MURARI LAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal under the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction ) Act the appellant has been convicted by the High Court under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and has also been convicted under Sections 392/34 and 201/34 sentenced to seven years R. I. and fine of Rs. 1000/-, sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The case was originally tried by the Sessions judge who after considering the evidence acquitted the appellant or the charge under Section 302/34 and Section 201/34 and Section 392, I. P. C. but convicted the appellant only under Section 411, I. P. C. and sentenced him to two years R. I. Thereafter the State preferred an appeal to the High Court against the order of acquittal of the appellant by the Sessions judge which was allowed by the High Court and the appellant was convicted as indicated above. Before the High Court the appellant had also filed an appeal against his conviction under Section 411.

(2.) We have heard counsel for the parties at great length and have gone through the judgment of the Sessions Court and that of the High Court and are clearly of the opinion that the High Court has given cogent reasons for coming to the conclusion that the case of the appellant has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The case of the appellant rests mainly on pure circumstantial evidence and the learned Judge after full and complete consideration of the evidence has categorised the following circumstances which have been proved against the appellant:-

(3.) Lastly, Mr. Gambhir submitted that if the intention of the accused was to remove the ornaments after killing the deceased, the fact that some of the ornaments were still recovered from her body when it was taken out of the well, militates against this theory. There is no doubt that a large part of the ornaments was taken away by the appellant and it may be, that while the appellant was in the process of doing so, somebody may be passing that way or he may be having some apprehension that he might be caught, he did not choose to take the risk of taking all the ornaments and threw the deceased in the well before he could be detected. This clearly meets the argument raised by Mr. Gambhir which itself is based on speculation.