Madhya Pradesh High Court
Banti @ Bharat Jat @ Bhura vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 May, 2024
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla, Hirdesh
--1--
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1107 of 2012
BETWEEN:-
BANTI @ BHARAT JAT @ BHURA S/O RAMPRASAD JAT, AGED ABOUT 25
YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR, R/O 600, GOTU MAHARAJ KI CHAL,
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI NILESH MANORE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH GOVT. THRU. P.S. TUKOGANJ,
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(SHRI SUDHANSHU VYAS, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENT/STATE)
RESERVED ON : 16.05.2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 29.05.2024
This appeal having been heard and reserved for orders, coming on
for pronouncement this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice Hirdesh pronounced the
following:
JUDGMENT
This criminal appeal has been filed preferred by the appellant being
aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.08.2012 passed by passed by Special
Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Indore in Special Session Trial
--2--
No.64/2010 whereby the trial court has convicted the appellant of offence
punishable under Section 376 (2)(F) of IPC and sentenced him to undergo 10
years' R.I. with fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, three
months' additional imprisonment.
2. According to prosecution story, on 07.06.2010 at 11.30 a.m. blooded
dead-body of victim aged 5 years daughter of Laaduram Bhilala was found
from railway campus of Cabin "C" under the Rajkumar Bridge, Indore. Then
it was informed by PW-3 Mukesh Aacharya, Superintendent, Railway Station
vide Ex.P-1 to GRP Police Station, Indore, which was registered as Merg
intimation No.15/2010 at police station -Tukoganj, Indore. Sub-inspector
Irfaan Saiyad PW-17 enquired the Merg by reaching at spot and prepared spot
map Ex.P-25 and scientific officer also prepared spot map Ex.P-12. PW-1
Sub-inspector Irfaan Saiyad seized plain soil and blooded soil from the spot
and prepared seizure memo Ex.P-1 and prepared dead-body Panchayatnama
Ex.P-23 in presence of witnesses and then after prepared application form
Ex.P-9 and sent dead-body for postmortem. In postmortem report, Dr.
Prashant Rajput PW-8 found that the death is caused by injuries on the head
and also gave information that before the death of deceased the victim was
raped.
3. Police registered F.I.R. and during investigation police found that the
accused took victim with him by alluring her or bringing biscuits and raped
and assaulted her by stone causing death of the victim. Police arrested the
accused and prepared memorandum under Section 27 of Evidence Act Ex.P-4
and seized skirt of the deceased and clothes worn by the accused and prepared
seizure memo Ex.P-5 and Ex.P-6. Accused/appellant was sent to hospital for
medical examination. Doctor gave report that he was competent to do
intercourse. During investigation, police seized his underwear, his pubic hair
and prepared urethral slide and sealed it. Police prepared identification form
--3--
of the accused for DNA report and sent it for FSL report vide Ex.P-20. During
investigation, police took statements of witnesses and after completing due
investigation filed charge-sheet before the magistrate court. After committal,
this case was sent to Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for
trial.
4. Appellant abjured his guilt and sought trial. In turn, prosecution in
order to prove its case examined 17 witnesses. After completion of
prosecution witnesses, the appellant was examined under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C. Appellant took defence that he has not committed the offence he was
falsely implicated in the offence. He did not examine any witness in his
defence. After concluding the trial, the trial court held the appellant guilty for
the offence and sentenced him as mentioned above.
5. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, appellant has filed this
appeal and submitted that trial court has committed grave error in not
considering the fact that case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial
evidence and it is settled law that without establishment of chain of
circumstances, appellant cannot be convicted.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that chain of circumstances
has not been established by the prosecution and conviction is based on last
seen theory. In this regard, prosecution witnesses PW-5 Ravi and PW-2
Sukhdev were examined by the prosecution but there are so many
contradictions and omissions in the statements of PW-2 and PW-5 and trial
court has committed error in relying the evidence of these two witnesses. He
further submits that prosecution has not been able to prove the memorandum
Ex.P-4 and seizure memo Ex.P-5 and Ex.P-6. These seizures and
memorandum were doubtful. He further submits that FSL report and DNA
report are weak type of evidence and prosecution has failed to prove that
--4--
blood found on the clothes of the appellant was matching with the blood of
the deceased. He further submits that the evidence of investigating officer is
doubtful which is not corroborated by other evidence. So judgment of the trial
court is erroneous and is liable to be set aside.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the State supported the judgment passed
by the trial court and submitted that prosecution has proved that appellant and
deceased were seen together just before the death of deceased and prosecution
has established seizure of clothes and stones from appellant and the DNA
report as well as FSL report are against the appellant.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
records.
