IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1457 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
KOUSHIK @ KASHI SON OF MOHAN DAS AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS RESIDING AT CHIKKABYRAMANGALA BIDADI HOBLI RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 109. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. KARTHIK YADAV U., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VENKATA REDDY S.K., ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SUBRAMANYAPURA POLICE BENGALURU-560 061.
REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. V.S. HEGDE, STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR-II) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 18.07.2017 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN SESSIONS CASE NO.451 OF 2012 – CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302, 392 AND 201 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING AND HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 23.09.2019, THIS DAY, H.P.SANDESH, J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the accused challenging the judgment of conviction passed in S.C.No.451/2012 dated 18.7.2017 on the file of Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 392, 201 of Indian Penal Code.
2. Brief fats of the prosecution case are, On 2.12.2011, the complainant who is the husband of deceased received a phone call around 1.45 p.m. that fire was emanating from their house and at that time complainant was in Bidadi along with his friend P.W.5. The said call was made by P.W.4 who was the tenant of the complainant and asked him to come immediately. When the complainant came to house, he found fire in the house and his wife was lying dead on the cot in the room. The said cot, bed and other things were half burnt and that the neighbours extinguished the fire. It is also the case of prosecution that mangalya chain was missing from the neck of his wife and when the complainant also checked the almirah, jewels and cash were found missing. Complainant left the house at 11.45 a.m. and some culprits came to his house and lynched his wife and laid the dead body on the cot and set fire, after robbing cash and jewels. Bases on the complaint, police have registered the case for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 392 and 201 of Indian Penal Code. During the course of investigation, it was unearthed that accused who is hailing from neighboring village of the deceased used to come to the house of deceased and discussing about purchase of site with the husband of the deceased only in order to commit her murder and rob the jewels. He also used to telephone to the complainant and on the previous day of the incident he called the complainant by name of one Kumar that he intend to purchase a site and asked him to show a site at Bidadi and on the date of incident also he called him and thereafter on confirming that complainant had left the house, he came to the house of deceased and smothered her mouth and nose with lungi and strangulated her neck and thereafter, robbed the jewels worth Rs.17 lakhs and cash of Rs.60,000/- kept in the house and thereafter, he laid the dead body of the deceased on the cot and set fire. P.W.32, the Investigating Officer completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 392 and 201 of Indian Penal Code. The accused was secured and was sent to judicial custody. He did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined P.Ws.1 to 32 and got marked Exs.P1 to P40. The defence got marked Ex.D1 portion of statement of P.W.22. The prosecution also relied upon M.Os.1 to 46. The accused was subjected to statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.
and thereafter, he did not choose to lead any evidence. The Court below, after hearing the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor and also the defense counsel, convicted the accused for the charges leveled against him. Hence, the present appeal by the accused/appellant.
3. The grounds urged in the appeal are that the case rests upon circumstantial evidence. Only on suspicion, accused was arrested on 8.12.2011 and none of the witnesses have named and suspected the role of accused person. P.W.1 has not at all given the detail description of number of items and value of jewels missing from their house even in his further statement. But P.Ws.1, 2 and C.W.3 have only named this accused who was visiting their house and talking to P.W.1 over phone. Hence, it is clear that only on suspicion the appellant was arrested and there is no any direct evidence to indict the accused with the crime. The Court below has believed the improved versions of P.Ws.1 and 2. P.W.1 admits in the cross- examination that people used to contact him over phone or meet him at his residence in connection with his real estate business. Thus, the trial Court has committed an error in convicting the accused on mere probabilities by relying on the evidence of P.Ws.1, 12, 16 and 30. P.W.3 deposes that he was working as a driver to C.W.18 and found the accused near the house of P.W.1. The very presence of P.W.3 near the house of P.W.1 is doubtful since P.W.3 was unknown to the appellant/accused. P.W.3 identified the appellant in the police station on 10.12.2011 after the arrest of the accused and there was no identification parade conducted. Hence, the evidence of P.W.3 cannot be accepted. P.W.12 identified the appellant about 8-9 days after the incident and there was no identification parade and hence, the evidence of P.W.12 also cannot be accepted. The evidence of other witnesses P.Ws.13 and 14 who are the employees of Ganesh Diamond and Jewellary also cannot be accepted regarding the recovery and sale of jewelleries is concerned. The Court below fails to consider the answers elicited in the mouth of these witnesses. P.W.16 also has turned hostile at the first instance and when he was recalled, he supported the case of prosecution. Hence, his evidence also cannot be looked into. P.Ws.1 and 2 are interested witnesses and their evidence is not corroborated by independent evidence. None of the witnesses have identified the jewelleries and hence, the accused cannot be convicted based on the weak peace of evidence.