{"id":34230,"date":"1978-01-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1978-01-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baiju-alias-bharosa-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-19-january-1978"},"modified":"2018-06-24T00:40:18","modified_gmt":"2018-06-23T19:10:18","slug":"baiju-alias-bharosa-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-19-january-1978","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baiju-alias-bharosa-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-19-january-1978","title":{"rendered":"Baiju Alias Bharosa vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 January, 1978"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Baiju Alias Bharosa vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 January, 1978<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1978 AIR 522, \t\t 1978 SCR (2) 594<\/div>\n
Author: P Shingal<\/div>\n
Bench: Shingal, P.N.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nBAIJU ALIAS BHAROSA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT19\/01\/1978\n\nBENCH:\nSHINGAL, P.N.\nBENCH:\nSHINGAL, P.N.\nFAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA\n\nCITATION:\n 1978 AIR  522\t\t  1978 SCR  (2) 594\n 1978 SCC  (1) 588\n CITATOR INFO :\n F\t    1978 SC1183\t (49)\n\n\nACT:\nEvidence   Act,\t  (Act\t 1   of\t  1872),    1872--Ss.110,114\nillustration(a)--Recent and unexplained possession of goods-\nPresumptive evidence against the accused not only of  theft,\nbut of the charge of murder as well-Value of  circumstantial\nevidence.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  appellant,\t on the pretext of and promise\tto  beget  a\nchild to the family of the deceased Ramdayal by sorcery, and\nafter winning confidence committed murders of Ramdayal,\t his\nwife  Smt.   Fulkanwar, his mother Smt.\t Bhagwanti  and\t his\nnephew Rambakas, on the night of January 20, 1975 and  also-\nstole  of  various articles which were\trecovered  from\t the\nappellants' residence soon after.  The trial court convicted\nhim  of offences u\/s 394 and u\/s 302 I.P.C.  for  committing\nthe  robbery and each of the four murders and sentenced\t him\nto  death.   On\t appeal the High  Court\t of  Madhya  Pradesh\nconfirmed the conviction-and the sentence.\nDismissing the appeals by special leave the Court\nHELD : 1. The question whether a presumption should be drawn\nunder illustration (a) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act is\na matter which depends on the evidence and the circumstances\nof  each case.\tThus the nature of the stolen  article,\t the\nmanner\tof its acquisition by the owner, the nature  of\t the\nevidence  about its identification, the manner in  which  it\nwas  dealt  with  by  the  appellant,  the  place  and\t the\ncircumstances of its recovery, the length of the intervening\nperiod, the ability or otherwise of the appellant to explain\nhis  possession,  are factors which have to  be\t taken\tinto\nconsideration in arriving at a decision.\n[600 EG]\n2.Recent  and unexplained possession of\t stolen\t articles\nmay  well be taken to be presumptive evidence of the  charge\nof murder. [600 B-C]\nThe  prosecution succeeded in proving beyond any doubt\tthat\nthe commission of the murders and the robbery formed part of\none transaction and the recent and unexplained possession of\nthe   stolen  property\tby  the\t appellant   justified\t the\npresumption  that  it  was  he and  no\tone  else,  who\t had\ncommitted  the murders and the robbery.\t The  appellant\t was\ngiven  an opportunity to explain his possession, as well  as\nhis conduct in decoying Smt.  Lakhpatiya and the other\tper-\nsons who died at his hand, but he was unable to do so.\t[600\nD-E]\nWasim  Khan  v. State of Uttar Pradesh,<\/a> [1956]\tS.C.R.\t191;\nAbisher\t v.  State  of Uttar Pradesh, [1974]  4\t S.C.C.\t 254\nfollowed.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal  No.\t 128
\nand 129 of 1977.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals\t by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order  dated
\n17-9-76\t of  the High Court of Madhya  Pradesh\tin  Criminal
\nAppeals Nos. 477 and 488 of 1976 and Criminal Reference Nos.
