MEWARAM Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused appellants mewaram and Omprakash have been convicted and sentence by the learned Sessions Judge Morena on 15.7.1981 u/s. 302 IPC to imprisonment for life.

(2.) Shortly narrated the prosecution story is that on 26.10.1980 a report was made by Madnu Dhobi, Kotwar Sikroda, that in Bijendra Singh Thakurs haar a dead body was lying in a well. PW 13 Prahladsingh, station-in-charge, registered a marg intimation (Ex. p 16) and he proceeded to the spot. As it had gone dark he did not take any action. In the morning of 27.10.1980 he W6nt to Sikroda and arranged for taking out the dead body from the well. When it was taken out Panchnama Ex. P7 was prepared. He then prepared site-plan Ex. P 8. He recovered a Tehmad and a torn bush shirt vide Ex. P 9 and P 10. he sent the dead body for post mortem vide Ex. P 5. The latter investigation was conducted by PW 12, Harpal Singh. He got photograph of the dead body obtained (Ex. P 2) and got it published in the newspaper (Ex. P 2 and P 3). On 10.12.1980 he got it identified by Sabu Khan and Chunni Khan and prepared memo Ex. P 17. He arrested the accused on 23.12.1980 but got the memo written by J.S.I., vide memo Ex. P 12. At the time when he arrested Mewaram he was wearing a golden ring which was seized vide Ex. P 13 and he got the Panchnama written by J.S.I., Basant singh. A wrist watch and a Gupti were seized from accused Omprakash, vide Ex. P 14. After investigation he recorded statements of witnesses and submitted chargesheet. The accused persons denied the charge and alleged that they have been falsely implicated.

(3.) The prosecution has mainly relied upon circumstantial evidence. Only two circumstances have been brought on record in order to bring home the gilt against the accused. The first circumstance brought on record in respect of which the evidence is of last seen of the accused and the alleged recovery of three articles claimed by the prosecution to have been recovered from the accused persons which belonged to the deceased. On the basis of these two circumstances alone the prosecution sought to prove its case. It must be mentioned at the very outset that the record does not show that there was any motive for the accused persons to have committed the crime. The law is well established in cases of circumstantial evidence except in very exceptional cases the presence of motive is of great significance. As the prosecution has not claimed any motive in the present case it is very important circumstance in favour of the accused. As said above, the prosecution has banked upon circumstantial evidence we must hasten to mention that the law with respect to circumstantial evidence is also settled. In order to succeed on the basis of circumstantial evidence the prosecution must adduce evidence which may show that there is a complete chain connecting the accused persons with the guilt. The chain must be so complete that it must lead to one and only one conclusion that the accused alone committed the guilt. Unless the prosecution succeeds in establishing it no conviction can be recorded on the basis of circumstantial evidence.