but as trial Court has not placed reliance on above mentioned evidence and Suresh Singh was acquitted, it appears

unnecessary to refer about the evidence of these witnesses.

Complainant Upendra Singh (PW-1) deposed that on 19.12.1995 in the evening at 5-00PM he was stood at door of the house, then he saw that

appellant Ramgopal @ Gopal was taking his uncle (Tau) Pratap Singh towards village Chachiha and prior to it appellant came to Pratap Singh's house

situated at village Arhela and appellant took Pratap Singh with him after saying that as he drunk liquor, hence his family members are not permitting

him to enter into his house and if Pratap Singh accompanied him, then his family members would permit him to enter into his house. On this point,

complainant's evidence is totally supported by evidence of Ramshri (PW-8), wife of the deceased.

Ramshri (PW-8) deposed that on 19.12.1995 appellant came to her house in the morning at about 1000 AM and was calling her husband Pratap

Singh, but as some construction work was going on in their house and their sons were not present at home, therefore, at that time she did not permit

her husband to go with the appellant, but on same day in the evening at 5-00 PM, appellant again came to their house and requested her that she

should permit her husband to go with him, then she did not object, thereafter her husband went with the appellant towards the village Har Gangoli

where appellant was living. She deposed that her husband did not return back to house in the night and in next morning when she was inquired about

her husband, then she replied that appellant took her husband with him and thereafter, on the same day, she got information that her husband was

murdered.

Satendra Singh (PW-2) also deposed that on 19.12.1995 appellant was present in his village and he saw appellant in the morning at about 11-00

AM and thereafter appellant was wandering in their village and in the evening at 5-00 PM appellant took Pratap Singh with him and after leaving his

house with appellant, Pratap Singh did not return to his house and in the next morning (on 20.12.1995) Vijay Singh Jatav intimated him that dead body

of Pratap Singh was lying in the khalihan of Siyaram nearer to way of village Chachiha.

On this Point Vijay Singh Sikarwar (PW-4) deposed that on 19.12.1995 at 5-00 PM when he was going from village Arhela to Joura to join his

duty then in village Arhela he saw that on Sripal's shop, Pratap Singh Patel and Gopal Sarpanch were seated on a cot and at that time he talked with

Pratap Singh, then appellant assured him that he would sent Pratap Singh to his house back. Vijay Singh deposed that in the next morning on

20.12.1995 at 5-00 AM, when he was returning from Joura to village Arhela after performing his duty, then he saw nearer to tomb (samadhi) of

village Chachiha, appellant was running towards his village Har Gangoli then he asked him about the reason of running, then appellant replied that

whatever he had to do, he had done and at that time appellant was having an axe in his hand and thereafter on proceeding in the way ahead he saw

the dead body of Pratap Singh lying in khalihan of Bairagi.

The father-in-law of deceased, Rajendra Singh (PW5) deposed that in his village he received information that Pratap Singh has been murdered,

then he also heard that sarpanch appellant has committed murder of Pratap Singh after inviting him to his house.

Much emphasis has been given by counsel for the appellant on the fact that all these prosecution witnesses are close relatives of deceased,

therefore, their evidence is not reliable, but it is proved from the evidence of Sub Inspector G.C.Shnarma (PW-11) that at Police Station Bagchini on

20.12.1995 at 9-30 AM complainant Upendra Singh (PW-1) lodged the marg report (ExP-1) which was scribed by him and in the marg report (EXP-

1) it was clearly mentioned by Upendra Singh that on yesterday evening at 5-00 PM his uncle (Tau) Pratap Singh was taken by appellant Sarpanch,

R/o village Har Gangoli from his house and in the next morning at 8-00 AM he received information from a boy that the dead body of his uncle (Tau)

Pratap Singh is lying nearer to way of village Chachiha. On this point, the evidence of Upendra Singh (PW-1) is corroborated by his marg report

(ExP-1), wherein this fact has been clearly mentioned that in the previous evening deceased was taken out of his house by the appellant personally on

pretext of taking deceased to appellant's house situated at village Har Gangoli. It is well established that the evidence of relatives or interested

witnesses should be minutely scrutinized, but it is also well established that near relatives of deceased would not implicate any innocent person leaving

the real culprit. The factum of taking of any person from his house could be known only to family members of relating person, hence the evidence of

these witnesses could not be discarded only due to their relationship with the deceased. It is also argued that shop owner Sripal has not been examined

by the prosecution, on whose shop Vijay Singh (PW-4) saw appellant seated with Pratap Singh.

