KANHIYA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by Kanhiya is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City dated March 14, 1974 whereby the appellant was convicted for an offence under Section 302. I. P. C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life for having committed murder of Mst. Dhooli and her son Shyoji, a nine year old boy. He was also convicted for an offence under Section 379, I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonmeni for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 200, or in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. Both the substantive sentences were however ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this case are as follows: Mst. Dhooli was married to Kanhiya resident of village Jhopada. She had a son Shyoji from this wedlock. In the year 1972 just before 'holi' Mst. Dhooli's brother Durgalal, came from Jadawata to fetch his sister Mst. Dhooli and took both Mst. Dhooli and Shyoji to his village Jadawata on a promise that both of them shall return on March 6, 1972. Mst. Dhooli's husband Kanhiya waited for the return of his wife upto March 9, 1972. When Mst. Dhooli and her son did not reach her husband's house, Kanhiya went to Jadawata to find out the cause for not returning in time. Kanhiya was informed by Durgalal that both Mst. Dhooli and Shyoji had left by a bus for village Jhopada. A search was made but no trace could be found out except that some bones and pieces of clothes near river 'galba were found out. There is nothing on the record to indicate that the bones could belong either to Shyoji or to Mst. Dhooli. A report was lodged at the Police Out-post, Chothka on March 9, 1972 that Mst. Dhooli and Shyoji were murdered. A case of murder was registered but no trace was found either of the corpus delicti or of the act of murder. On July 6, 1972 accused Kanhiya was arrested at 12-30 p. m. vide Ex. P-15. It is alleged that while he was in custody Kanhiya furnished information regarding the ornaments which were worn by Mst. Dhooli on the day when she disappeared and in pursuance of that information, which was recorded in memo Ex. P-16, recovery of the ornaments of one pair of silver 'kada' of her legs and another pair of silver 'kada' of her hands, and one silver 'pipal patta Jhumka' was made. After usual investigation accused Kanhiya was found responsible by the investigating agency for the murder of Mst. Dhooli and Shyoji and therefore he was challan-ed. Kanhiya faced his trial under Section 302, I. P. C. before the Court of Additional Ses-sons Judge, Gangapur City.

(3.) THERE was no eye-witness to the occurrence, therefore, the prosecution placed reliance on circumstantial evidence. The most important circumstance, on which reliance has been placed by the prosecution, is the recovery of the ornaments of Mst. Dhooli from the 'dhunda' belonging to the accused Kanhiya. Except this circumstance there is nothing on the record to connect Kanhiya with the disappearance of Mst. Dhooli and Shyoji and the removal of the ornaments from the body of Mst. Dhooli. The learned Judge believing this circumstance as a piece of evidence to connect the accused with the murder of Mst. Dhooli and Shyoji convicted him for offences under Sections 302 and 379, I. P. C. as referred to above. It is against this judgment that Kanhiya has filed this appeal before us.