\n5 and 6 of 1976.\n<\/p>\n
P.   C. Bhartari for the Appellant in Crl.  A. No. 128\/77.
\nR.   K.\t Jain, Amicus Curiae, for the Appellant in Crl.\t  A.
\n129\/77.\n<\/p>\n
I.   N. Shroff for Respondent in both the appeals.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nSHINGHAL  J.  Ramdayal (deceased) son of  Ranglal  (P.W.  2)
\nlived  in his house at village Gauripur,  district  Sarguja,
\nwith his two
\n595<\/span>
\nwives Smt.  Fulkunwar (deceased) and Smt.  Lakhpatiya  (P.W.\n<\/p>\n
1),   his  father  Ranglal,  his  mother   Smt.\t   Bhagwanti
\n(Deceased)  and his nephew Rambakas, (deceased).   Although.
\nRamdayal married ,twice, he did not have a child and he\t and
\nhis  family  were keenly interested in his  having  a  child
\nsomehow.  It is alleged that in the month of Kuar  appellant
\nBaiju  alias Bharosa gave out that he had been sent  by\t one
\nNiranjan  Gauntia and introduced himself to the family as  a
\nsorcerer  or  wizard who could bring about the\tbirth  of  a
\nchild  in  the\tfamily with his\t extraordinary\tpowers.\t  He
\nvisited the family several times and. practised sorcery.  In
\nthose days Smt.\t Fulkunwar was suffering from small-pox\t and
\nthe  appellant\ttherefore  went away saying  that  he  would
\nreturn after her recovery.  He went there again in the month
\nof  Kartik  of\this  own accord\t and  practised\t sorcery  in
\nRamdayal’s  house for two nights.  He went  to.\t  Ramdayal’s
\nhouse again in the month of Aghan and practised sorcery.  He
\nhad  a well of Ramdayal’s house dug in and took out a  piece
\nof  bone  which,  according to him, was\t an  evil  omen\t and
\nprevented the birth of a child.\t He started taking  Ramdayal
\nand  his  wives to an adjoining “nala” at mid night  on\t the
\npretext of driving away the evil spirit.  In this way, it is
\nalleged,  the appellant gained the confidence of the  entire
\nfamily\tand went and stayed at Ramdayal’s house in month  of
\nPaus from January 11, 1975 to January 19, 1975.\t He demanded
\ncloth and some articles for performing sorcery, but that was
\nresented by Smt.  Lakhpatiya.\n<\/p>\n
It is further alleged that on January 19, 1975 the appellant
\nasked  Smt.  Lakhpatiya to go to the house of  her  parents,
\nwithout her ornaments and money, and promised that he  would
\nreach  there and perform some ritual to drive away the\tevil
\nspirit from her.  At the same time he prevented Ramdayal, on
\nfalse  pretext,\t from accompanying her to the house  of\t her
\nparents.   Smt.\t Lakhpatiya therefore went to the  house  of
\nher  parents  at village Narainpur with\t her  father-in-law
\nRanglal (P.W. 2) on January 20, 1975.  The appellant, in the
\nmean time, persuaded Ramdayal to go with him to an adjoining
\n“nala” for performing some religious rites, killed him there
\nand threw his dead body in the\t” nala”.  He then  went back
\nto  Ramdayal’s house, took Smt.\t Fulkunwar to another  place
\nin the same “nala”, killed her there and threw her dead body
\nalso  in the “nala”.  It has further been alleged that\tthe
\nappellant  went\t to the, house of Ramdayal  and\t killed\t his
\nmother\tSmt.  Bhagwanti and his nephew Rambakas\t while\tthey
\nwere  sleeping there.  He ransacked the house,\tbroke  open
\nthe  boxes  and took away a number of articles\tincluding  a
\ntransistor, a watch, a bicycle, a torch, two “addhis”  gold,
\nclothes, ornaments.\n<\/p>\n
On the following morning, i.e. on the morning of January 21,
\n1975,  Ramdayal’s neighbours, including his nephew  Jai\t Ram
\n(P.W.  4),  became suspicious because of  the  unusual\tcalm
\nprevailing  in\this house and peeped inside.  They  saw\t the
\ndead  bodies of Smt.  Bhagwanti and Rambakas with blood\t all
\naround.\t  They\talso  found open boxes\tand  articles  lying
\nthere.\tJai Ram therefore went to police station Prem  Nagar
\nwhere he lodged report Ex.P. 38 before Head Constable Jagan-
\nnath (P.W. 24).\t The Head Constable went to village Gauripur
\nthe  same  day, saw the dead bodies of Smt.   Bhagwanti\t and
\nRambakas inside
\n596<\/span>
\nRamdayal’s house and the broken boxes and articles lying all
\naround.\t He also found that a stone was lying near the\tdead
\nbody of Rambakas and a piece of wood was lying over the head
\nof  Smt.   Bhagwanti.\tHe searched for\t Ramdayal  and\tSmt.
