Bombay High Court
Prakash Trinath Jalwar (In Jail) vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. P.S. ... on 4 February, 2025
Author: N.B. Suryawanshi
Bench: N.B. Suryawanshi
2025:BHC-NAG:1096-DB
1 apeal102.19.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.102 OF 2019
Prakash Trinath Jalwar
(Accused No.1)
Aged about 31 years, Occ: Labourer,
Presently at Central Prison, Nagpur
(Convict No.C-10066) ...APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Gadchandur, Tahsil Korpana,
District Chandrapur. ...RESPONDENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A.M. Balbande, Advocate (appointed) for appellant.
Shri S.S. Doifode, APP for respondent/State.
Shri P.A. Abhyankar, Advocate assisting the prosecution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM :- N.B. SURYAWANSHI & M.W. CHANDWANI, JJ.
ARGUMENTS WERE HEARD ON :- 09.01.2025.
JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCED ON :- 04.02.2025.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : M.W. CHANDWANI, J.):
. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order
of conviction dated 10.05.2018 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Session Case No.98/2016 thereby
convicting the appellant (accused no.1) for the offence punishable
under Sections 302, 460 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for
short, "IPC") and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment
for life and a fine of Rs.5,000/-, rigorous imprisonment for three
2 apeal102.19.odt
years and a fine of Rs.2,000/- and rigorous imprisonment for one
year and a fine of Rs.1,000/- respectively with a default clause.
The case of the prosecution can be summarized in a
narrow compass as under:
2. On 01.09.2015, Sachin Jungari (PW1) received
information on the phone that his father-in-law/Dr. Jogi and
mother-in-law/Mrs. Sudha Jogi are no more and therefore, he
alongwith his wife Smita (PW14) and other relatives came to village
Nanda. When they entered into the house of Dr. Jogi, they found
that Dr. Jogi and Mrs. Jogi were lying in the pool of blood and they
were murdered by some unknown person. Articles in the house
were scattered. On search, Sachin (PW1) and Smita (PW14) found
that one LED TV, DVD player, one set-top box, gold and silver
ornaments, cash amount, coins, mobile phones and others articles
were missing. On the complaint lodged by Sachin (PW1), offences
under Section 302 and 460 came to be registered against unknown
persons and police machinery was set into motion. The
incriminating articles were seized from the spot. The investigating
officer referred the dead bodies for post-mortem and prepared spot
panchanama, inquest panchanama and questionnaire for the
Medical Officer. Thereafter, clothes of the deceased were also seized.
3 apeal102.19.odt
3. After about nine months, the appellant alongwith other
accused came to be arrested in this crime. At the instance of the
appellant, the police seized weapons of the offence i.e. iron rod,
stolen articles - gold and silver ornaments and other articles such as
mobile phones, SIM Cards and set-top box from various places.
After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet came to be
filed against the appellant and one other co-accused. The appellant
and the co-accused were put on trial. The appellant and the co-
accused pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them. The
prosecution in all examined 22 witnesses. The statements of the
appellant and the co-accused were recorded under Section 313 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "CrPC"). After hearing,
trial Court convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences
whereas, the co-accused was acquitted from all charges. Feeling
aggrieved with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence
imposed by the learned trial Court, the present appeal came to be
filed.
4. At the outset, we must mention here that in the present
case there is no eyewitness to the incident. The prosecution relied
on various circumstances. The trial Court on the basis of
incriminating circumstances brought on record by the prosecution,
held the appellant guilty for the offence of murder and house
4 apeal102.19.odt
trespass and accordingly, convicted him for the offences punishable
under Sections 302, 460 and 201 of the IPC.
