HARIRAM CHAINAMAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31st of March, 1994 passed in Sessions Trial No. 41/1992 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari.

(2.) By the impugned judgment, the appellants have been convicted u/Ss. 302/34 and 201, IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and R.I. for 5 years with a direction to run the sentences concurrently.

(3.) The facts, briefly stated, are as under:-Appellant No. 1 was owner of a retail grocery shop. Appellant No. 2 was servant in the shop of appellant No. 1. Deceased-Anand Ram Motwani was a whole seller of grocery items. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased had to receive Rs. 56,000/- from appellant No. 1 on account of various items supplied by him to the shop of appellant No. 1. Appellant No. 1 wrote a letter to the deceased and called him to his shop on 23-8-1991 at about 7.00 p.m. the deceased went to the shop of appellant No. 1 at the said date and time, thereafter, he was missing. A missing report (Ex. P-26) was lodged by his brother Mohanlal Motwani (P.W. 28) on 24-8-1991. On 26-8-1991, dead body of the deceased was found near canal of Rudri Dam. Aaju Ram (P.W. 25), a time keeper of Irrigation Department, gave intimation to the concerned police. Merg Intimation (Ex. P-36) was lodged and the body was sent for postmortem examination. It revealed in the postmortem examination that it was a homicidal death. The prosecution came with the case that the deceased was called by the appellant No. 1; he was last seen in the company of appellants; appellant No. 1 had motive to kill the deceased because he had to pay Rs. 56,000/- to the deceased; appellant No. 1 made extra-judicial confession before the prosecution witnesses while going to the police Station on 10-9-1991, therefore, the appellants were liable for punishment under the aforementioned sections of IPC. Admittedly, there was no eye-witness to the incident and the case of the prosecution was based on circumstantial evidence. Following are the circumstances, on which, the learned Session Judge relied and convicted and sentenced the appellants,