9. The first question arises before this Court whether the death of the
deceased was homicidal in nature or not.
10. PW-17 Sub-inspector Irfaan Saiyad has stated in his examination in
chief that on 07.06.2010 he reached on the spot for enquiry of the Merg
No.15/10 and he prepared dead-body Panchayatnama of the deceased/victim
Ex.P-23. He found injuries on the head of the deceased and blood was oozing
from whole of face of the deceased and injury was found on the back-side of
the head in front of forehead and left eye. He prepared application for
postmortem Ex.P-9 sent for postmortem. PW-8 Dr. Prashant Rajput stated in
his examination-in-chief that he was posted as medical officer in MY
Hospital, Indore on 07.06.2010. He conducted postmortem of the body of the
deceased with Dr. Seema. They found the following injuries on the body of
the deceased.
"ckg; pksV%sa &
1- eYVhiy ,cjs'ku psgjs ds cka, cktw ysV ªyh 12 xq.kk 6 ls-eh-
oVhZdyh ekStwn FksA tks fd bEisDV ,cjs'ku FksA
--5--
2- yslsjsVM
s oq.M 3-5 xq.kk 1 ls-eh- Vªkl
a clZ flj ds mijh Hkkx ijA
3- ,cjs'ku 3 xq.kk 1 ls-eh- Vªkl
a olZ LVZue ds mijh Hkkx ijA
4- eYVhiy ,cjs'ku nka, vkeZ ds e/;Hkkx ij ,UVhfj;jyh 5 xq.kk 2
ls-eh- oVhZdyA
5- eYVhiy ,cjs'ku cka, vkeZ ds uhpys Hkkx ij ,UVhfj;jyh 7 xq.kk
2-5 ls-eh- oVhZdyhA
6- yslsjsVM
s oq.M 2 xq.kk 1 ls-eh- flj ds e/; Hkkx ij lstk,Vyh
bjsX;qyj lqijfQf'k;y FkhA
7- yslsjsVM
s oq.M flj ds cka, cktw e/; Hkkx 5 xq.kk 1-5 ls-eh-
lstk,Vyh bjsX;wyj lqijfQf'k;y FkhA
8- yslsjVs M oq.M & v& flj ds e/;Hkkx ij cka, vksj 3-5 ls-eh- xq.kk
1 ls-eh- vkcfyd lstk,VyhA c& vxyh pksV tks fd nka, cktw feMykbZu
ls tks fd pksV v ls 2 ls-eh- vkxs dh rjQ gS] 3 xq.kk 1-5 ls-eh-] pksV v ,oa
c fiNys Hkkx ls feyh gksdj ^^oh^^ 'ksi cuk jgh FkhA
9- lqijfQf'k;y ysljs sVM
s oq.M pksV Ø- 8 ds fiNys Hkkx ij gS] tks
fd 2 xq.kk 0-4 ls-eh- gSA
10- lqijfQf'k;y yslsjVs sM oq.M tks fd nka, isjk;Vy ,ehusUl ij
gksdj ftldk vkdkj 10 xq.kk 1-8 ls-eh- lstk+ ,Vyh ftldk Mk;ehVj 2 ls-eh-
gksdj dkWUosDl flVh ckgj cktw gSA
11- lqijfQf'k;y yslsjVs sM oq.M tks fd nka, isjk;Vy ,ehusUl ij
gksdj lstk,Vyh gS o 2-3 ls-eh- xq.kk 1 ls-eh- ekStnw gSA
12- bEisDV ,cjs'ku pksV Ø-11 ds mij gksdj lstk,Vyh ekStnw gS] tks
fd 2 xq.kk 1 ls-eh- bjsX;qyjA
13- ,cjs'ku 1 xq.kk 0-6 ls-eh- lstk,Vyh cka, isjk;Vy ,ehusUl ij
ekStwn gSA
14- lqijfQf'k;y yslsjVs sM oq.M nka, vaxwBs ds van:uh Hkkx ij ekStnw
gS] tks fd 1-5 ls-eh- Mk;ehVj esa gSA
--6--
15- LdYi [kksyus ij bdk;eksfll lHkh pksVa ksa ds uhps ekSt
a wn FksA
fMizsl QzDs pj cka, VsEisjksisjkVy fjtu ij ekStwn FkkA 4 xq.kk 2 ls-eh- o bl
QzsDpj ls nwljk QzsDpj fudy jgk Fkk] tks fd mij dh rjQ tk jgk Fkk]
lstk,VyhA tks fd dksjksuy lwpj ds rjQ tk jgk Fkk o yackbZ 5 ls-eh- FkhA
LdYi [kksyus ij f>Yyh lkekU; ik;h xbZA lcM~;wjy gsejst iwjs efLr"d ij
ekStwn gksdj T;knk nka, vkSj ekStnw Fkk o isjk;VksvkWDlhiVy fjtu ij ekStwn
FkkA lcvkdZukbZM gsejst isjk;VksyvkWDlhiVy fjtu ij ekSTwkn FkkA gsejst
e/; o fiNys Øsfu;yQkslk ij ekStwn FkkA
16- tuukax tkap djus ij & ckgjh ijh{k.k ij cka, ysfc;kek;uksjk
ij ,d lqijfQf'k;y ysljs s'ku tks fd dUV~h;wtu ds lkFk ekStwn Fkk 1 xq.kk
0-3 ls-eh-A gk;ehu lkekU; ik;h xbZA"
11. He further stated in their evidence that death was due to shock and
hemorrhage which is result of head injuries. Head injuries were caused to her
by blunt object. The death is homicidal in nature. Injury was sufficient to