5. Before proceeding further, we must deal with the law
on circumstantial evidence. It is well settled that when the case is
based on circumstantial evidence, all the circumstances relied upon
by the prosecution should be conclusive in nature and must be
clearly established. The proved circumstances, if put together shall
form a complete chain so as to point only towards the guilt of the
accused by excluding the possibility of innocence of the accused and
should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the
accused. Keeping this principal in mind, we now proceed to
examine whether the circumstances brought on record by the
prosecution and considered by the trial Court are sufficient to prove
the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
6. The prosecution, first in turn has examined Sachin
(PW1), the son-in-law of deceased Dr. Jogi and Mrs. Jogi. It has
come in his evidence that after receipt of the information about the
death of his father-in-law and mother-in-law, he alongwith his wife
(PW14) went to the house of Dr. Jogi and found the dead bodies of
Dr. Jogi and Mrs. Jogi. It has also been noticed by this witness that
both the dead bodies had injuries and blood was scattered on the
5 apeal102.19.odt
entire floor. They found that one LED TV, one DVD Player, one set-
top box, ornaments and mobile phones were missing. The lock of
the cupboard was broken and all the material was scattered; even
the cash amount and a plastic jar containing coins was missing.
Therefore, he went to Gadchandur Police Station and lodged a
complaint (Exh.58) whereupon the FIR came to be registered
(Exh.59). His evidence is also supported by Smita (PW14), the
daughter of deceased Dr. Jogi and Mrs. Jogi who had accompanied
him and discovered the aforesaid scene in their house.
7. Anil Musale (PW8), who was serving as Headmaster in
Prabhu Ramchandra Vidyala,Nanda, a panch witness to the spot
panchanama (Exh.91) has identified the spot panchanama (Exh.91)
which speaks about the situation in the house of deceased Dr. Jogi
which has been deposed by Sachin (PW1) and Smita (PW14). The
spot panchanama reveals that dead bodies of the deceased persons
were having bleeding injuries and articles were lying in a scattered
condition in the house coupled with the fact that the lock of the
cupboard was broken.
8. From the above said material available on record what
can be deduced is that, somebody with an intention to rob, entered
into the house of Dr. Jogi and while committing robbery he/they
6 apeal102.19.odt
committed the murder of Dr. Jogi and Mrs. Jogi. Robbery and
murder in the present case are the outcome of the same transaction.
We do not find any force in the argument of the learned counsel for
the appellant that, since he was involved in the business of property
dealing, somebody with an intention to take revenge might have
committed the above referred crime. The circumstances on record
indicate that the deceased persons were robbed at their home and
have been murdered by the same person who robbed the articles
from the he house of the deceased persons.
9. To prove the recovery of ornaments at the instance of
the appellant, the prosecution has examined Vijay Wasade (PW5) a
panch to the memorandum panchanama (Exh.75) and recovery of
ornaments under panchanama (Exh.76).
10. Vijay (PW5) has deposed that he went to Gadchandur
Police Station where another panch witness Vitthal Gonde was
present. It appears from the tenor of this witness that the appellant
had informed the police in their presence that he had concealed
some gold and silver ornaments and he is ready to handover the
same. Accordingly, police prepared a memorandum panchanama
(Exh.75) which is signed not only by this witness but also the other
witnesses and the investigating officer. Further, it is also the version
7 apeal102.19.odt
of this witness that the appellant took them to his house. In the
courtyard of the said house, there was one cement block near a
papaya tree. The appellant broke the said cement block down
wherefrom, gold rings, bangles, patlies, some silver coins and other
silver and gold ornaments were recovered. These articles were taken
to the goldsmith who weighed the said ornaments under
panchanama (Exh.76).
11. The version of Vijay Wasade (PW5) is corroborated by
investigating officer-Sudhir Khiradkar (PW18) who deposed on the
same line as that of PW5. This witness testified that pursuant to the
memorandum panchanama (Exh.75), the appellant took them to his
house and showed one cement block. The appellant asked them to
remove the said cement block and told them that the ornaments of
the present crime are concealed under the said block. Accordingly,
the ornaments made of yellow metal and white metal were seized.
12. The versions of Vijay (PW5) and Investigating Officer
(PW18) are further corroborated by the memorandum panchanamas
(Exh.75 & Exh.76). Santoshkumar Chhajed (PW6) valued the
articles (ornaments) seized at the instance of the appellant and
found that some of the articles were made of gold and silver.
8 apeal102.19.odt
13. Needless to mention that Section 27 of the Indian
Evidence Act is an exception to the general rule wherein, when any
fact is discovered in consequence of information received from a
person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so
much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or
not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be
proved. Such a discovery is a guarantee that the information
supplied by the accused is true.
