KAMJI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6-12-1988, passed by the Sessions Judge, Banswara, by which the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused-appellant for the offence under S. 302, IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rupees 500/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment

(2.) Appellant Kamji - a resident of village Palodra was tried by the learned Sessions Judge. Banswara, for committing the murder of Smt. Rangi widow of late Kodar, on 1-4-85, in her cotton field. The case of the prosecution is that on 1-4-85, the deceased Smt. Rangi and accused Kamji were col lecting the crop in the field of the son of deceased Smt. Rangi, P.W. Narbada, PW. 4 Smt. Kamla W/o PW. 15 Parteng and PW. 15 Parteng were, also, in their field. Smt. Narbada left the field at about 4-00 p.m. after collecting some fodder. Thereafter PW. 4 Smt. Kamla and PW. 15 Parteng also left the field while the deceased and the accused were left in the field. Smt. Rangi was wearing some silver ornaments. Thereafter Smt. Rangi was not seen alive and on the next day the ornaments, which she was wearing, were not found present on the corpse of Smt. Rangi. Accused Kamji was, also, not seen thereafter. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined 19 witnesses. The accused did not examine any witness in his defence. The nature of the evidence, produced by the prosecution, consists of the statements of PW. 4 Smt. Kamla, P.W. 15 Parteng and PW. 18 Smt. Narbada, who had last seen the accused in the company of the deceased in her field when they were collecting the cotton crop. This evidence is sought to be corroborated from the statements of PW. 19 Ghanshyam Dutta, PW. 6 Jaggi and PW. 16 Anadeng, in whose presence the recoveries of the knife - the weapon of offence - and the ornaments of the deceased, which she was wearing at the time when she was collecting the cotton crop, were recovered and the ornaments, which the deceased was wearing, were identified by the witnesses P.W. 3 Parbateng, PW. 4 Smt. Kamla, PW. 5 Narang, PW 14 Nathji and PW. 15 Parteng to be belonging to the deceased. PW. 1 Vithla was informed by P.W. 3 Parbateng, PW. 14 Nathji and PW. 18 Smt. Narbada regarding the murder of Smt. Rangi in the field and that her deadbody was lying in the field and was asked to go to the village to inform Roopeng and Nareng regarding the murder of Smt. Rangi. PW. 5 Nareng and P.W. 10 Rupeng have been produced to prove that PW. 1 Vithal informed them regarding the murder of Smt. Rangi in her field and her deadbody was lying there. P.W. 2 Amrit Lal is a Motbir witness to the site plan; P.W. 11 Amreng is a Motbir witness to the recovery of the deadbody and the other articles while P.W. 12 Nathji is a witness to the recoveries and preparation of various memos. P.W. 7 Dr. Bilas Raj was the Medical Jurist, who conducted the post-mortem on the deadbody of Smt. Rangi. P.W. 8 Mr. Matadeen Gupta was the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara, who conducted the identification of the ornaments and according to this witness, all the witnesses correctly identified these articles. P.W. 9 Nathu Lal was the Police Constable posted at the Police Station, who took the sealed articles for F.S.L., examination and after ob taining the forwarding letter from the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Banswara, deposited the same in the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur. P.W. 13 Kushal Singh was the S.H.O., who conducted the initial investigation, made certain recoveries, prepared certain memos and the investigation was thereafter taken by P.W. 19 Ghanshyam Dutta, who arrested the accused, recovered the knife - the weapon of the offence - as well as the ornaments and submitted the challan. P.W. 17 Gumanabeng is the son of the deceased, who has stated that on the day of the incident, he had gone to village Koopda and returned in the night to village Thikariya and on his return to the village he was informed that his mother has been murdered. The deadbody of his mother was handed over to him for cremation and at that time he saw that the neck of the deceased was cut. When he saw the deadbody at that time there were bangles in one of the hands but the silver Kada, Sankli, earrings and Gajai were miss ing, which the deceased was wearing when she left the house. The learned trial Court, after trial, con victed and sentenced the accused-appellant for the offence under S. 302, IPC, as stated above. It is against this judgment dated 6-12-88, passed by the learned trial Court convicting and sentencing the appellant that the appellant has preferred this appeal.

(3.) There is no eye-witness to the occurrence and the case of the prosecution rests upon the circum stantial evidence. The learned Sessions Judge relied upon the four circumstances, i.e., (i) the last seen of deceased Smt. Rangi in the company of the accused-appellant in her field while they were collecting the cotton crop and at that time the deceased was wear ing the silver ornaments which were not found on her corpse when the deadbody was seen by PW. 18 Smt. Narbada and the other witnesses; (ii) recovery of the blood-stained knife, having 'A' Group of human blood, on the information and at the instance of the accused-appellant; (iii) recovery of the orna ments of the deceased which she was wearing at the time of the incident and their identification by P.W. 18 Smt. Narbada, P.W. 5 Nareng, P.W. 15 Parteng and PW. 17 Gumanabeng; and (iv) the motive with the accused to commit the robbery of the ornaments which deceased Smt. Rangi was wearing at the time of the incident. Now, it has to be seen whether these four circumstances, which have been relied-upon by the prosecution and believed by the learned trial Court, stand established from the evidence pro duced by the prosecution and whether these circum stances, if so established, are of conclusive nature and unerringly pointing out towards the guilt of the accused and whether these circumstances complete the chain and excludes any other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused-appellant.