cause death in ordinary course of nature. He further submits that evidence
present is in respect of sexual assault of the victim. The duration of death is
within 24 hours in the postmortem report. Viscera was preserved for chemical
analysis. Clothes and vaginal seal and slide were prepared and handed over to
the constable for further investigation.
12. Hence, considering the evidence of PW-17 Sub-inspector Irfaan Saiyad
and PW-8 Dr. Prashant Rajput, it is proved that there are 15 antemortem
injuries present on the body of the deceased and she died of those injuries.
There is no substantial cross-examination has been done by the defence in
this regard to the PW-8. So considering the evidence of PW-17 and PW-8, it
is proved that death of the deceased was homicidal in nature.
13. After perusal of the evidence produced by the prosecution it is found
that there is no direct evidence of the incident so it is crystal clear that this
case is based on circumstantial evidence. The Apex Court has held that when
--7--
the case is based on circumstantial evidence, the Panchsheel principles laid
down in AIR 1984 SC 1622 (Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda Vs. State of
Maharashtra) must be fulfilled:-
(i) 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.
(ii). 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,
(iii) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and
tendency.
(iv) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the
one to be proved, and
(v) 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.
14. The first agreement rendered by the learned counsel for the appellant is
that trial court has committed error in holding that the deceased and appellant
were present and seen together before the death of the deceased. He further
submitted that conviction is based on last seen theory but in this regard
prosecution examined PW-5 and PW-2. On perusal of their evidence, it is
found that there are so many contradictions and omissions in evidence of PW-
2 and PW-5 so evidence of these witnesses are not reliable. He further
submits that PW-5 stated one thing in cross in his evidence and another thing
in police statement Ex.D-3.
--8--
15. In this regard, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Taqdir
Samsuddin Sheikh Vs. State of Gujrat and another, 2012 (1) MPLJ
(Cri.)= 2011(10) SCC 158 has held as under:-
"9. We are of the view that all
omissions/contradictions pointed out by the appellants'
counsel had been trivial in nature, which do not go to the
root of the cause. It is settled legal proposition that while
appreciating the evidence, the court has to take into
consideration whether the contradictions/ omissions/
improvements/ embellishments etc. had been of such
magnitude that they may materially affect the trial. Minor
contradictions, inconsistencies, omissions or improvements
on trivial matters without affecting the case of the
prosecution should not be made the court to reject the
evidence in its entirety. The court after going through the
entire evidence must form an opinion about the credibility
of the witnesses and the appellate court in natural course
would not be justified in reviewing the same again without
justifiable reasons. (Vide: Sunil 8 Kumar Sambhudayal
Gupta (Dr.) & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 13
SCC 657)."