14. A reference can be made to the decision of the Supreme
Court in the case of Asar Mohammad and others V. State of Uttar
Pradesh 1 in Para 21 as under:
"21.It is a settled legal position that the facts need not be
self-probatory and the word "fact" as contemplated in
Section 27 of the Evidence Act is not limited to "actual
physical material object". The discovery of fact arises by
reason of the fact that the information given by the Accused
exhibited the knowledge or the mental awareness of the
informant as to its existence at a particular place. It includes
a discovery of an object, the place from which it is produced
and the knowledge of the Accused as to its existence......."
15. Therefore, the above said versions of PW5, PW6 and
PW18 coupled with the production of those articles in Court
establish the recovery of those articles on the information given by
1 (2019) 12 SCC 253
9 apeal102.19.odt
the appellant which would be admissible under Section 27 of the
Indian Evidence Act.
16. This takes us to the version of Smita (PW14), the
daughter of the deceased couple who was called by Umesh Gedam
(PW7) Executive Magistrate at the request of police. It appears from
the versions of these two witnesses that the identification process
was conducted by Umesh Gedam (PW7), wherein Smita (PW14)
identified the Mangalsutra, gold tops and birya gold from the
ornaments seized at the instance of the appellant, as ornaments
which belonged to her mother.
17. It is submitted on behalf of the learned counsel for the
appellant that in the first information report lodged by Sachin
(PW1) there is a mention of a mangalsutra of 40 grams and gold
tops of 5 grams but the mangalsutra and the gold tops recovered in
the crime are not 40 grams and 5 grams respectively. Therefore, it
cannot be said that the appellant was found in possession of the
ornaments belonging to the deceased Sudha Jogi. It is matter of a
record that a big tragedy happened at the house of the Jogi couple.
The relatives were themselves shocked by the incident of double
murder, it cannot be excepted from them to search missing articles
especially when the dead bodies of the couple were lying in front of
10 apeal102.19.odt
those relatives in the house. In that scenario, it is not expected from
a person to give a list of all missing or stolen articles from the house
or to give the exact weight of the ornaments. The version of Smita
(PW14) goes to show that she was able to identify the gold
ornaments managalsutra, gold tops and birya. Therefore, the
prosecution was successfully able to prove the ownership of the
ornaments of deceased Sudha, recovered at the instance of the
appellant.
18. Let's consider the next circumstance; recovery of a set-
top box of TataSky company connected to the house of the deceased
couple at the instance of the appellant in the presence of
Govindprasad Gupta (PW2), other panchas and the investigating
officer. Govindprasad Gupta (PW2), Assistant Teacher has deposed
that on 19.03.2016, the appellant was present in the police station
and he confessed that, an LED TV and a set-top box have been
concealed by him and showed his readiness to handover the same.
The memorandum panchamana (Exh.62) came to be prepared and
thereafter, the appellant took them near a Nalla. The appellant
entered the said Nalla and took out one set-top box of TataSky
Company which was seized under recovery panchanama (Exh.63)
and then police took six photographs. This witness has identified the
said set-top box produced by the prosecution in Court as Article-1.
11 apeal102.19.odt
Inspite of searching cross-examination, nothing has been brought on
record by the appellant to disbelieve the testimony of this
independent witness, who is an assistant teacher. His version is also
corroborated by the Investigating Officer (PW18) as well as
memorandum panchanama (Exh.62) and recovery panchanama
(Exh.63) coupled with identification of the set-top box (Article-1)
before the Court. Perusal of the recovery panchanama (Exh.63)
reveals that the said TataSky set-top box contained a white coloured
card bearing No.000114492705. It is also brought on record that the
said set-top box was registered in the name of Sachin (PW1), the
son-in-law of the deceased couple. Thus, prosecution has also
established the recovery of set-top box of TataSky company at the
instance of the appellant which was missing from the house of the
deceased couple.