\nFulkunwar  but\tcould not find them.  inquest  reports\twere
\nprepared  in respect of the dead bodies and they  were\tsent
\nfor   postmortem  examination.\t The  dead  body   of\tSmt.
\nFulkunwar  was\tfound  on  January 22,\t1975  and  the\tHead
\nConstable prepared its inquest report.\tSub-Inspector P.  K.
\nSingh reached village Gauripur on January 22, 1975 at  about
\n6 p.m. and started the investigation.  He prepared what\t has
\nbeen called “a dehati nalish” Ex. P. 32 on January 22,\t1975
\nat 6.30 p.m. and also prepared seizure memorandum of several
\narticles  which were lying in Ramdayal’s house.\t He  made  a
\nsearch\tfor  Ramdayal and found his dead body lying  in\t the
\nwater of the ” nala”, under a block of wood, on January\t 23,
\n1975.\tAn inquest report was prepared and several  articles
\nlike rice, thread and match box which were also found  lying
\non  the ” nala” were taken by the Investigating\t Officer  in
\nhis  custody.\tAnother\t “dehati  nalish”  Ex.\tp.  32A\t was
\nprepared  on  January 26, 1975.\t The  investigating  Officer
\nalso  found  receipt Ex.  P. 29 of the sale of\ta  watch  to
\nRamdayal  and  took it into his possession  on\tJanuary\t 26,
\n1975.  One shoe (article ‘U’) and thereafter the other\tshoe
\n(article ‘U1’) were found near the river on January 27, 1975
\nand  were taken in police custody.  Ramdayal’s\tlicence\t for
\nthe  transistor\t was also taken over  by  the  investigating
\nofficer.\n<\/p>\n
The appellant was arrested on January 28, 1975.\t It has been
\nalleged that he gave the information which was recorded in a
\nmemorandum  (Ex.   P.  21\/P.  21A)  in\trespect\t of  certain
\narticles  which he undertook to recover from his  house\t and
\nthat several articles including a transistor (article  ‘1:),
\na  watch  (article  ‘Chha’) , ‘two  gold  “addhis”  (article
\n‘Cha’),\t a  torch  (article ‘Ka’)  and\tseveral\t ”  sarees”,
\nblouses,   petticoat,  bed-sheets,  “dhotis”,  bush   shirt,
\nblanket, ” thali” etc. were thus recovered during the course
\nof  the investigation.\tThe Police also went to the shop  of
\nNirmal\tKumar  (P.W. 13) and recovered the voucher  for\t the
\nsale  of the transistor to Ramdayal as also  Nirmal  Kumar’s
\nregister  evidencing the sale.\tIt has further been  alleged
\nthat  in pursuance of the interrogation on January 31,\t1975
\nas  per memorandum (Ex.\t P. 12\/P. 12A) the Police  recovered
\nsome  silver ornaments from goldsmith Goverdhan (P.W. 7)  of
\nvillage\t Surajpur.  The recovered articles were put  up\t for
\nidentification\tand the memoranda in that respect have\talso
\nbeen placed on the record.  Smt.  Lakhpatiya and Ranglal are
\nsaid  to have correctly identified the transistor,watch\t and
\ngold “addhis” etc. as belonging to the deceased Ramdayal.