16. In the present case, PW-2 Sukhdev, who is witness of last seen stated in
his examination-in-chief that he know well the appellant. When he went to
Rajkumar bridge, he saw that appellant was sitting keeping the victim in his
lap and was feeding her biscuits and then after he came back. He firmly stated
in his cross-examination in para 13 that he saw the accused with victim in the
morning at 08 a.m. PW-5 who is witness of last seen just age of 14 years has
also stated in examination-in-chief that he knows very well to the accused.
Appellant/accused was having the victim in his lap and was going to purchase
biscuits for her. He firmly stated in cross-examination in para 15 that he saw
the accused only one time when he was having the victim in his lap and was
going to purchase biscuits for her.
--9--
17. It is the duty of defence lawyer to prove that these contradictions and
omissions can hit the root of the case and if contradictions and omissions are
not hitting the root of the case then these contradictions and omissions are not
material. It is true that there are some omissions and contradictions in
evidence of PW-2 and PW-5. But, in the case of Rammi @ Rameshwar Vs.
State of M.P., 1999 (2) JLJ 354, it has been held that in lengthy cross-
examination some omissions and contradictions may be outcome of the
evidence. The Apex Court in para 24 of the aforesaid judgment has held as
under:-
"24 When eye-witness is examined at length it is quite
possible for him to make some discrepancies. No true witness
can possibly escape from making some discrepant details.
Perhaps an untrue witness who is well tutored can
successfully make his testimony totally non-discrepant. But
courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies
in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the
credibility of his version that the court is justified in
jettisoning his evidence. But too serious a view to be adopted
on mere variations falling in the narration of an incident
(either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between
two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach
for judicial scrutiny."
18. In this regard, the following ratio held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Pundappa Yankappa Pujari v. State of Karnataka, 2014 LawSuit (SC)
516, is worth to quote here-
"[9] xxx The evidence on record has to be read as a whole
and it is not proper to reject one or other evidence on the
ground of certain contradictions and omissions which do not
go the roots of the case. If the testimony of the eye-witnesses
are found trustworthy and remained unchanged, ignorance
of such testimony can be held to be perverse."
--10--
19. In view of the aforesaid settled position, testimony of witnesses as well
as other witnesses cannot wipe out on the basis of trivial contradictions. PW-2
and PW-5 are independent witnesses. PW-2 and PW-5 elaborately stated in
their cross-examination that appellant was wearing red-color and brown-color
pant and these clothes were seized by investigating officer on the
memorandum of the accused. They are not related to the appellant or
deceased's side. On perusal of the evidence as a whole it is found that it is not
proper to reject one or other evidence on the ground of certain contradiction
and omission which did not go to the root of the case. So considering the
evidence of PW-2 and PW-5, it is found that they saw the appellant and
victim-deceased together for the last time. There is no reason to disbelieve
their evidence.
20. In the case of Jabir vs. State of Uttrakhand reported in 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 32, Hon'ble Supreme Court has discussed the last seen theory and
held as under:-
"29. Recently, in Rambraksh v. State of Chhattisgarh,
(2016) 12 SCC 251, this court after reviewing previous
decisions, stated as follows:
"10. It is trite law that a conviction cannot be recorded
against the accused merely on the ground that the
accused was last seen with the deceased. In other words,
a conviction cannot be based on the only circumstance of
last seen together. Normally, last seen theory comes into
play where the time gap, between the point of time when
the accused and the deceased were seen last alive and
when the deceased is found dead, is so small that
possibility of any person other than the accused being the
perpetrator of the crime becomes impossible. To record a
conviction, the last seen together itself would not be
sufficient and the prosecution has to complete the chain
--11--
of circumstances to bring home the guilt of the accused.