19. The prosecution has also relied on the recovery of an
iron rod at the instance of the appellant, which has been proved
through PW3, who has deposed that the appellant told the police
that he has concealed an iron rod in the Nalla nearby his house and
showed his readiness to handover the same. His evidence is
corroborated not only by the Investigating Officer (PW18) but also
by Ramdas Jiwane (PW11), who supplied the JCB machine. Ramdas
Jiwane has deposed that one constable namely Sampat requested
12 apeal102.19.odt
him to provide his JCB machine to lift some mud from the stream
near Prabhu Ramchandra Vidayala of Nanda. He provided his JCB
alongwith his driver Chakradhar Mankar (PW12). PW12 deposed
that after digging for one and a half hours they found one iron rod
in the lifted material. Police asked him to leave the place alongwith
his JCB. Chakradhar Mankar (PW12) has specifically deposed that
the JCB was used for searching the iron rod from the Nalla at the
instance of the appellant and the iron rod is seized under seizure
panchanama (Exh.67).
20. The most crucial circumstance on which the
prosecution has heavily relied on is the recovery of the Micromax
phone being used by Mrs.Sudha Jogi which was missing from the
house of the deceased couple since the date of incident. To prove
the recovery of the Micromax phone bearing IMEI
No.911368008699620, the prosecution relied on the version of
Kapil Borde (PW3), who was working in ZP School, Dara who has
deposed that he was called by the police in May 2016. He,
alongwith one Rathod went to Gadchandur Police Station where the
appellant was present. In their presence, the appellant told that he
has committed theft of one white mobile from the house of Dr. Jogi
and showed his readiness to handover the same. The police noted
the confession accordingly under the memorandum panchanama
13 apeal102.19.odt
(Exh.65); thereafter, the appellant took them to his house and dug
some earth on the side of his house and retrieved one white
coloured mobile phone from beneath the earth which was seized
under panchanama (Exh.66).
21. The prosecution has also come up with a case that a
white coloured Micromax mobile phone having IMEI
No.911368008699620 owned by Dr. Jogi and was being used by
Mrs. Jogi before the said incident. Vyankana Ramdeni (PW21), the
owner of a grocery and mobile shop and his son Sunil Ramdeni
(PW22) have been examined by the prosecution to prove the
ownership of the mobile phone bearing IMEI No.911368008699620.
Both of them have deposed that Samsung and Micromax mobile
phones were sold to Dr. Jogi. The bill of the Micromax mobile phone
has been placed on record at Exh.170 which carries a sticker of IMEI
No.911368008699620. Not only this, the mobile phone has been
identified by both these witnesses (PW21 & PW22) as well as Smita
(PW14), the daughter of the deceased couple.
22. According to prosecution, after the incident Micromax
mobile phone belonging to Mrs. Jogi was used by the appellant. For
that purpose the prosecution has relied upon the version of Sachin
Shinde (PW19), who supplied the CDR and SDR of the said
14 apeal102.19.odt
Micromax mobile phone having IMEI No.911368008699620 and
mobile No.9146273500. Accordingly, he produced the CDR
(Exh.154). Perusal of the CDR (Exh.154) reveals that from
02.04.2016 to 04.05.2016 the mobile No.9146273500 was being
used in the mobile having IMEI No.911368008699620. It has also
been brought on the record from the version of this witness that the
SIM card having mobile No.9146273500 has been purchased in the
name of the appellant vide application (Exh.157) and with
residence proof of the appellant (Exh.158). Nothing has been
brought on record in the cross-examination of this witness.
23. The version of this witness demonstrates that a mobile
phone bearing IMEI No.911368008699620 was being used by the
SIM card holder of 9146273500. Thus, it is proved that the mobile
phone bearing IMEI No.911368008699620 was being used by the
appellant after the incident from 02.04.2016 onwards. That apart,
their versions are also supported by Mahadeo Pendor (PW10), a
peer of the appellant working with him at Shetty Brothers
Contractors he has deposed that the appellant was using the
Micromax mobile phone (Article AB-4). Thus, it has been
conclusively proved that the appellant was found in possession of
the Mircomax mobile phone owned by Dr. Jogi and used by Mrs.
15 apeal102.19.odt
Jogi, which was missing from the house of the deceased couple from
the day of incident.
