MOHAN LAL PANGASA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave relates to a tragic case of one young doctor murdering his fellow doctor with whom he was on very friendly terms - an act of motiveless malignity, if the case of the prosecution were true. The accused 28 years old, and the deceased of around the same age, were both students in the Ganesh Shanker Vidyarathi Memorial Medical College, Kanpur, and were both employed in the same college and were residing together in the same hostel. Obviously they were as thick as brothers and indeed spent their evenings often together.

(2.) On the fateful day, April 11, 1969, the accused and the deceased went to see a picture in the Natraj Cinema around 6 p.m. After witnessing the show they returned together and looked out for the whereabouts of one Dr. Shah, in which connection they went to the police outpost, Govind Nagar, at about 10 p.m. They left the outpost but took an out of the way route to the Medical College hostel via the Juhi Railway yard. The action-packed hour begins now, but we are left with no direct evidence about the happenings except the circumstantial testimony provided by PWs 3 and 5, the two Rakshaks of the Railway Protection Force serving at R.P.F. Thana, G.M.C., Juhi. While they were on patrol duty, they described someone in the distance running in the direction of the Etawah Railway line. Police-like, they challenged the fleeing man and flashed their torches to discover the accused with blood-stained clothes. The latter continued to run but the Rakshaks chased him and dragged him from underneath the goods bogie where he had suddenly hidden himself. Caught with the blood-stained clothes bespeaking some guilt, the accused disclosed that he was a doctor and had knifed to death his companion, Dr. Gupta, somewhere near the railway lines. Thereupon, PWs. 3 and 5 searched the person of the accused and recovered the knife, Ex. 1, from the right side pocket of his trousers. There was also a purse, Ex. 2, and a photograph, Ex. 7, some cash and other sundry items. The two witnesses took the accused to their police station where PW 6, the Sub-Inspector, was present. A report was made by PW 3 which was recorded in the general diary of the Thana at sometime after midnight, Ex. Ka-8. A seizure memo, Ex. Ka-1, was made out regarding the knife, Ex. 1, PW 6 was told by the appellant that he would point out the dead body of the victim and thereafter the party consisting of PW 6, the appellant, PW 3, and PW 5 moved to the spot where the cadaver was pointed out by the appellant. The scene of occurrence was within the territorial limits of the police station, Juhi, and so a copy of Ex. Ka-8 was communicated to that station. Investigation was taken up there, inquest was held and post-mortem examination conducted. The blood-stained articles were sent to the Chemical Examiner and eventually the accused was charge-sheeted for murder and a minor offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. On committal, the Sessions Judge tried the case and in a careful judgment held the accused guilty and sentenced him to death under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. The appeal to the High Court resulted in the confirmation of the conviction but the reduction of the death penalty to life imprisonment.

(3.) Counsel for the appellant has urged before us that the evidence being purely circumstantial and doubtful the conviction was unsustainable. It is true that there are no direct witnesses to the actual murder. Even so, an impressive array of telling circumstances has, according to the courts below, convincingly shown the accused guilty. Men are convicted not merely on direct evidence alone but also on circumstantial testimony. In the present case, the accused was the person last seen with the deceased; his conduct of running away when challenged and chased and crouching underneath a bogie when the Rakshaks were about to run him down, his wearing clothes which were blood-stained, the recovery of the knife, Ex. 1, from his trouser pocket and his conduct in telling the Rakshaks that he murdered his companion are too overwhelming for any possible inference of innocence. Moreover, the accused led the police party to the discovery of the dead body which also has an incriminating impact.