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant also, in his arguments, vehemently contended that the recovery cannot be believed. P.W.16 has not supported the case of the prosecution. The evidence of P.Ws.8 and 9, 13 and 14 also does not inspire confidence of the Court. The other important witness is P.W.32 and his evidence is also not consistent with that of recovery witnesses. The other circumstance pointed out by the prosecution is last seen witness P.W.3. He was not having any acquaintance with the accused prior to the incident and there was no any identification parade held and hence, his evidence also cannot be considered. Further, P.W.22 is the Police Constable who apprehended the accused and when confronted Ex.D1, he denies the same. The learned Counsel also vehemently contended that the accused was arrested on 8.12.2011 and identification of jewelleries was not done. Such being the case, trial Court has committed an error in convicting the accused. Hence, it requires interference by this Court.
5. Per-contra, learned State Public Prosecutor-2 appearing for the State would contend that recovery of gold articles of the deceased was proved by examining the witnesses. The said recovery is at the instance of accused from where he sold the ornaments and also where he kept the ornaments after committing the murder i.e., in the house of his mother-in-law. P.W.3 is the last seen witness. When accused was loitering in the road of house of deceased, he had questioned him on the date of the incident and he replied that he came to see P.W.1 i.e., the husband of the deceased. The prosecution has proved that P.W.3 has last seen the accused near the house of deceased and recoveries also made at the instance of the accused and those recoveries also belong to the deceased. Apart from that, murder is for wrongful gain. The Court below has considered all these materials and rightly convicted the accused. Hence, prayed this Court to dismiss the appeal.
6. Having heard the arguments of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and also the learned State Public Prosecutor-2 appearing for the State and keeping in view the contentions urged in the appeal, this Court has to re-appreciate the evidence available on record. Hence, the points that arise for consideration in this appeal are, (1) Whether the Court below has committed any error in convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 392 and 201 of Indian Penal Code and whether it requires interference of this Court?
(2) What order?
7. Point Nos.1 and 2:
Before appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, we would like to make mention, in a nutshell, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.
8. P.Ws.1 and 2 are the husband and daughter of the deceased and both of them have deposed that they left the house in the early morning and that they are having acquaintance with the accused. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that on the previous night he received a call in the name of one Kumar enquiring about a site and on the day of incident in the early morning he received the call from same person and hence, he went to Bidadi along with his friend P.W.5. The accused being confirmed that he left the house, came to the house of P.W.1 and since his wife was also having acquaintance with the accused as he was the resident of neighbouring village, taking advantage of the loneliness of deceased, he committed the murder. Both of them, in their evidence, have deposed that after coming to know about the information of fire emanating from their house and they came to house and found half burnt body on the cot and other articles were found missing and accordingly, mahazar was drawn.
In the cross-examination of P.Ws.1 and 2 it was suggested that P.W.1 was doing real estate business, as such, there are chances of rivalry against him and the same was denied.
9. P.W.3 has deposed that he had seen the accused when he had come to the house of C.W.18 with whom he was working as a driver. It is his specific evidence that when he noticed accused moving around the house of P.W.1, he enquired him as to why he is moving near the house of P.W.1, for which, accused replied that he has come to meet P.W.1. His statement was recorded on the very next day of the incident. It is also his evidence that on 10.12.2011 he was called to police station when the accused was in custody. He went and identified the accused as the person moving near the house of P.W.1.
In the cross-examination it is elicited that police recorded his statement only once in Subramanyapura police station. There is an open site towards right to the house of C.W.18 and he does not know the name of owner of the said house. He claims that for the last five years, he was working as driver with C.W.18. In the cross- examination, except the suggestion that he was not near the house of C.W.18 and he did not see the accused moving around near the house of P.W.1, nothing is elicited.