24. Possession of ornaments of deceased Sudha Jogi, the
TataSky set-top box which was missing from the house of the
deceased couple and the weapon i.e. iron rod are recovered at the
instance of the appellant so also, the possession of Micromax mobile
bearing IMEI No.911368008699620 which belongs to deceased
Sudha Jogi, in the custody of appellant and the fact that the said
Micromax mobile phone was being used by the appellant after the
incident is self-speaking. It was for the appellant to explain as to
how he got the possession of the gold and silver ornaments as well
as the set-top box and the iron rod but he failed to offer any
explanation of the special knowledge of possessing those articles
which belonged to the deceased couple. The appellant took a
defence of total denial and has filed to offer no explanation about
incriminating circumstances put to him at the time of recording his
statement under Section 313 of the CrPC. Appellant in his statement
under Section 313 of the CrPC did not offer any explanation about
recovery of these articles belonging to deceased Sudha and the
murder weapon. "The mere denial of prosecution case coupled with
absence of any explanation was held to be inconsistent with the
innocence with the accused, but consistent with the hypothesis that
16 apeal102.19.odt
the appellant is a prime accused in the commission of murder of his
wife." (vide Ganeshlal Vs. State of Maharashtra 2). Therefore, he did
not discharge the burden under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence
Act. As per the presumption under Section 114 illustration (a) of the
Indian Evidence Act, it can be inferred that it is the accused who has
stolen those articles from the house of deceased Jogi couple.
In R. Sreenivasa Vs. State of Karnataka 3 the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held in para 23, which reads thus:
"23. It is not necessary to multiply with authorities. The
principle is well settled. The provisions of Section 106 of the
Evidence Act itself are unambiguous and categoric in laying
down that when any fact is especially within the knowledge
of a person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
Thus, if a person is last seen with the deceased, he must
offer an explanation as to how and when he parted
company. He must furnish an explanation which appears to
the court to be probable and satisfactory. If he does so he
must be held to have discharged his burden. If he fails to
offer an explanation on the basis of facts within his special
knowledge, he fails to discharge the burden cast upon him
by Section 106 of the Evidence Act. In a case resting on
circumstantial evidence if the accused fails to offer a
reasonable explanation in discharge of the burden placed on
him, that itself provides an additional link in the chain of
circumstances proved against him. Section 106 does not
shift the burden of proof in a criminal trial, which is always
upon the prosecution. It lays down the rule that when the
accused does not throw any light upon facts which are
specially within his knowledge and which could not support
any theory or hypothesis compatible with his innocence, the
2 (1992) 3 SCC 106
3 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1132
17 apeal102.19.odt
court can consider his failure to adduce any explanation, as
an additional link which completes the chain........"
Non-offering of plausible explanation by the appellant
provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved
against him. Appellant has not thrown any light upon the facts
which were specially within his knowledge and which could not
support any theory or hypothesis compatible with his innocence.
Therefore, his failure to give any explanation is required to be
treated as an additional link to sustain his conviction. Due to his
failure to offer any explanation, an adverse inference needs to be
drawn against him that he has stolen the articles from the house of
deceased Jogi couple.
25. All the aforesaid circumstances discussed above clearly
show that all of them are conclusive in nature and clearly establish
that no other person except the appellant can be held responsible
for the aforesaid crime. The aforesaid chain of circumstances is
reliable, trustworthy and pin points conclusively towards the guilt of
the appellant. In other words, if all those circumstances are clubbed
together at once, the only inference that can be drawn is that it is
only the appellant who has committed the murder of the deceased
couple and thereafter, has stolen all the valuable articles from their
house in the intervening night of 31.08.2015 and 01.09.2015.
18 apeal102.19.odt
26. The murder and robbery in these circumstances are
proved to have been an integral part of the same transaction.
Therefore, the appellant not only robbed the deceased couple but
also murdered them while committing the robbery. This is for the
simple reason that the circumstances appearing in the record and
the condition of the house where the crime occurred on the day of
incident clearly demonstrates that the robbery and murder are an
integral part of the same transaction. This is also fortified by the
evidence of the Doctor (PW4) who has deposed that the deceased
couple had the following injuries:
Injuries found on the person of Dr. Devrao Pandurang Jogi -
"i)abrasion on right nostril, size 1 inch x 1 inch.
ii) horizontal lacerated wound on mid posterior parietal
bone of size 3 inch x 1 inch x bony cavity deep. I have
mentioned both injuries in column No.17.
iii)commuted fracture of mid posterior parietal bone of size
4 inch x 4 inch palpable. Aforesaid injury is corresponding
injury to injury No.2 in column No.17. I have mentioned this
injury in column No.18.
iv) a sub-dural haematoma of size 6 inch x 6 inch present in
posterior parietal region.
v) commuted fracture of mid posterior parietal bone of size
4 inch x 4 inch palpable. Aforesaid injury is corresponding
injury to injury No.2 of column No.17. I have mentioned
this injury in column No.19."