\nSeparate charge sheets were put up by the police against the
\nappellant for each of the four murders.\t The Sessions  Judge
\ntook  notice  of the fact that the murders and\tthe  robbery
\nwere committed in the same transaction, and although he\t was
\nof  the opinion that there was no difficulty in holding\t one
\ntrial\tof  all\t the  offences\the  thought  it\t “safe”\t  to
\nconsolidate only two murder charges in one trial.  There was
\ntherefore   one\t trial for the murders of Ramdayal  and\t his
\nwife  Smt.   Fulkunwar and another for the murders  of\tSmt.
\nBhagwanti and Rambakas.\t Two
\n597<\/span>
\nseparate  judgments  were accordingly delivered in  the\t two
\ncases  on  April 30, 1976, convicting  the  appellant  under
\nsection\t 302  I.P.C. for each of the four murders.   He\t was
\nalso convicted under section 394 for the offence of  robbery
\nin  the\t trial relating to the murder of Ramdayal  and\tSmt.
\nFulkunwar.   The  learned  Sessions  Judge  considered\t the
\nquestion  of sentence thereafter, and took the view that  as
\nthe  murders were pre-planned, and were committed  with\t the
\nsole object of theft, and that the appellant had gained\t the
\nconfidence of Ramdayal and his family members by  systematic
\nmanoeuvres  for his personal benefit even though he and\t his
\nfamily\tmembers\t had done no harm to him,  he  deserved\t the
\nsentence of death.  For the offence under section 394 I.P.C.
\nhe sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years.\tWhen
\nthe  matter went up before the High Court on appeals by\t the
\naccused and on reference by the trial court, the High  Court
\ndismissed   the\t appeals,  upheld  the\tconviction  of\t the
\nappellant on all the counts and confirmed the death sentence
\nby its judgments dated September 17, 1976.
\nIt  was\t not  disputed\tbefore\tus  that  the  case  of\t the
\nprosecution all through was that the appellant committed one
\nseries\tof acts which were so connected together as to\tform
\nthe  same transaction and that he could be charged with\t and
\ntried  at one trial for all the four offences of murder\t and
\nthe  offence  of  robbery.   The  learned  counsel  in\tfact
\naddressed their arguments jointly in the two appeals  before
\nus and referred mainly to the record of Criminal Appeal\t No.
\n129  of\t 1977.\t Their arguments were  common  to  both\t the
\nappeals and were addressed with reference to the same set of
\nevidence.   No\tuseful purpose will therefore be  served  by
\ngiving\tseparate judgments in the two appeals, and we  shall
\ndispose\t them  of by this common judgment  as  suggested  by
\nlearned counsel.\n<\/p>\n
It has been argued that an error was committed by the  trial
\nCourt  as  well as the High Court in mistaking\tthe  “dehati
\nnalish”\t (Ex.P.\t 32) dated January 22, 1975  and  the  other
\n“dehati nalish” (Ex.  P. 32A) dated January 26, 1975 as\t the
\nfirst  information reports, and that they were wrongly\tread
\nin  evidence  as reports under section 154 of  the  Code  of
\nCriminal Procedure.  It has also been urged in this  connec-
\ntion  that when it was the case of the prosecution that\t Jai
\nRam  (P.W. 4) and several other villagers had seen the\tdead
\nbodies\tof  Smt.  Bhagwanti and Rambakas on the\t morning  of
\nJanuary 21, 1975 and Jai Ram had gone and lodged the  report
\nat  police  station Prem Nagar the same day,  there  was  no
\njustification  for withholding that report and treating\t the
\naforesaid  village  complaints\tas  the\t first\t information
\nreports.  The argument appeared to be of some consequence at
\nfirst  sight because Jai Ram’s report did not form  part  of
\nthe paper books of this Court, but Mr. 1. N. Shroff was able
\nto  retrieve Jai Ram’s report Ex.  P. 38 to  Head  Constable
\nJagannath dated January 21, 1975, from the original  record.