11. In a similar fact situation this Court in the case of
Krishnan v. State of Tamil (2014) 12 SCC 279, held as
follows:
21. The conviction cannot be based only on circumstance
of last seen together with the deceased. In Arjun Marik v.
State of Bihar 1994 Supp (2) SCC 372)
"31. Thus the evidence that the Appellant had gone to
Sitaram in the evening of 19-7-1985 and had stayed in
the night at the house of deceased Sitaram is very shaky
and inconclusive. Even if it is accepted that they were
there it would at best amount to be the evidence of the
Appellants having been seen last together with the
deceased. But it is settled law that the only circumstance
of last seen will not complete the chain of circumstances
to record the finding that it is consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and, therefore, no
conviction on that basis alone can be founded."
22. This Court in Bodhraj v. State of (2002) 8 SCC 45)
held that:
31. The last seen theory comes into play where the time
gap between the point of time when the accused and the
deceased were last seen alive and when the deceased is
found dead is so small that possibility of any person
other than the accused being the author of the crime
becomes impossible."
It will be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in
cases where there is no other positive evidence to
conclude that the accused and the deceased were last
seen together.
23. There is unexplained delay of six days in lodging the
FIR. As per prosecution story the deceased Manikandan
--12--
was last seen on 4-4-2004 at Vadakkumelur Village
during Panguni Uthiram Festival at Mariyamman
Temple. The body of the deceased was taken from the
borewell by the fire service personnel after more than
seven days. There is no other positive material on record
to show that the deceased was last seen together with the
accused and in the intervening period of seven days there
was nobody in contact with the deceased.
24. In Jaswant Gir v. State of Punjab (2005) 12 SCC
438), this Court held that in the absence of any other
links in the chain of circumstantial evidence, the
Appellant cannot be convicted solely on the basis of "last
seen together" even if version of the prosecution witness
in this regard is believed."
30. Again, in Nizam v. State of Rajasthan, (2016) 1 SCC
550 it was held as follows:
"Courts below convicted the Appellants on the evidence
of PWs 1 and 2 that deceased was last seen alive with the
Appellants on 23.01.2001. Undoubtedly, "last seen
theory" is an important link in the chain of circumstances
that would point towards the guilt of the accused with
some certainty. The "last seen theory" holds the courts to
shift the burden of proof to the accused and the accused
to offer a reasonable explanation as to the cause of death
of the deceased. It is well-settled by this Court that it is
not prudent to base the conviction solely on "last seen
theory". "Last seen theory" should be applied taking into
consideration the case of the prosecution in its entirety
and keeping in mind the circumstances that precede and
follow the point of being so last seen."
21. From the aforesaid it is clear that the cases of circumstantial evidence
are to be dealt with carefully and evidence is to be seen to be completing the
chain of circumstances. In the present case, prosecution has established as
--13--
aforesaid discussed that appellant and deceased was seen together when the
deceased was alive so last seen theory was established against the appellant.
22. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that memorandum Ex.P-4,
seizure Ex.P-5 and Ex.P-6 are not fully established by way of evidence of
PW-17. So seizure from appellant was not established and it is doubtful. In
this regard PW-17 Sub-inspector, Irfaan Saiyad arrested the accused on
10.06.2010 and prepared seizure memo Ex.P-3 then after he took his
memorandum on 10.06.2010 at Tokuganj Police Station. He gave statements
under Section 27 of Evidence Act, which is as follows:-
"ftlesa mlus e`frdk dk LdVZ vkSj ?kVuk ds le; Lo;a }kjk igus diM+s
vyx&vyx Nqikuk crk;k Fkk vkSj lkFk pydj cjken djk nsuk crk;k
Fkk] mDr eseksj.s Me iz-ih--4 gS]"
23. On the basis of memorandum Ex.P-4, he went with accused and
witnessed to Rajkumar bridge near Railway premises Cabin "C" and seized
skirt of the deceased from beneath of part of wood from bushes and a stone
and prepared seizure memo Ex.P-6. He also seized clothes of the accused
which were worn by the accused at the time of incident from a digging-drain
near wine shop at Bengali Chouraha i.e. Ex.P-5. Witnesses of Ex.P-3, Ex.P-4,
Ex.P-5 and Ex.P-6 is PW-6 Chandrakant. Who has fully supported the
evidence of PW-17 investigating officer in regard to arrest of accused,
memorandum and seizure. So seizure of skirt of the deceased and stone and
clothes of the accused which were worn at the time of incident was duly
proved by the prosecution.
