GULAB CHAND Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur dated 29th November, 1985 in Criminal Appeals 326 and 327 of 1980. Criminal Appeal No.326/80 was preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh against the accused Gulab Chand and 7 other accused. Criminal Appeal No.327/80 was preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh against Gulab Singh and Durga. It may be stated that both the appeals were preferred against the Judgment dated 7th December, 1979 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No.147/79. In the said Session trial, Gulab Chand was accused No.1 and Durga was accused No.3 Gulab Chand, Durga and other six persons stood charged under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code for entering into a criminal conspiracy in order to commit murder of Kapuriyabai and robbery of her ornaments on or about 23rd April, 1979 in the village Bhakarwara. The accused Gulab Chand, Durga and Parsoo were also charged under Sections 302, 394 and 397 of Indian Penal Code for having committed the murder of Kapuriyabai in committing the robbery on the intervening night between 23-24 April, 1979. The learned Sessions Judge, however acquitted all the aforesaid persons under Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code and the accused Gulab Chand and Parsoo were also acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 394 and 397, of Indian Penal Code. But the trial Court convicted Gulab Chand and Durga for the offence punishable under Section 380, of the Indian Penal Code and they were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years.

(2.) As aforesaid, the State of Madhya Pradesh preferred the aforesaid appeals before the Madhya Pradesh High Court and by the impugned judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed both the said appeals in part and convicted the accused Gulab Chand under Sections 302, 394 and 397 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302, and rigorous imprisonment for 7 years for the other offences. It was directed that both the sentences would run concurrently. So far as the accused Durga was concerned, his conviction under Section 380, of the Indian Penal Code was set aside and he was convicted under Section 411, of Indian Penal Code. But the sentence of 3 years rigorous imprisonment was maintained with a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default to suffer further imprisonment for 9 months. The appeal by the State against all the other accused directed against their acquittal under Section 120B of Indian Penal Code was dismissed by the High Court and the appeal against acquittal of Parsoo and Durga for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 394 and 397,of Indian Penal Code was also dismissed. Against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the High Court, accused No.1 Gulab Chand has preferred the instant appeals Nos. 140, 140A/84.

(3.) The learned counsel Mr.Amtiaz Ahmed, appearing as amicus curiae for the appellant Gulab Chand has submitted that there is no evidence worthy of credence to establish the crime of murder and dacoity by Gulab Chand for which his conviction under Sections 302, 392 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code is warranted. In the absence of any convincing evidence, the learned Sessions Judge had acquitted the appellant of the charge under Sections 302, 394 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code. He has submitted that appellant's case (supra) was that the ornaments stated to have been recovered either from his possession or from the shop, belonged to him and the members of his family. Unfortunately, such case has not been accepted either by the learned trial Court or by the High Court. But for possession of such ornaments even if stolen, no conviction under Sections 302, 394 and 397,of the Indian Penal Code can be based. The learned Sessions Judge was fully justified in convicting the appellant under Section 380, of the Indian Penal Code and there was no occasion to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. The learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that no motive for dacoity or murdering the deceased has been established by leading convincing evidence. The decision rendered by the High Court lies more on surmise than on facts proved beyond reasonable doubt. It has been submitted that in a case for conviction on account of circumstantial evidence,the evidence must be very clear and specific so that the entire chain of events justifying complicity of the accused is clearly established to such an extent that irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the accused can be safely drawn. The learned appellant has submitted that possession of stolen articles ipso facto does not warrant a conclusion that such stolen articles were received only by committing robbery and murder, as alleged by the prosecution. He has, therefore, submitted that there has been gross miscarriage of justice so far as the appellant is concerned and this appeal should be allowed and the impugned order of conviction passed against the appellant should be set aside.