\nAs has been stated, Jai Ram had stated in that report how he
\nand  other villagers grew suspicious, peeped into the  house
\nof  Ramdayal and found the dead bodies of Ramdayal’s  mother
\nand  of a boy (Rambakas) lying there, with blood all  around
\nand  the  household articles scattered\tall  over.   Learned
\ncounsel\t for the appellant thereupon gave up  the  arguments
\nwhich they advanced on the basis
\n598<\/span>
\nof  the non-production of the first information report.\t  It
\ncannot,\t all  the same, be doubted that the  two  so  called
\n“dehati\t nalish”  could not have been read in  evidence\t as.
\nfirst  information reports and we have therefore  left\tthem
\nout  of\t consideration.\t That does not\thowever\t affect\t the
\nmerits of the case because the prosecution has been able  to
\nproduce\t other satisfactory evidence to establish the  guilt
\nof the appellant in respect of the offences for which he has
\nbeen convicted.\n<\/p>\n
It  has\t next been argued that when the Police knew  of\t the
\nmurder\tand  the robbery on January 21, 1975  on  Jai  Ram’s
\nreport\tEx.   P.  38and, when it was also the  case  of\t the
\nprosecution  that Smt.\tLakhpatiya returned to her house  on
\nTuesday (i.e. on the night of January 21, 1975) on  learning
\nof  the murders of her mother-in-law and the nephew and\t the
\nsuspicious conduct of the appellant, there was no reason why
\nthe  Police  should  not  have searched\t his  house  at\t the
\nearliest  possible opportunity when  sufficient\t particulars
\nhad been obtained from Smt.  Lakhpatiya for the, purpose  of
\nidentifying him.  It has therefore been urged that there was
\nno  justification  for delaying the search until  after\t his
\narrest\ton January 28, 1975.  On these premises it has\tbeen
\nargued that the articles which were recovered from the house
\nof  the appellant on January 28, 1975, had been\t planted  by
\nthe  police  and their recovery should not have\t been  taken
\ninto consideration against him.\t There is however no  reason
\nto  think  that\t the  courts below  have  erred\t in  placing
\nreliance  on the recovery of the various articles  from\t the
\nhouse  of  the appellant on January 28, 1975.  As  has\tbeen
\nstated, he was arrested on January 28, 1975, and even though
\nthe  allegation that the recovery of the articles was made
\nat  his instance has been disbelieved by the two courts,  we
\nfind  that  the\t appellant’s  wife  Smt.   Isuni  (P.W.\t 10)
\nproduced  those\t articles from the house of her\t husband  as
\nalleged\t by the prosecution.  In fact she has  categorically
\nstated\tthat those articles, including the  transistor,\t the
\nwatch, the gold “addhis” and the torch did not belong to her
\nhouse and were brought by the appellant and were kept there.
\nIt  is also significant that the appellant has not  ventured
\nto  suggest  in his statements that his\t wife  was  inimical
\ntowards\t him  or was anxious to implicate  him\tfalsely.   A
\nreading of his statement shows, on the other hand,, that  he
\nbelieved  that\this wife was anxious to\t save  him  somehow.
\nThere  is  therefore  no  merit in  the\t argument  that\t the
\nrecovery  of the articles which was made from the  house  of
\nthe  appellant on January 28, 1975 was not genuine and\tthat
\nthe articles were “planted” by the Police.
