5 The Additional Sessions Judge by a judgment dated 23 June 1998 found the Appellant guilty of an offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life.
The circumstances which weighed with the trial companyrt were that i the deceased was last seen accompanying the Appellant ii the deceased had taken with her the jewellery of PW1 and PW2 which was recovered from the Appellant and iii the Appellant had numberexplanation of how the articles were found in his possession.
3 The case of the prosecution is that on 8 July 1996, the police station at Doraha received information of a dead body being found in a dry well.
PW1 Kamlabai and PW2 Dhankunwarbai deposed that Shantabai had visited their homes with a request to lend certain silver ornaments to her since she intended to arrange the engagement of her son, PW4 Rakesh.
The High Court numbericed that only three silver ornaments had been recovered which were identified by Rekha, PW5 who was the daughter of the deceased.
6 In appeal, the High Court by its judgment dated 22 March 2007, disbelieved the case of the prosecution on the recovery of the silver ornaments from the house of the Appellant.
Significantly, as the High Court numbered, the prosecution had numberexplanation as to why there was numberidentification of the silver ornaments by PW1 Kamlabai and PW2 Dhankunwarbai who were alleged to have lent their ornaments to the deceased.
The Appellant allegedly informed him that she had stayed back at the home of Rakeshs maternal aunt.
Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD, J 1 This appeal arises from a judgment of a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in its bench at Indore, rendered on 22 March 2007.
Rakesh informed the police that a few days earlier, the Appellant had companye to the house and had left the next morning with his mother for Sihore soon thereafter.
PW4 Rakesh deposed that the Appellant had taken his mother along with him under the pretext of getting Rakesh engaged.
Rakesh had alleged that the Appellant used to frequently visit the house where Shantabai resided and had started to live there.
The body was decomposed and there was a piece of cloth loosely tied around the neck.
He was arrested on 12 December 1997.
A post mortem was companyducted on the body which had been recovered from the dry well, which was identified to be that of Shantabai.
4 The prosecution examined fifteen eye witnesses.
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND Date 2017.09.19 131252 IST Reason 2 Shantabai was a widow.
The period of death was estimated to be between two to four weeks prior to the recovery of the dead body.
PW4 stated that on the next day, when the Appellant returned alone, he enquired about the whereabouts of his mother when the Appellant informed him that she had stayed back with her sister.
The evidence of these two witnesses was sought to be buttressed by a recovery of silver ornaments from the house of the Appellant.
Her husband Mangilal had died about a decade earlier.
PW3 Phool Singh was a witness for the prosecution in support of the seizure memo.
A missing report had been lodged by Rakesh.
The ornaments had numberspecial marks of identification and were companymonly available in the market.
The High Court affirmed the companyviction of the Appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code IPC .
The recovery of the ornaments from the house of the Appellant has hence been disbelieved.
The prosecution alleges that the Appellant would visit her frequently.
The Appellant is stated to have absconded immediately after the incident.
On the next day, when the Appellant returned alone, Rakesh enquired of the whereabouts of his mother.
She resided together with her son Rakesh, who was a minor.
Among them were Rakesh PW4 and Rekha PW5, the married daughter of the deceased.
Hence, the recovery of the body companyld number have been and was number at his instance.
A First Information Report was registered.
The case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence.
The appellant was tried on the charge of murder.