Facts have came into evidence of wife of deceased, Ramshri (PW-8), complainant Upendra Singh (PW-1) and Satendra Singh (PW-2) that for

about last ten years appellant and deceased were having friendly relations and appellant was regularly visiting deceased's house situated at village

Arhela and on this point there is no contradiction or inconsistency between the evidence given by above mentioned witnesses and their police

statements recorded during investigation. In the police statement (ExD-3) of Vijay Singh (PW-4) the fact is mentioned that he saw appellant with

Pratap Singh seated at the shop of Sripal. When prior to the incident appellant and Pratap Singh were having friendly relations, then there appears no

reason for these prosecution witnesses for falsely implicating the appellant.

In the case of Takdir Samsuddin Sheikh vs. State of Gujarat @ Another (AIR 2012 SC 37) in relation to contradictions and omissions, it has been

observed as follows:-

“It is settled legal proposition that while appreciating the evidence, the court has to take into consideration whether the

contradictions/omissions/improvements/embell ishments etc. had been of such magnitude that they may materially affect the trial. Minor

contradictions, inconsistencies, omissions or improvements on trivial matters without affecting the case of the prosecution should not be made the court

to reject the evidence in its entirety. The court after going through the entire evidence must form an opinion about the credibility of the witnesses and

the appellate court in natural course would not be justified in reviewing the same again without justifiable reasons. (Vide: Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal

Gupta (Dr.) @ Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 13 SCC 657)â€​.

We are of the considered opinion that trial Court has not erred in placing reliance on the evidence of these witnesses on the point that on

19.12.1995 at about 5-00 PM Pratap Singh was taken from his house by the appellant for visiting the house of the appellant situated at village Har

Gangoli.

Vijay Singh Sikarwar (PW-4) deposed that on 20.12.1995 in the morning at 5-00 PM when he was returning from Joura to village Arhela, then in

the way near tomb (samadhi) of village Chachiha he saw appellant fleeing with an axe and thereafter he talked with the appellant and after some time

he saw his uncle Pratap Singh's dead body lying in the khalihan of Bairagi. Vijay Singh admitted in cross-examination that he had not disclosed the fact

of seeing appellant running with an axe from 20.12.1995 to 23.12.1995. On this point regarding fleeing of appellant with an axe, no another prosecution

witness has supported the evidence of Vijay Singh (PW-4) and trial Court has also not placed reliance on above mentioned part of evidence given by

Vijay Singh Sikarwar (PW-4), but only due to this improvement or exaggeration Vijay Singh's total evidence could not be discarded as the maxim

“falsus in uno falsus in omnibus†is not applicable in our country and as regarding improvements or exaggerations made by some of the

prosecution witnesses, it has been observed by the Apex Court in the case of State of UP Vs. Anil Singh (AIR 1988 SC 1998) as follows:-

“13. Of late this Court has been receiving a large number of appeals against acquittals and in the great majority of cases, the prosecution version is

rejected either for want of corroboration by independent witnesses, or for some falsehood stated or embroidery added by witnesses. In some cases,

the entire prosecution case is doubted for not examining all witnesses to the occurrence. We have recently pointed out the indifferent attitude of the

public in the investigation of crimes. The public are generally reluctant to come forward to depose before the Court. It is, therefore, not correct to

reject the prosecution version only on the ground that all witnesses to the occurrence have not been examined. Nor it is proper to reject the case for

want of corroboration by independent witnesses if the case made out is otherwise true and acceptable. With regard to falsehood stated or

embellishments added by the prosecution witnesses, it is well to remember that there is a tendency amongst witnesses in our country to back up a

good case by false or exaggerated version. The Privy Council had an occasion to observe this. In Bankim Chander v. Matangini, 24 Cal WN 626 :

(AIR 1919 PC 157), the Privy Council had this to say:

That in Indian litigation it is not safe to assume that a case must be false if some of the evidence in support of it appears to be doubtful or is clearly

unture, since there is, on some occasions, a tendency amongst litigants to back up a good case by false or exaggerated evidence.