\nAn ancillary argument has been advanced that the recovery of
\nthe  articles could not be said to be incriminating as\tthey
\nwere  not satisfactorily identified and that their  recovery
\ndid not connect the appellant with the crime.  We have\tgone
\nthrough\t the  evidence on the record and we  find  that\t the
\ntheft  of the transistor was, brought to the notice  of\t the
\npolice\tauthorities on January 22, 1975 by Smt.\t  Lakhpatiya
\nafter she reached her house, and it has been established  by
\nmemorandum  Ex.\t P. 3\/3A that Investigating  Officer  P.  K.
\nSingh  seized  a ‘Hind? receipt dated  September  13,  1974,
\nwritten\t by  Nirmal Kumar in respect of licence\t No.  15  of
\ntransistor  RL 517\/OOB\/631422 on January 26, 1975  from\t the
\nhouse of the deceased Ramdayal.\t The same trans-\n<\/p>\n
599<\/span><\/p>\n
istor was thereafter found in the house of the appellant  on
\nJanuary\t 28, 1975, and its license dated October 1, 1974  in
\nRamdayal’s  name  was  also taken in  police  custody.\t The
\nstatement of Nirmal Kumar shows that the transistor was sold
\nby  him to Ramdayal and he was able to produce\this  receipt
\nbook  evidencing the sale.  Moreover Smt.  Lakhpatiya  (P.W.\n<\/p>\n
1)  identified the transistor as belonging to  her  husband.
\nThe  recovery  of  the\ttransistor from\t the  house  of\t the
\nappellant  was therefore a material circumstance which\twent
\nto  establish  that the stolen property was  recovered\tfrom
\n‘his house soon after the commission of the crime.
\nIt  will be recalled that a wrist watch was  also  recovered
\nfrom  the  house  of  the appellant  on\t January  28,  1975.
\nInvestigating Officer P. K. Singh recovered a receipt  dated
\nAugust 4, 1974 evidencing the sale of the watch by  Mohammad
\nAwesh  Karmi (P.W. 14) to the deceased\tRamdayal.   Mohammad
\nAwesh Karmi has proved the sale of the watch to Ramdayal and
\nthe  watch has also been identified by Smt.   Lakhpatiya  in
\nthe   trial  court.   Its  recovery  is\t therefore   another
\ncircumstance  which goes to connect the appellant  with\t the
\ncrime.\n<\/p>\n
As  has\t been  stated,\tseveral\t other\tarticles  were\talso
\nrecovered  from the house of the appellant which he and\t his
\nwife  did  not\tclaim  to be their  property.\tIt  will  be
\nsufficient  to\tmention that two gold “addhis” and  a  torch
\nwere  two of the other articles which were recovered  during
\nthe  course of the investigation.  The recoveries have\tbeen
\nproved\tby  Atmaram  (P.W.  11)\t and  Smt.   Lakhpatiya\t has
\nidentified them during the course of the trial.\t Smt.  Isuni
\n(wife of. the appellant) has proved that those articles were
\nalso  brought  to  her house by the appellant  and  did\t not
\nbelong to her or her husband.  The recovery of the  articles
\nalso  therefore bears on the guilt of the appellant and\t has
\nrightly been taken into consideration against, him.
\nIt  has also been argued that although there was  no  direct
\nevidence  to  prove that the appellant committed any  of  he
\nfour  murders  or the offence of robbery for  which  he\t was
\ntried  and  convicted,\tand the case  against  him  depended
\nentirely on circumstantial evidence, the trial court and the
\nHigh  Court committed an error of law in thinking  that\t the
\nevidence  was  sufficient to prove his guilt.\tThe  precise
\nargument which has been advanced in this connection is\tthat
\neven  though  it could be said that there  was\tsatisfactory
\nevidence to prove that the appellant committed theft of\t the
\nvarious articles including the transistor, the wrist  watch,
\nthe  gold “addhis” and the torch which were  recovered\tfrom
\nhis  house, that could not justify the conclusion  that\t the
\nmurders were also committed by him.  It has been urged\tthat
\nit  would not have been possible for any one person to\thave
\ncommitted as many as four murders single handed.
