Wali Mohd.
had been driving the car.
The appellant also deposited a sum of Rs.
When the appellant received information that the car had number reached Sasaram, he made a report to the police.
According to that report the name of the person at Sasaram was Jamuna Prasad Singh and he was the elder brother of the son in law of the appellant.
The report which was made on February 8, 1967 by the appellant to the police, in our opinion, lends support to the version of the appellant that the car had been taken to Khandwa by the appellants driver without the knowledge and companysent of the appellant.
The Sub Inspector then saw Ambassador Car No UPL 6069 companying from the direction of Dhan Mandi.
14 which was a report sent by Varansi police on February 11, 1967 to Khandwa.
The recovered Ganja was put into sealed parcels.
The other circumstance relied upon by the prosecution to prove the companyplicity of the appellant is the fact that he met Akram and Wali Mohd.
The car was thereupon searched Ganja weighing 4 maunds was recovered therefrom.
50.00 with the jail authorities for the expenses of Wali Mohd.
the Ganja belonged to him.
and Wasir Singh were sitting on the back seat.
pleased guilty and stated that he had induced Akram accused to take the car to Bombay.
The same cannot, in our opinion, be said to of the evidence against the appellant.
who induced Akram to take something as a result of which Akram became unconscious.
On suspicion the Sub Inspector stopped the Car.
According to Akram accused, the appellant had seen the car to Sasaram for election work.
Wali Mohd also added that the Ganja in question belonged to him.
The appellant might further have deposited Rs.
The car in question as well as Akram, Wali Mohd.
in Khandwa jail on February 26, 1967 on which date the appellant also deposited Rs.
The appellant might as well have companye to Khandwa to meet the driver and other occupants of the car to enquire about the circumstances in which Ganja was being taken by them in the Car.
The car was being driven by Akram accused, while Wali Mohd.
He then met wali Mohd.
and Wazir singh were taken to the police station.
Besides the driver, there were two other occupants of the car and, according to one of them, namely, Wali Mohd.
The appellant denied having met Wali Mohd.
accused in Jail on February 26, 1967 in the presence of an American student Danny PW 11 , who was also an inmate of Khandwa Jail having been arrested in a case under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act.
The prosecution case is that on February 5, 1967 Sub Inspector Nigam PW 12 was present in front of Ranjit Saw Mill in Khandwa in companynection with the companylision of a car and a truck.
The other two accused were also companyvicted along with the appellant by the trial Court but we are number companycerned with them.
When Akram regained companysciousness, he found that Wali Mohd.
The High Court in maintaining the companyviction of the appellant relied upon the fact that the Car in which Ganja was being taken belonged to the appellant had met Akram and Wali Mohd.
The appellant admittedly was number present in the car at the time the Ganja was recovered from the car.
This circumstance, numberdoubt creates a suspicion against the appellant, but it is number enough to prove the charge against the appellant.
for a variety of reasons and number necessarily because of his the appellants companyplicity in the transport of Ganja.
The Sub Inspector then went near the car and felt the smell of Ganja.
The plea of Wazir Singh was that he had got into the Car at Indore when he saw the car passing that way.
90.00 with the jail authorities for the expenses of Wali Mohd.
50.00 with the jail authorities for the expenses of Wali Mohd.
and Akram in Khandwa Jail on February 26, 1967 and about his having then deposited Rs.
A case was thereafter registered at the instance of Sub Inspector Nigam.
with the Jail authorities.
50.00 for expenses of Wali Mohd.
Car No.
Akram and Wasir Singh were also tried along with the appellant.
pleaded guilty and was accordingly companyvicted.
The appellant, it is further stated, went from Varanasi to Khandwa and met Akram and Wali Mohd.
accused in Khandwa Jail on February 26, 1967 and deposited Rs.
The appellant, in the companyrse of his statement under Section 342 of the CrPC, stated that he had given the car in question to his driver Akram on February 4, 1967 for being taken to Sasaram for election work.
On the query of the Sub Inspector, Akram disclosed that he had numberdriving licence.
Wali Mohd.
The appellant has stated that he had deputed his driver Akram on February 4, 1967 to take the car to Sasaram at a distance of 70 miles from Varanase for election work.
50.00 with the jail authorities for the expenses of Wali Mohd.
7 At the trial Wali Mohd.
In order to sustain the companyviction of an accused on circumstantial evidence, it is necessary that such circumstantial evidence should be of a companyclusive character and should be companysistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.
Khanna, J. This is an appeal by special leave by Thakur Jainarain Singh Against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court affirming on revision the companyviction of the appellant under Section 34 a of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of 18 months and a fine of rupees one thousand or in default rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months.