10. P.W.4 is the person who informed P.W.1 immediately on noticing that smoke was emanating from the house of P.W.1.
11. P.W.5 is the person who was along with the complainant on the date of incident.
12. P.W.7 is the neighbour who also noticed the smoke.
13. P.W.8 is the panch witness. In his evidence he states that he was called to the police station and police have seized a sealed lighter, Nokia mobile phone, Boxing company mobile phone, counterfoil of a challan and bill regarding gold chain from the possession of the accused. He identifies M.O.40 lighter, M.O.41 Nokia mobile phone, M.O.42 Boxing company mobile, counterfoil of a challan as M.O.43 and bill regarding gold chain as M.O.44. He has signed the seizure mahazar as per Ex.P4(a).
In the cross-examination it is suggested that accused was not in the police custody and M.Os.40 to 44 were not seized and the same was denied. Nothing is elicited to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.8.
14. P.W.9 is the panch witness in respect of M.Os.11 to 29. In his evidence he states that police requested him to act as pancha and thereafter, accused took them to a room and produced the box in which there were 18 gold items and a cash of Rs.30,000/-.He identifies M.Os.11 to 29 and the same is marked as Ex.P5. He was subjected to cross-examination.
In the cross-examination it is elicited that he has given evidence in one more case. He is working as gold appraiser and Subramanyapura police calls him to police station for appraising gold articles seized in criminal cases. The police have not recorded his statement in this case. But they took his signature to the panchanama. Except this nothing is elicited.
15. P.W.10 is the witness to spot mahazar. He has spoken with regard to seizure of articles at the spot and also states that deceased had sustained burn injuries.
In the cross-examination it is suggested that he is the distributor of newspaper and hence, having acquaintance with the police and the same was denied.
16. P.W.12 in his evidence states that he is running a utensils shop and also operating BSNL coin booth in the shop. The accused came and made phone call from his shop. He gave the telephone bill in respect of his telephone for the period from 1.11.2011 to 30.11.2011, which is marked as Ex.P6.
In the cross-examination it is elicited that daily 20 or 30 customers come to his shop for purchase of utensils and his daily sales is around Rs.4,000-5,000/-. Daily on an average, 20 or 30 calls are made by the customers from his telephone coin box facility and monthly bill would be around Rs.400 to Rs.500/-. It is suggested that police had not brought him for the purpose of identification and the same was denied.
17. P.Ws.13 and 14 are the salesman and partner of Ganesh Diamond and Jewelry respectively.
P.W.13 says that on 22.12.2011 the owner of his shop gave him CD of CC TV footage and accordingly, he went and gave the same to the Investigating Officer and the said CD is marked as Ex.P9. In the cross-examination, it is elicited that police have recorded his statement.
P.W.14 in his evidence states that Sri.Balachandra who is the grand son of Sri.Venugopal and son of Smt.Jayalakshmamma is known to him. On 3.12.2011 accused had come to his shop along with Sri.Balachandra and gave one gold chain weighing 78 gms for sale. He told that Sri.Balachandra requires money urgently since somebody is in hospital for treatment. Hence, he purchased the said item for Rs.1,86,000/-. Thereafter, police came along with the accused and mahazar was drawn in terms of Ex.P10 and seized the said chain as per M.O.30. The bill is marked as Ex.P11. He was subjected to cross-examination.
In the cross-examination it is elicited that they are 8 partners in the Firm. Bills and cheques would be signed by the Partners. It is suggested that he has not signed Ex.P10 and that the signature at Ex.P11(a) is not his signature. The said suggestions were denied.
18. P.W.15 runs a Gift shop. In his evidence he states that accused was brought by the Investigating officer to his shop. He states that accused had come to his shop about three years ago and he only packed the box in which there was gift item which was brought by the accused to his shop and he has charged Rs.20/- for packing the box. The box was marked as M.O.10.