\nWe  find  that\tthe High Court has made\t a  mention  of\t the
\ncircumstantial\tevidence which led it to conclude  that\t the
\nmurders\t were  committed  by the  appellant,  including\t the
\nevidence bearing on his repeated visits to the house of\t the
\ndeceased,  his\tpromise to beget a child to  the  family  by
\nsorcery,  his  winning\ttheir confidence to  the  extent  of
\npursuading them to do whatever he liked, his ruse to get rid
\nof Smt.\t Lakhpatiya by sending her to her parents’ house  at
\nNarainpur after leaving
\n600<\/span>
\nher  husband and her ornaments behind on promise of  meeting
\nher  there  on January 21, 1975, Ms failure to\tfulful\tthat
\npromise,  the death of Smt.  Lakhpatiya’s  husband  Ramdayal
\nand his other wife Smt.\t Fulkunwar at the “nala”‘ where\t the
\nappellant  used\t to take them and Smt.\t Lakhpatiya  on\t the
\npretext\t of  practising\t sorcery, the  death  of  Ramdayal’s
\nmother Smt.  Bhagwanti and his nephew Rambakas in the  house
\nthe  same  night, the ransacking of the house and  the\tcom-
\nmission\t of theft of several articles of Ramdayal  including
\nthe transistor, the watch, the gold “addhis”, the torch\t and
\nornaments  etc,\t and the recovery of those  articles  either
\nfrom  the  louse of the appellant or at his  instance.\t His
\ncounsel have not been able to point out how it could be said
\nthat  any  part\t of this circumstantial\t evidence  has\tbeen
\nmisread\t or  that  any error of law has\t been  committed  in
\ntaking\tthe view that it was quite sufficient to  prove\t the
\nguilt  of the appellant.  As has been held by this Court  in
\nWasim  Khan  v. The State of Uttar  Pradesh,<\/a>(“)\t recent\t and
\nunexplained possession of stolen articles can well be  taken
\nto be presumptive evidence of the charge of murder as  well.
\nA  similar view has been taken in Alisher v. State of  Uttar
\nPradesh.<\/a> (2)
\nAs has been stated, the prosecution has succeeded in proving
\nbeyond any doubt that the commission of the murders and\t the
\nrobbery\t formed part of one transaction, and the recent\t and
\nunexplained  possession\t of  the  stolen  property  by\t the
\nappellant  justified the presumption that it was he, and  no
\none else, who had committed the murders and the robbery.  It
\nwill  be  recalled that the offences were committed  on\t the
\nnight  intervening January 20 and 21, 1975, and\t the  stolen
\nproperty was recovered from the house of the appellant or at
\nhis  instance on January 28, 1975.  The appellant was  given
\nan  opportunity to explain his possession, as well as  his
\nconduct\t in decoying Smt.  Lakhpatiya and the other  persons
\nwho  died  at  his hand, but he was unable to  do  so.\t The
\nquestion  whether  a  presumption  should  be  drawn   under
\nillustration  (a)  of section 114 of the Evidence Act  is  a
\nmatter\twhich depends on the evidence and the  circumstances
\nof  each case.\tThus the nature of the- stolen article,\t the
\nmanner\tof its acquisition by the owner, the nature  of\t the
\nevidence  about its identification, the manner in  which  it
\nwas  dealt  with  by  the  appellant,  the  place  and\t the
\ncircumstances of  its recovery, the length of  the  inter-
\nvening period, the ability or otherwise of the appellant  to
\nexplain\t his possession, are factors which have to be  taken
\ninto consideration in arriving at a decision.  We have\tmade
\na  mention of the facts and circumstances bearing  on  these
\npoints\t and  we  have\tno  doubt  that\t there\t was   ample
\njustification for reaching the inevitable conclusion that it
\nwas the appellant and no one else who had committed the four
\nmurders\t and the robbery.  In the face of  the\toverwhelming
\nevidence  on  which  reliance has been placed  by  the\tHigh
\nCourt, it is futile to argue that the murders could not have
\nbeen  committed\t by a single person.  As  has  been  stated,
\nthere  is satisfactory evidence on the record to  show\tthat
\nthe dead bodies of Ramdayal and Smt.  Fulkunwar
\n(1)  [1956] S.C.R. 191.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  [1974] 4 S.C.C. 254.\n<\/p>\n
601<\/span><\/p>\n
were  found at two different places near the “nala” so\tthat
\nit  cannot  be said that they were  murdered  together.\t  As
\nregards\t Smt.  Bhagwanti and Rambakas, the evidence  on\t the
\nrecord shows that they were murdered while they were  asleep
\nin  the\t house, and there is no reason why a  single  person
\ncould not have committed their murders also.
