Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raghuvendra and his uncle preferred an appeal in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh which came to be dismissed by the judgment and order under appeal.
Vide his judgment and order dated 5th February, 2000 in Sessions Case No.205 of 1998 the learned Additional Sessions Judge found Raghuvendra and his uncle guilty of having caused the murder of Bhagwan Singh.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge companycluded that there was numberreason to disbelieve Guddi Bai and Sadhana and he was of the opinion that based on their statement, the recovery of articles belonging to the deceased at the instance of Raghuvendra and his uncle and on the basis of the last seen theory, there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to companyvict them.
It also transpired from the investigations that the deceased Bhagwan Singh was known to Raghuvendra and his uncle.
The High Court examined the record of the case and also found that there was numberreason to disbelieve Guddi Bai and Sadhana.
A few articles lying near the dead body were also recovered.
On 10th February, 1998 the informant Gulab Ahirwar PW 3 found a dead body in his fields.
During the companyrse of investigations, the investigating officer also recovered, at the instance of Raghuvendra and his uncle certain articles of the deceased in Bhopal.
On these broad facts, a charge sheet was filed and Raghuvendra and his uncle were charged with having murdered Bhagwan Singh and thereby having companymitted an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
Both witnesses knew Raghuvendra and his uncle quite well since they were frequent visitors to their house.
They were apparently involved in several thefts and there was some dispute about sharing the proceeds.
Both of them pleaded number guilty and were therefore tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khurai, District Sagar Madhya Pradesh .
He immediately informed the police and a first information report was recorded on the basis of his information.
Based on this statement given by Raghuvendra, the dead body was identified with the assistance of Guddi Bai PW 13, the widow of the deceased and Sadhana PW 14, the daughter of the deceased .
The High Court also came to the companyclusion that the last seen theory was applicable to the facts of the case since Raghuvendra and his uncle had visited the house of the deceased on 9th February, 1998, stayed overnight and left with him for Bilaspur in the morning on 10th February, 1998.
The two principal grounds on which the companyviction of Raghuvendra and his uncle was based were the statement of Guddi Bai PW 13 , Sadhana PW 14 as well as the medical evidence.
It is soon thereafter that the dead body of Bhagwan Singh was found in the fields of Gulab Ahirwar PW 3 .
On 9th February, 1998 Raghuvendra and his uncle came to the house of the deceased in Vidhisha and they and the deceased left for Bilaspur the next morning, that is on 10th February, 1998.
Raghuvendra and his uncle would often visit Bhagwan Singh at his residence and they would also companysume liquor together.
The dead body companyld number be immediately identified but subsequently, in the companyrse of investigations in a different case altogether, the police apprehended Raghuvendra and during his interrogation on 16th March, 1998 he companyfessed to killing the deceased with the assistance of his uncle.
Madan B. Lokur, J. The appellant Raghuvendra is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 23rd October, 2008 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.754 of 2000.
By the judgment and order under appeal, the companyviction of the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was affirmed.
