JUDGMENT
G.R. Majithia, J.
1. The accused-appellant was found guilty for committing an offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year by Additional Sessions Judge, Pune by his judgment and order dated July 6, 1993. Aggrieved against the judgment order he has come up in appeal.
2. The prosecution story, briefly put, is as under.
The appellant and deceased Govind Dagadu More were in the employment of Pune University as Security Guards. The appellant resided in Servants quarter bearing No. C-19. The deceased along with his family members were residing in Servants quarter bearing No. C-14. Both of them were habituated to consume liquor together. On December 3, 1992 the deceased had gone to the quarters of the appellant. Both of them consumed liquor in between the night of December 3, 1992 and December 4, 1992. It appeared that there was a quarrel between them. The appellant assaulted the deceased with the liquor bottle. He also caused him injuries with knife (suri) used for cutting onions. The deceased suffered grievous injuries on the head, forehead, hands and stomach. He succumbed to the said injuries.
The deceased did not return to his quarters. Enquiries and search were conducted but he was found missing. On December 4, 1992 the dead body of the deceased was found in the quarters of the appellant. The son of the deceased lodged a complaint with Chatushringi Police Station on December 4, 1992 at about 3.00 p.m. and on the basis of the same P.S.I. Bhandrae recorded First Information Report and registered an offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He prepared the inquest panchanama. Thereafter the investigation was entrusted to Police Inspector Vishnu Mundhe. He carried out further investigation. He examined 9 witnesses on December 4, 1992. He also prepared spot panchanama. He attached the clothes of the deceased. The appellant was arrested on December 5, 1992. His clothes were also attached under a panchanama in the presence of two panchas. He seized one mattress from the appellant’s quarter under a seizure panchanama.
When the appellant was in police custody he made a voluntary statement that he can get the knife (suri) recovered. P.I. Mundhe recorded memorandum in the presence of the two panchas. The appellant led the police party and the panch witnesses by the police van towards Ladies Hostel situated within the vicinity of Pune University. He took the police party and the panchas near a Vad tree. He took up one knife (suri) which was hidden near the stem of the Vad tree. It was seized under seizure panchanama in the presence of the panchas. He sent all the articles viz. weapon of assault, mattress, piece of bottle, clothes of the appellant and the deceased to the Chemical Analyser for report. The Chemical Analyser sent his report to the police.
After completion of the investigation P.I. Mundhe submitted the charge-sheet against the appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The defence of the accused was of total denial. He claimed to be tried.
3. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses. P.W. 1, Sanjay Govind More, son of the deceased, is the complainant. P.W. 2, Santosh Maruti Gavali, is a Painter who had gone to the quarters of the appellant for painting on December 4, 1992 at about 12.30 p.m. He noticed dead body in the quarters of the appellant. P.W. 3, Chandrakant Govind Sawant, was working as Assistant Security Officer in Pune University. While he was on duty he was informed by one Deepak that he found the hands of the appellant burnt. He went to the house of the appellant and found dead body with burnt hands and injuries on the face. P.W. 4, Mahendra Kisan Narke, found the appellant in drunken condition on December 2, 1992. He prepared a fish dish for the appellant at his request. He met him on December 3, 1992 while he was going to wash his clothes. P.W. 5, Gangaram Hode had seen the appellant while going through Khadki Gate of Pune University on bicycle with two bags. P.W. 6, Shaukat Hamid Kazi, is a panch witness on the Memorandum of panchanama and discovery of knife. P.W. 7, Sayyad Abdul Sami, conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and issued post-mortem notes vide Exh. 22. P.W. 8, Ashabai is the sister of the appellant. She did not support the prosecution story and was declared hostile. P.W. 9, Vishnu Krishna Mundhe, is the Police Inspector who carried out the investigation of the case.
4. Indisputably the prosecution case stands on circumstantial evidence and these are; (i) recovery of dead body of the deceased from Quarters No. C-19 in possession of the appellant on December 4,1992, (ii) recovery of knife (suri) at the instance of the appellant and (iii) post mortem report (Exh. 22) showing that the deceased had suffered incised wounds at Sr. Nos. 2, 4, 5, 7, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 21, 22, 23 and 24. All these injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by means of Article 22 (suri) recovered at the instance of the appellant and piece of glass (Article 15). P.W. 7, Sayyad Sami, in his opinion has stated that the cause of death was haemorrhage due to excessive bleeding from several multiple injuries associated with asphyxia due to foreign body in mouth and oesophagus and due to shock.
5. The learned trial Judge after taking the circumstances into consideration came to the conclusion that these were inconsistent with the innocence of the appellant. He accordingly recorded a finding of guilt against the appellant.
6. We have gone through the entire evidence. We have heard Ms. Bazi, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Palekar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. We have also gone through the record and proceedings. The learned trial Judge has appreciated the prosecution evidence keeping in view the condition precedent for convicting an accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The Apex Court in its corroborative judgment reported in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, , laid down the following conditions precedent for conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence as under:
“1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned ‘must or should’ and not ‘may be’ established.
2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty.
3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.
4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and
5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused”.
7. We have examined the circumstantial evidence in the light of the touchstone given in Sharad Birdhichand’s case (supra). The dead body of the deceased was recovered from the quarters in occupation of the appellant. The appellant did not dispute that the dead body was recovered from his quarters in his statement recorded under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Question No. 4 reading thus :
“P.W. 3 Chandrakant Govind Sawant stated that he resides in quarter C-15 in the University Servants quarter. He knew you and Govind More. On 4-12-1992 he was told by Deepak that there was dead body of Govind in your quarter. He informed the police about the incident. P.W. 1 Sanjay identified dead body to be of his father. What you have to say about it?
was put to him and his answer was ‘I do not know’. Thus, he did not furnish any explanation as to how the dead body was recovered from his quarters.
The weapon of assault-knife (suri) was recovered at the instance of the appellant. P.W. 6, Shaukat Kazi is a panch witness stated that in his presence the apellant made a statement that he can get the weapon of assault produced which he had hidden underneath one Vad tree. P.W. 1 Mundhe recorded his memorandum as per statement of the appellant. The appellant got the weapon of assault recovered which was taken into possession under seizure panchanama (Exh. 29). The learned trial Judge found the evidence of recovery reliable. We have gone through the same and we find that the learned trial Judge was right in relying upon this evidence.
Several injuries including incise wounds were found on the dead body of the deceased. P.W. 7, Dr. Sayyad Gulam Ali, Associate Professor in Forensic Medicine, B.J. Medical College, Pune, conducted the post mortem on the dead body of the deceased. He opined that the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries associated with asphyxia due to foreign body in mouth and oesophagus. He found external injuries on the dead body of the deceased. In reply to a question in the cross-examination viz. “Whether all the external injuries mentioned in Exh. 22 in the ordinary course of nature, death is must?” he answered that the external injuries in the ordinary course of nature can result in death.
The Chemical Analyser’s report (Exh. 27-A) shows that the ethyl alcohol was found in the body of deceased Govind More.
8. The circumstances proved on record is consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The circumstantial evidence so brought on record fully satisfies the test laid down by the Apex Court in Sharad Birdhichand’s case (supra) for sustaining a conviction on the basis thereof. We find no infirmity in the impugned finding of guilt recorded by the learned trial Judge.
9. For the reasons stated above, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. The conviction and sentence are maintained.