\nAs  there  is  no force in the\targuments  which  have\tbeen
\nadvanced before us, the appeals fail and are dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
S.R.\t\t\t\t\t\t     Appeals\ndismissed.\n602<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Baiju Alias Bharosa vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 January, 1978 Equivalent citations: 1978 AIR 522, 1978 SCR (2) 594 Author: P Shingal Bench: Shingal, P.N. PETITIONER: BAIJU ALIAS BHAROSA Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH DATE OF JUDGMENT19\/01\/1978 BENCH: SHINGAL, P.N. BENCH: SHINGAL, P.N. FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA CITATION: 1978 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-34230","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nBaiju Alias Bharosa vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 January, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baiju-alias-bharosa-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-19-january-1978\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Baiju Alias Bharosa vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 January, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baiju-alias-bharosa-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-19-january-1978\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1978-01-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-23T19:10:18+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baiju-alias-bharosa-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-19-january-1978#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baiju-alias-bharosa-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-19-january-1978\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Baiju Alias Bharosa vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 January, 1978\",\"datePublished\":\"1978-01-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-23T19:10:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baiju-alias-bharosa-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-19-january-1978\"},\"wordCount\":3601,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baiju-alias-bharosa-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-19-january-1978#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baiju-alias-bharosa-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-19-january-1978\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baiju-alias-bharosa-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-19-january-1978\",\"name\":\"Baiju Alias Bharosa vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 January, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1978-01-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-23T19:10:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baiju-alias-bharosa-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-19-january-1978#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baiju-alias-bharosa-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-19-january-1978\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baiju-alias-bharosa-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-19-january-1978#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Baiju Alias Bharosa vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 January, 1978\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Baiju Alias Bharosa vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 January, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baiju-alias-bharosa-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-19-january-1978","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Baiju Alias Bharosa vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 January, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baiju-alias-bharosa-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-19-january-1978","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1978-01-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-23T19:10:18+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baiju-alias-bharosa-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-19-january-1978#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baiju-alias-bharosa-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-19-january-1978"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Baiju Alias Bharosa vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 January, 1978","datePublished":"1978-01-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-23T19:10:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baiju-alias-bharosa-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-19-january-1978"},"wordCount":3601,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baiju-alias-bharosa-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-19-january-1978#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baiju-alias-bharosa-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-19-january-1978","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baiju-alias-bharosa-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-19-january-1978","name":"Baiju Alias Bharosa vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 January, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1978-01-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-23T19:10:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baiju-alias-bharosa-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-19-january-1978#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baiju-alias-bharosa-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-19-january-1978"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baiju-alias-bharosa-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-19-january-1978#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Baiju Alias Bharosa vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 January, 1978"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34230","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=34230"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34230\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=34230"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=34230"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=34230"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}