The Investigating Officer also companyducted an identification parade in the presence of PW 47, the Asstt.
An amount of Rs.10,000/ and a handkerchief which belonged to the deceased Bheema Ram were recovered from the residential house of Govind Ram under Exh.
Collector cum Magistrate First Class, Jalore, and the witnesses who participated in the identification parade, identified both the accused as the persons with whom the deceased Bheema Ram had been found moving.
He also deposed that on the next day, he saw Bheema Ram standing in front of the shop of appellant Govind Ram.
PW 18 Chhoga Ram is a jeep driver and he deposed that at about 8 PM, appellant, Kanti Lal and his companyaccused Govind Ram requested him to take them from Jalore to village Doodsi and that he took them in a vehicle and left them at village Doodsi and received Rs.80/ .
Bheema Ram did number return on July, 29, 1985, and the investigation further revealed that during the night intervening 27th and 28th July, 1985, Bheema Ram had stayed with the appellant, Kanti Lal, at his residence situated at village Doodsi, and that in the morning of July 28, 1985 he came to the bus stand accompanied by Kanti Lal.
PW 14 Station House Officer immediately visited the spot and prepared Exh.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, the present appeal is filed.
A bush shirt and a ball pen belonging to the deceased were recovered at the instance of the appellant, Kanti Lal.
The evidence adduced by the prosecution would show that the appellants were moving with the deceased Bheema Ram during the relevant period.
On 27th July, 1985, the deceased had companylected about Rs.20,862.92p from various customers of his employer.
It is also pertinent to numbere that this witness identified the appellants in the identification parade, later held in the presence of the Magistrate.
Another circumstance, which would prove the presence of the appellants at Jalore Fort during the crucial time is the graffiti found on the wall of the Rani Mahal of Jalore Fort.
PW 39 Bhagwat Singh companyducted detailed investigation of the case and his investigation revealed that deceased Bheema Ram had left Sumerpur on July 27, 1985 with a receipt book and a list of persons from whom money was to be companylected in favour of his employer.
As against him, the evidence of recovery of various articles allegedly belonging to the deceased, is a strong circumstance to prove his guilt.
The fact of possession of these articles with the appellant only leads to the most probable inference that he was responsible for the death of the deceased, especially when the appellant had numbercase that he had companye to possess these articles for any other reason.
PW 35 companyducted the post mortem examination and certified that the death of the deceased was due to asphyxia.
Appellant, Kanti Lal, was arrested at Bombay and pursuant to the information furnished by him, a watch, a bush shirt, a money bag, printed receipt books, pieces of a torn bank draft and a knife were recovered from him.
P 30 receipt.
The shoes worn by Govind Ram were also taken into custody.
They challenged their companyviction and sentence before the Rajasthan High Court and by the impugned judgment the companyviction and sentence entered against these two accused was companyfirmed by the High Court.
All these articles were identified as the articles belonging to the deceased.
He carried a money bag and was expected to return to Sumerpur by July 29, 1985.
We are of the view that the prosecution successfully proved the case against the appellants and the recovery of various articles used by the deceased, from the possession of the appellants, Kanti Lal and Govind Ram the evidence of the witnesses who found the appellants in the companypany of the deceased during the relevant period and the other circumstantial evidence clearly established the guilt of the accused and the Sessions Court rightly found the appellants guilty of the offences charged against them.Various photograph of this graffiti were taken and the signatures of the accused were also obtained for companyparison.
PW 39 arrested the companyaccused Govind Ram on 2nd August, 1985.
P 13 information.
Govind Ram, whose companyviction was companyfirmed by the High Court, moved a Special Leave Petition and the same was dismissed by this Court.
PW 2 Mancha Ram Ghanci identified the dead body to be of his own brother, Bheema Ram, and he revealed that the deceased was an employee of M s Hazarimal Ramesh Kumar, Commission Agents, Sumerpur, and that the deceased used to go to various places to companylect the money due from the customers of the firm.
Leave is granted in that matter.
Appellant, Kanti Lal had numbersatisfactory explanation how he came to be in possession of these articles.
The mouth of the dead body was found gagged with a socks.
The Investigating Officer also found on site inspection on 9th August, 1985 that the names of the appellants, Kanti Lal and Govind Ram and that of the deceased Bheema Ram were found written on the wall of the Rani Mahal of the Jalore Fort.
J U DG M E N T With CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.518 OF 2004 Arising out of SLP Crl.
A receipt book and a list of persons from whom the deceased had companylected money pieces of a torn bank draft and a money bag were also recovered at the instance of the appellant, Kanti Lal.
He deposed that the appellants Kanti Lal and Govind Ram came to his restaurant on 28th July, 1985 and had companysumed Masala Dosa and Mosami Juice.
PW 10 Ramesh Kumar identified these articles as belonging to the deceased.
The bush shirt, the khaki bag, the receipt books and other articles allegedly used by the deceased were identified by the prosecution witnesses as the articles belonging to the deceased and he finally filed the charge sheet.
The case against the accused was that they caused the death of one Bheema Ram and robbed him of the money possessed by him.
The appellant Kanti Lal was arrested by him at Bombay.
Near the place of incident, he found a foot print, which was visible on a kuchha floor, and prepared a mould of the same.
PW 16 Tek Chand deposed that on 27th July, 1985 deceased Bheema Ram had companye to his shop and received Rs.2,000/ , for which he issued Exh.
P 71 site inspection numbere and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased.
On July 29, 1985, PW 7 Ridmal Singh found a dead body in a tank situated within the Jalore Fort area.
PW 46 Virendra Kumar is a tea shop owner at Jalore bus stand.
P 74 P The expert opinion Q 1 and Q 3 was to the effect that the specimen signatures of the appellants were similar to the graffiti allegedly written by the appellants.
He went to the Jalore Police Station and gave Exh.
PW 9 Jamuna deposed that she had gone to village Doodsi to purchase some medicines and while she was returning she saw deceased Bheema Ram with appellant Govind Ram and they told her that they were going to Jalore.
Another strong circumstance which was proved against the appellants was that they were found in the companypany of the deceased at various places immediately preceding the day of death of the deceased.
PW 29 took photographs of these writings and the same were companypared with the specimen signatures of the appellants Exh.
He later filed a review petition and the order dismissing the S.L.P. was reviewed vide order dated 4.2.1999 and numberice was issued.
PW 12 Kheta Ram was known to deceased Bheema Ram and he deposed that he had met Bheema Ram and appellants, Kanti Lal and Govind Ram at Subhash market and they told him that they were going to Jalore Fort and that later he came to know after three four days that the dead body of Bheema Ram was found at Jalore Fort.
Both the accused were found guilty of the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Sections 392 and 201 IPC.
3078/1995 G. BALAKRISHNAN, J. Appellant Kanti Lal in Criminal Appeal No.
1074 of 1997 was tried along with one Govind Ram for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 Sections 392, 404 and 201 IPC.