24. According to FSL report, Ex.P-20 it was found that the soil which was
seized from spot is "A" and stone seized from the accused, human blood was
found and according to Ex.P21 DNA report which was also found affirmative
in regard to the appellant. According to FSL report Ex.P-20 in "D" which was
the Barmuda underwear which was worn by the appellant at the time of
--14--
incident and "E" is slide and G-1 and G-2 Vaginal semen and vaginal semen
slide of the deceased and sperm was found.
25. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that FSL report and DNA
report are not conclusive report but he did not challenge this in cross-
examination. Perusal of the statements of the accused reveals as under:-
"iz'u&01 jkts'k j?kqoa'kh vlk 17 dk dguk gS fd fnukad 13-7-10 dks rqe vfHk;qDr dk
mlds o lk{kh lrh'k /kwr ds le{k ,e-ok;-vLirky esa fpfdRld MkW-lhek oktis;h }kjk
Mh,u, ijh{k.k gsrq jDr lsEiy fy;kFkk o mls lhycan fd;k FkkA
mRrj& lgh gSA
iz'u&02 blh lk{kh dk dguk gS fd lsEiy ysus ds laca/k esa vk;MsafVfQds'ku QkeZ ih-2 ij
ch- ls ch mlds o , ls , Hkkx ij lk{kh lrh'k /kwr ,oa lh ls Hkh Hkkx ij ij Mk-lhek
oktis;h ds gLrk{kj gS rFkk Mh-ls Mh Hkkx ij rqEgkjh fu'kkjh vaxwBk gSA rqEgkjk D;k dguk gS
mRrj & lgh gSA
iz'u&03 blh lk{kh dk dguk gS fd bZ ls bZ Hkkx ij rqe vkjksih caVh dk QksVks yxk gS
ftls lh-,e-vks-,e-ok;-vLirky Onkjk izekf.kr fd;k x;k gSA
mRrj & lgh gSA ""
26. It appears that accused accepted that his sample was taken and which
were properly sealed. So no question arises about hampering with this report.
So in FSL report and DNA report human blood was found on the stone seized
from the appellant and sperm was found on vaginal slide and swan of the
deceased. So it is the duty of the appellant to disclose the fact as per Section
106 of Evidence Act as to how and why the human blood was found and
sperm was found on the slide and swan of the deceased. But, appellant was
unable to rebut this fact in defence and he has not stated single word about it
in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., therefore, even if blood group
is not mentioned in FSL report same will not give any help to the appellant so
FSL report Ex.P-20 and DNA report are also against the appellant.
27. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the
arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, in view of the
prosecution witnesses and evidence as well as report available on record it is
--15--
found that chain of circumstance is complete against the appellant on the
following grounds.
"(i) Appellant and deceased were seen together before the
death of the deceased/victim.
(ii) Seizure of clothe, stone and taking sample of blood to
be sent for DNA report was duly established by prosecution.
(iii) FSL report and DNA reports were also against the
appellant and no explanation was given by the appellant."
28. After taking into consideration all the grounds mentioned above and
looking to the fact that the chain of circumstances is complete against the
accused and the accused was unable to rebut the evidence adduced against
him. So this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellant and only the
appellant is guilty. So on the basis of the foregoing discussion it is clear that
the learned trial court has properly assessed the evidence available on record
and has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant under the aforesaid
sections of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial court has not committed
any error by convicting the appellant for the aforesaid offences. Hence, the
conviction and sentence deserve to be maintained. Resultantly, the appeal
filed by the appellant is dismissed and; conviction and sentence passed by the
trial court is hereby upheld.
29. Copy of this judgment along with the record of the trial court be sent to
the trial court for information and necessary action. The appellant is serving
jail sentence, he be intimated about the outcome of this appeal through
Superintendent of Jail and a copy of the judgment be also supplied to him
through Superintendent of Jail.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) (HIRDESH)
JUDGE JUDGE
N.R.