In the cross-examination it is elicited that many customers come to their shop for purchase of items and he cannot say the exact number of customers who visit their shop. It is suggested that he is seeing the accused for the first time in the Court and the accused did not visit his shop and the same was denied. The cost of packing paper in the case is Rs.10/-. As per rules, for sale of any item, the trader has to issue receipt depending upon the nature of item to be packed. They charge for packing. It is suggested that he is falsely deposing at the instance of the police and the same was denied.
19. P.W.16 in his evidence states that he saw the accused in the police station and the accused led the police and panchas to his mother-in-law’s house and they found a gift box and a bundle of currency notes in the box which was produced by the accused. There were 18 gold ornaments and also 16 notes of Rs.500/- denomination. The police have seized the same by drawing mahazar in terms of Ex.P5 and gold ornaments were marked as M.Os.11 to 28. M.O.10 is the jewel box. On 10.12.2011 again he went to police station and accused led him, Srinivas and the police to Chunchanakatta main road and showed the place from where he had made telephone call to P.W.1. Police prepared the panchanama in terms of Ex.P12 and he identifies the signature as per Ex.P12(a). It is also his evidence that they proceeded to Girinagar and accused took all of them to a novelty corner and showed the place where he got the gift packed. One Mr.Vivek, a boy in the shop confirmed that accused had come to his shop and paid Rs.20/- for packing and mahazar is marked as per Ex.P14.
In the cross-examination of P.W.16 it is elicited that the police called him to police station and accordingly, he went there. The distance between the place of mahazar and the police station is about 10 kms. He admits that himself and one Srinivas and Ramanjulu have signed the panchanama. It is also elicited that he knows the contents of mahazar Ex.P12 and except that nothing is elicited.
20. P.W.17 has turned hostile to the case of prosecution.
21. P.W.18 is the Doctor who conducted post mortem on the body of the deceased. He mentioned external injuries and also burn injuries and opined that death was due to asphyxia as a result of smothering.
In the cross-examination it is elicited that he cannot say the death of deceased might have been caused by more than one person.
22. P.Ws.19 and 20 are the formal witnesses who have deposed regarding the fire which had taken place in the house of deceased.
23. P.W.21 is the person who accompanied the accused to Ganesh Diamond and Jewelry for disposal of gold ornaments, but he has turned hostile.
24. P.W.22 is the police constable who apprehended the accused.
25. P.W.23 is the Manager of Canara Bank. In his evidence he states that the accused credited the amount to his account in terms of Ex.P22.
26. P.W.24 runs a mobile accessories shop. With regard to the incident dated 3.12.2010, one Vimal Kumar brought a pen drive and an empty CD to his shop for copying and accordingly, he copied the same.
27. P.W.25 is the Scientific Officer of FSL. He has given the opinion as per Ex.P23.
28. P.Ws.26 to 28 are the police officials.
29. P.W.29 is the Deputy Chief Electrical Inspector who went to the spot and conducted spot inspection and issued the letter in terms of Ex.P28.
30. P.W.30 is the Divisional Engineer of BSNL mobile services who gave the CDR from 1.12.2011 to 6.12.2011 in terms of Exs.P30 to 32.
In the cross-examination he states that he does not have any information of there being any error in CDRs and his evidence is based on documents.
31. P.W.31 is the Police Sub-Inspector who apprehended the accused and produced before P.W.32.
32. P.W.32 is the Investigating Officer. On information, he visited the spot and conducted spot inspection and also received the complaint from P.W.1 and registered the FIR as per Ex.P24. Thereafter, he conducted spot mahazar in terms of Ex.P2 and also conducted inquest proceedings in terms of Ex.P3. It is also his evidence that accused was produced before him along with a report in terms of Ex.P33 and thereafter, conducted personal search of the accused and seized certain articles in terms of mahazar Ex.P4. Thereafter, the accused in his voluntary statement confessed the guilt and took the police and panch witnesses to the place where he has sold the gold ornaments and also where he had packed the articles and that he would produce the cash and golden ornaments. Accordingly, he took them to the place and recoveries were made in the house of his mother-in-law, so also, he led the police and panch witnesses to Ganesh Jewelry at Rajajinagar and also gift shop where he got packed the gift box and mahazar was drawn. He also identifies M.O.30 and also spoken with regard to investigation done by him in collecting the CDR details, conducting of mahazar in the respective places. He was subjected to cross-examination.