In Abdul Gani v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 31 Mahajan, J., speaking for this Court deprecated the tendency of courts to take an

easy course of holding the evidence discrepant and discarding the whole case as untrue. The learned Judge said that the Court should make an effort

to disengage the truth from falsehood and to sift the grain from the chaff.

It is also our experience that invariably the witnesses add embroidery to prosecution story, perhaps for the fear of being disbelieved. But that is no

ground to throw the case overboard, if true, in the main. If there is a ring of truth in the main, the case should not be rejected. It is the duty of the

Court to cull out the nuggets of truth from the evidence unless there is reason to believe that the inconsistencies or falsehood are so glaring as utterly

to destroy confidence in the witnesses. It is necessary to remember that a Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent

man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. One is as important as the other. Both are public duties which the

Judge has to perform.â€​

On the point of recovery of an axe, on the basis of disclosure statement given by the appellant after his arrest, evidence of Investigation officer

G.C.Sharma (PW11) is totally corroborated by evidence of panch witnesses Kishan Pal Singh (PW-7), Mahendra Singh (PW9) of relating arrest

memo (ExP-6), memorandum (ExP10) and seizure memo (ExP-12) and on this point there is no contradiction or inconsistency between the evidence

of these witnesses relating to the recovery of an axe on the basis of prior information given by the appellant Ramgopal. These witnesses were cross-

examined at length on this point, but there appears no weakness in the evidence given by any of these three witnesses.

The evidence of Kishan Pal Singh (PW-7) and Mahendra Singh (PW-9) on this point could not be discarded only for the reason that they are close

relatives of the deceased and, therefore, it was proved from evidence available on record that after giving disclosure statement, an axe was given to

the police by the appellant Ramgopal from his agricultural land where crop of mustard was standing.

It is significant to mention that above mentioned panch witnesses Mahendra Singh (PW-9) and investigating officer G.C.Sharma (PW-11)

identified the seized axe as article “A†at the time of recording of their evidence before the trial Court, therefore, the evidence given by above

mentioned Kishan Pal Singh (PW-7) after seeing article “A†that the seized axe was heavy than article “A†does not appear to be material

as Kishan Pal Singh's deposition was recorded before the trial Court after 3-4 years from the seizure, therefore, the weakness of evidence given by

Kishan Pal Singh (PW-7) regarding identification of the axe could not influence the veracity of other prosecution witnesses Mahendra Singh (PW-9)

and investigating officer G.C.Sharma (PW-11). Therefore, the trial Court was right in inferring that it was proved from the evidence available on

record that after arrest and disclosure statement of appellant Ramgopal an axe was seized. Investigating officer G.C.Sharma (PW-11) deposed that at

the time of seizure of the axe it was blood stained and this fact is also mentioned in seizure memo (ExP-12) and on this point the evidence of

investigating officer is corroborated by the evidence of Vijay Pal Singh (PW-7). Investigating officer G.C.Sharma (PW-11) deposed that seized

articles of the relating crime were sent to FSL for examination and according to report (Ex-P19) given by Seriologist, Government of India, on seized

axe human blood was found, though its blood group could not be identified due to reason given in ExP19. From Ex-P19 it is clear that the human blood

found on dhoti of the deceased was of blood group 'O'.

Therefore, it was proved that on seized axe at the instance of disclosure statement of appellant, human blood was found.

Much emphasis has been given by appellant's counsel that in absence of finding regarding blood group of the human blood on the axe, this report is

unable to establish any connection between appellant and incident but in the light of case of R.Shaji Vs. State of Kerala [(2013)14 SCC 266] this

argument could not be accepted.

It is also significant to mention here that appellant Ramgopal has not offered any explanation regarding finding of human blood on above mentioned

axe seized on prior information under his examination conducted by the trial Court under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.

On the point of motive of murder, prosecution witnesses Satendra Singh (PW-2) and complainant Upendra Singh (PW-1) have disclosed facts in

their evidence. Satendra Singh (PW-2) deposed that on 19.12.1995 when appellant was seated at Panchayat Bhawan of village Arhela at about 10-11

AM, then Ramdayal and he (Satendra) were going from their house, then appellant was telling that his ancestors were beaten by ancestors of

Satendra Singh after tying them with trees, then he (Satendra) told to appellant that he should not tell such facts which are reasons for dispute, then

appellant became silent. Satendra Singh (PW-2) in para 19 also deposed that at that time some other persons were also seated at Panchayat Bhawan.

