MURARI LAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Murari Lal, who was accused No. 2 before the Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, was convicted under S. 302 I. P. C. and sentenced to death. He was also convicted under Section 460 read with Ss. 34, 457, 380, 392, 394 and 397, I. P. C. but sentenced under Section 460 read with S. 34 and S. 394 read with S. 397 only to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years on search count. On appeal by Murari Lal and on reference by the learned Sessions Judge, the High Court to Madhya Pradesh altered the conviction from S. 302 I. P. C. to S. 302 read with S. 34 I. P. C. and substituted the sentence of imprisonment for life for the sentence of death. Otherwise the appeal was dismissed. Murari Lal has preferred this appeal by special leave of this Court.

(2.) H. D. Sonawala (the deceased) used to live alone in one of the two 'quarters' in the compound of the Parai Dharmshala at Jabalpur. He was the Area Organiser of Charak Pharmaceuticals Company of Bombay. On the night of 12-7- 1972 he went out to dinner at the house of P. W. 2 and returned home at about midnight. He retried for the night. Next morning, his driver P. W. 9 and his servant P. W. 6 came to the house in the usual course to attend to their duties. The gate was found locked. They called out their master but there was no response. P. W. 6 who also had a key opened the lock and went inside. Sonawala was found murdered in his bed. A first information report was given at the police station Omti, Jabalpur. The Station House Officer, P. W. 28, came to the scene, found things in the room strewn about in a peel-mell condition. He seized various articles. One of the articles so seized was a prescription pad Ex. P-9. On pagrs A to F of Ex. P-9, there were writings of the deceased but on page 6, there was a writing in Hindi in pencil which was as follows:

(3.) The two vital circumstances against Murari Lal were : (1) the recovery of a wrist-watch which belonged to the deceased Sonawala and (2) the writing in Hindi at page 6 of Ex. P-9 which was found to be in his handwriting indicating his presence in the house of the deceased on the night of the murder and his participation in the commission of the offences. Shri. R. C. Kohli, learned counsel for the appellant, argued that the recovery of the wrist-watch was too remote in point of time to connect the appellant with the crime. He further argued that the High Court fell into a grave error in concluding that the writing at page 6 of Ex. P-9 was that of the appellant. He submitted that the evidence of P. W. 8 who claimed to be familiar with the handwriting of the appellant was wholly unacceptable, that it was not permissible in law to act upon the uncorroborated opinion-evidence of the expert P. W. 15 and that the High Court fell into a serious error in attempting to compare the writing in Ex. P-9 with the admitted writing of the appellant.