RAMESH JOSHI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals have been filed against the common judgment dated 009.1994 passed in S.T. No. 34 of 1992. The trial court held the appellants guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 302/34 and 394 of IPC and awarded a punishment of Life Imprisonment under the first count and to suffer for the period which they have already undergone during the judicial custody under the last count.

(2.) The prosecution story in brief is that the deceased who was aged about 70 years was sleeping in her house. Both the appellants and co- accused, Santosh entered the house of the deceased with an intention to commit robbery. One of the coaccused, Santosh had killed the deceased by inflicting injuries of axe. The nephew of the deceased had returned at about 5 o'clock in the morning from his field and he noticed that the doors of the house of deceased were not locked. He opened the doors and noticed that deceased was lying dead. There were injuries on her body. He informed Sarpanch of the village and thereafter lodged report at the Police Station. The Police conducted investigation and arrested accused persons on the same day. From the possession of present appellants some articles of deceased were seized. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed. The appellants abjured the guilt and pleaded innocence. However, the trial court held them guilty for commission of offence and awarded punishment as stated above.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the appellants have been convicted on the basis of seizure of articles. The trial court has drawn presumption under Section 114-B of the Evidence Act against the appellants. There is no other evidence except this against the appellants. The allegation of inflicting injuries by axe is against the coaccused, Santosh, who was juvenile at that time. The seizure of articles and identification of articles is not proper. Hence, the trial court has committed an error in holding the appellants guilty for commission of offence. It is further contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the deceased was found wearing some articles of silver after death, hence the presumption would not arise against the appellants to commit robbery. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellants has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court pronounced in Babusdas Vs. State of M.P., (2003) 9 SCC 86.