Complainant Upendra Singh (PW-1) deposed in cross-examination (para 17) that above mentioned facts uttered by appellant were not intimated to

him by Satendra prior to lodging of marg report (ExP-1), hence these facts could not be mentioned by him in ExP-1 as these facts regarding motive of

murder of Pratap Singh by appellant were told to him by Satendra Singh and Ramdayal after two days from murder.

Much emphasis has been given by the appellant's learned counsel on the facts deposed by Ramshir (PW-8), wife of the deceased in her evidence

that appellant was visiting at the time of marriage functions occurred at their house and previously appellant was visiting their house when passing

from village Arhela and appellant used to stay at their house for some time and took tea at their house. Similarly, complainant Upendra Singh (PW-1)

deposed in cross-examination (para 18) that Pratap Singh and appellant were having friendship and affection for last ten years and complainant

deposed in para 2 that he is having no knowledge regarding enmity between ancestors of appellant and deceased because related happenings occurred

about twenty years prior when he was a small child. It is argued by the appellant's learned counsel that in such state of evidence regarding friendship

and good relation for last ten years prior to the incident, the alleged motive for murder in reference to any incident occurred between ancestors of

appellant and deceased could not be believed, but it is to be remembered that motive being an internal ingredient of any person, its absence could not

be presumed only due to friendship or cordial relations between deceased and appellant. Cases of murders by any friend or any close relative or for

taking after drinking liquor on revenge trivial issues are not uncommon. Cases of taking revenge for murder or other incidents by close relatives or by

heirs after so many years are not uncommon in relative area. In view of total facts and circumstances only due to prima facie appearing good relations

between appellant and deceased absence of alleged motive could not be inferred when there is evidence available on record that in the morning of the

same day at 10-11 in village Arhela at Panchayt Bhawan appellant was talking about incident of beating given to his ancestors by ancestors of the

deceased.

On the basis of referred citations, it has been argued by the appellant's counsel that only on the basis of circumstance of last seen, appellant could

not be convicted for offence of murder as there is no evidence that deceased and appellant were last seen nearer to the place where deceased Pratap

Singh's dead body was found, but it is significant to mention here that in the present case the prosecution's case was not based only on the sole

circumstance of last seen of the deceased with the appellant, but in our considered opinion, following circumstances were proved by the evidence

available on record:-

(a) On 19.12.1995 at 5-00 PM, Pratap Singh wastaken by the appellant from his house on the pretext of taking him to appellant's house situated at

village Har Gangoli.

(b) On 19.12.1995 in the evening at village Arhelaat Sripal's shop deceased Pratap Singh and appellant Ramgopal were seen together by Vijal Pal

Singh.

(c) On 20.12.1995 in the morning Pratap Singh'sinjured dead body was found nearer to tomb (samadhi) at village Chachiha.

(d) Deceased Pratap Singh's scalp was havingmultiple fractures and his death was found to be of homicidal in nature.

(e) After arrest of the appellant Ramgopal on hisdisclosure statement an axe was seized whereon human blood was found in laboratory and on this

point no explanation was offered by the appellant.

(f) Appellant Ramgopal was having motive forcommitting murder of the deceased regarding the beating given to ancestors of the appellant by the

ancestors of the deceased.

We are of the considered opinion that the trial Court has minutely, properly and legally analyzed and appreciated the entire evidence available on

record, in reference of various circumstances placed before it and has not erred in convicting and sentencing appellant Ramgopal @ Gopal for the

charged offence. Appellant's appeal is devoid of any substance.

Consequently, the appeal filed by appellant Ramgopal @ Gopal fails and is hereby dismissed and his above mentioned conviction and sentence as

recorded by the trial Court is affirmed. Appellant is released on bail in compliance to this Court's order regarding suspension of his custodial sentence.

He is directed to immediately surrender before the trial Court to serve out his remaining jail sentence. With a copy of this judgment, record of the trial

Court be returned.