In the cross-examination it is elicited that C.W.18 has not stated in his statement that C.W.4 Gundaiah accompanied him to the scene of crime. It is elicited that Ex.P11 receipt bears his signature without subscribing the date. It is suggested that Exs.P4, P5 and P10 seizure mahazars are created and the same was denied. It is elicited that he has collected the finger print marks at the place of scene of crime during his investigation and further he admits that P.W.22 has given his statement before him as per Ex.D1.
33. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant relying upon paragraphs 21, 23 and 24 of the judgment reported in AIR 2019 SC 546 in the case of Ashish Jain Vs. Makrand Singh and others State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Makrand Singh and others with regard to recovery would contend that, from the totality of facts and circumstances the recovery at the instance of the accused does not inspire confidence of the Court.
34. Further, relying upon the judgment reported in AIR 2019 SC 1367 in the case of Digamber Vaishnav and another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh referring to paragraph 40 of the judgment regarding last seen theory, he would contend, to hold the accused guilty there must be close proximity between the time of seeing and recovery of dead body to constitute last seen together factor as incriminating circumstance. But in case on hand, it has to be noted that the statement of P.W.3 who is that last seen witness, was recorded on the next day that he had seen the accused loitering around near the house of the deceased and when enquired, accused said that he came to meet P.W.1. Such being the case, the principles laid down in the said judgment is not applicable to the case on hand.
35. He also relied upon paragraph 28 of the judgment reported in (2018) 16 SCC 161 in the case of Navaneethakrishnan Vs. State by Inspector of Police and would contend that in the absence of any other material evidence against the accused he cannot be convicted solely on the basis of evidence of last seen. In the case on hand, P.W.3 is the only witness who has last seen the accused, but not with the deceased. He states that accused was loitering in front of the house of deceased. But, in the case on hand, the prosecution has also relied upon the CDR report as well as recovery of articles of deceased and not solely depended upon the last seen evidence.
36. Regarding recovery of stolen property, the learned counsel has relied upon the judgment reported in (2014)12 SCC 133 in the case of Prakash Vs. State of Karnataka and referring to paragraphs 46-48 would contend that in the absence of any identification of the ornaments as the same belong to the deceased, the Court cannot rely upon recovery of the articles.
37. Further regarding the procedure to be adopted for identification of articles, he relied upon the judgment reported in 1971(2) SCC 75 in the case of Matru alias Girish Chandra Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and referring to paragraph 17 of the judgment would contend that proper procedure was not adopted for identification and hence, the evidence of prosecution witnesses cannot be relied upon.
38. Keeping in view the judgments referred to supra, and also the material available on record, the first circumstance to be considered is the evidence of P.W.3. In his evidence, he has stated that he is a driver by profession and working with C.W.18. On the date of incident he has seen the accused near the house of the deceased. The house of C.W.18 is also situate near the house of the deceased. It is also important to note that in the cross-examination of P.W.3 except the suggestion that he did not meet and speak to P.W.1, nothing is elicited to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.3. It is pertinent to note that P.W.3 is a stranger and not related witness either to the deceased or to P.W.1 and nothing is elicited from the mouth of P.W.3 that he was having any enmity with the accused to falsely depose against him before the Court. It is also important to note that the Investigating officer who conducted investigation has been examined as P.W.32. He recorded the statement of P.W.3 on 3.12.2011 and the incident has taken place on 2.12.2011. The accused was arrested on 8.12.2011 and at that time, P.W.3 was called to the police station and he identified the accused. Hence, the first circumstance of last seen of the accused near the house of deceased by P.W.3 has been proved by the prosecution.