As per post-mortem report (Exh.69), the cause of death of Dr.
Devrao Jogi mentioned is "death on account of head injury".
19 apeal102.19.odt
Injuries found on the person of Sudha Devrao Jogi -
"i) lacerated wound on mid forehead of size 2 inch x ¼ inch
x bony deep. I have mentioned both injuries in column
No.17.
ii) lacerated cut wound to upper lip of left side ½ inch deep.
iii) contusion on both upper and lower lip with cyanosis and
laceration on inner aspect of both lips with bleeding seen.
iv) contusion on nose size 1 inch x 2 inch.
v) upper three incised teeth on left side rooted out.
vi) upper three teeth on right side loosen with palpable
fracture to jaw.
vii) lacerated wound to right upper eye lid size ½ inch x ¼
inch. All those injures mentioned in column No.17.
viii) nasal bone have palpable commuted fracture. I have
mentioned this injury in column No.18.
ix) petechial haemorrhages seen on brain substance. I have
mentioned this injury in column No.19."
As per post-mortem report (Exh.70), the cause of death of
Sudha Jogi mentioned is "asphyxia due to smothering'".
Dr. Kalosadkar (PW4) also proved the query report (Exh.71)
for an iron rod forwarded by the investigating agency. After
examining the weapon i.e. iron rod he opined that injuries
mentioned in para 17 of post-mortem report of Dr. Devrao Jogi can
be caused by aforesaid iron rod. According to him, injuries
mentioned in post-mortem report (Exh.70) of Sudha Jogi cannot be
caused by the said iron rod. It is thus clear that injuries of Dr.
Devrao Jogi were caused by the iron rod recovered at the instance of
the appellant.
20 apeal102.19.odt
27. Though cause of death of deceased Sudha Jogi is
asphyxia due to smothering but the fact remains that she died an
unnatural death and there were injuries on her person. Therefore,
just because of the iron rod was not used while assaulting deceased
Sudha Jogi the same would not be of help to the appellant as
robbery and murder are integral part of the same transaction.
28. In Gulab Chand vs State Of Madhya Pradesh 4 the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "...in Earabhadrappa alias
Krishnappa Vs. State of Karnataka [1983] 2 SCC 330 this Court has
held that the nature of presumption under Illustration (a) to Section
114, must depend upon the nature of the evidence adduced. No
fixed time limit can be laid down to determine whether possession is
recent or otherwise and each case must be judged on its own facts.
The question as to what amounts to recent possession sufficient to
justify the presumption of guilt varies according as the stolen article
is or is not calculated to pass readily from hand to hand. If the
stolen articles were such as were not likely to pass readily from
hand to hand, the period of one year that elapsed cannot he said to
be too long particularly when the Appellant had been absconding
during that period. In our view, it has been rightly held by the High
Court that the accused was not affluent enough to possess the said
4 (1995) 3 SCC 574
21 apeal102.19.odt
ornaments and from the nature of the evidence adduced in this case
and from the recovery of the said articles from his possession and
his dealing with the ornaments of the deceased immediately after
the murder and robbery a reasonable inference of the commission of
the said offence can be drawn against the appellant....., no plausible
explanation for lawful possession of the said ornaments immediately
after the murder has been given by the accused. In the facts of this
case, it appears to us that murder and robbery have been proved to
have been integral parts of the same transaction and therefore the
presumption arising under illustration (a) of Section 114 of the
Evidence Act is that not only the appellant committed the murder of
the deceased but also committed robbery of her ornaments." These
observations are applicable to the facts of the present case to sustain
the conviction.
29. In view of foregoing discussion, we do not find any
infirmity in the impugned judgment. The learned trial Court has
rightly appreciated the evidence on record in proper perspective and
rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences. Therefore,
the appeal fails and is dismissed.
(M.W. CHANDWANI, J) (N.B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)
Wagh