39. The other circumstance is with regard to accused making a phone call to P.W.1 on the previous day in the name of one Kumar stating that he intend to purchase a site and asked P.W.1, the husband of deceased to come over to Bidadi on the next day. It is also pertinent to note that on the date of incident i.e., on 2.12.2011 at 10.34 hours he called P.W.1 and spoke for about 19 seconds from the landline of P.W.12 to the cell of P.W.1. He also made another call to P.W.1 lasting 100 seconds on the same day at 11.58 hours. The prosecution has relied upon the evidence of P.W.30 who is working as Divisional Engineer. In his evidence he states that as per the requisition by the police, he has furnished the CDR of the said landline number to the police. Further, P.W.12 categorically states that accused came along with the panch witness i.e., P.W.16 to his shop on 10.12.2011 and he also identified the accused. The call details which are marked as Ex.P30 also confirms that phone calls were made to P.W.1 on 2.12.2011 from the shop of P.W.12.
P.W.16 also supports the case of the prosecution in consonance with the evidence of P.W.32, the Investigating Officer who took the accused to the shop of P.W.12. Hence, the second circumstance is also proved by the prosecution that accused only called P.W.1 to come to Bidadi and thereafter went to the house of deceased and committed her murder.
40. P.Ws.8 and 9 and P.W.16 are the panch witnesses for seizure of gold ornaments said to have been robbed from the house of P.W.1. The accused led all of them to the house of his mother-in-law and produced the gold ornaments which contained 18 items of gold ornaments marked as M.Os.11 to 28, so also, cash of Rs.30,000/- and accordingly, mahazar was drawn. The evidence of P.Ws.9 and 16 is consistent.
41. P.W.14 is the receiver of gold article M.O.30. He purchased M.O.30 and also produced the receipt for having purchased the chain weighing 72 grams for an amount of Rs.1,86,000/-. The evidence of P.W.14 is also consistent. Though the person who accompanied the accused while selling the gold ornament has turned hostile, the evidence of P.W.14 is clear that he knows P.W.21 with whom the accused came to his shop. Hence, the fact of accused having sold the gold ornament belonging to the deceased to P.W.14 is also proved by the prosecution.
42. P.W.15 runs a gift shop. He speaks that accused had come to his shop and got packed the gift box with the articles which he brought. The evidence of P.W.16 is that accused had led him and other panch witnesses and also the police to the shop of P.W.15 wherein the accused stated that after getting the item packed, he took it to the house of his mother-in-law and kept the same. The recovery of M.Os.10 to 28 from the house of mother-in-law of the accused is also proved by the prosecution.
43. Having considered the material available on record, it is clear that the accused before committing the murder had pre-planned and called the complainant P.W.1 to Bidadi and he did not go to Bidadi, but went to the house of P.W.1 and committed murder of the deceased. The call details corroborates the case of prosecution and the recovery at the instance of prosecution witnesses P.Ws.8, 9, 12, 14 and 16 corroborates the case of prosecution that the accused after committing murder has sold one gold chain for an amount of Rs.1,86,000/- and the bank manager P.W.23 also states that the amount was credited to the account of the accused. Apart from that, the robbed gold articles were recovered at the instance of the accused from the house of his mother-in-law.
44. Though case is rest upon circumstantial evidence, the Court below has meticulously analyzed the evidence available on record and each circumstance links with other circumstance to form an opinion that accused after committing the murder has robbed the gold articles worth about more than Rs.17 lakhs and also cash to the tune of Rs.30,000/- was recovered at his instance. Further, for having sold one gold chain, bill was recovered at the instance of the accused. Further, the other material before the Court discloses that after committing the murder, he made an attempt to screen the evidence by setting fire to the dead body laying the same on the cot. The half burnt articles were seized when the mahazar was drawn. Hence, the very contention that the gold ornaments were not identified cannot be accepted.
45. In the case on hand it has to be noted that not only the last seen witness has supported the case of the prosecution, but other materials available before the Court i.e., CDR report also shows that accused had made calls to P.W.1 on the previous day and also on the date of incident and pretended that he is going to Bidadi, but went to the house of deceased and committed her murder and also committed robbery. He sold one of the gold article to P.W.14 and thereafter, kept the other gold ornaments in the house of his mother-in-law, which were recovered. All the circumstances goes against the accused. The Court below has not committed any error in appreciating the evidence on record and has given its anxious consideration to the material available on record. In the absence of any error committed by the Court below, it is not appropriate for this Court being the appellate Court to reverse the well reasoned finding given by the Court below. Hence, we pass the following:
ORDER The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE bkp