JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant in appeal No. 402/88 has been convicted under Sec. 302 and 397 of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with Rs. 200/- as fine on charge under section 302 and seven years rigorous imprisonment with Rs. 200/- as fine for offence under Section 397 of the IPC. 2. On 12.2.87 at 10.45 PM. one Magni Ram Sarpanch of village Amdi lodged a report at Rajsamand Police Station that at 10 AM, on that date one Chaturbhuj Mali had left his house handing over keys of the house of his mother Smt. Kuku Bai widow of Deva Mali, aged 80 years. When Kanhaiyalal s/o Chaturbhuj and Smt. Kamla D/o Lalu returned home they did not find Kuku Bai at home. They searched for her without any result. At 7.30 in the evening accused Radha returned from Nathdwara to her village Amdi, Kanhaiyalal asked her about Kuku Bai. She initially replied that she had left Kuku Bai in the village itself, but then said that she is visited by a spirit and has not taken any food for last three months and if Urine of a Cow (Gomutra) in a plate is brought to her she may find out where abouts of Smt. Kuku. On Kanhaiyalal complying with the requirement Radha called the spirit and while being possessed of the spirit told them that the where abouts of Smt. Kuku will be known next day at 12.00 Noon. Thereupon Kanhaiyalal exhorted her to find out the where abouts of Kuku, there and then as children were hungry and the keys of the house were also with grand mother Kuku, Radha then asked him to call some more people. Then Kanhaiyalal called Ramlal Mali, Udairam Mali, Bherumali and Unkar Kumawat and in their presence Radha disclosed that Kuku was lying dead in the compound of Mana Ba Kumawat both of her ears had been cut and nobody should reach the spot as two persons were sitting there on guard with guns, who would kill anyone who went there. Kanhaiyalal and party then went to the compound, of Mana Ba where in a corner Kuku's dead body was found lying under a plastic cover. She was strangulated and both of her ears were cut. The dead body was covered by stones up to chest. Kanhaiyalal and party then went to the compound, of Mana Ba where in a corner Kuku's dead body was found lying under a plastic cover. She was strangulated and both of her ears were cut. The dead body was covered by stones up to chest. Gold earing called `Oganiya' six in number which she was wearing three in each ear were not there on the dead body, but silver ornaments worn in the hands and legs were there. Kanhaiyalal thereafter gave this information to the Sarpanch who lodged the FIR and told him, that during the day Radha had come for borrowing Rs. 200/- and was sitting with Kuku Bai and he suspected that Kuku Bai had been murdered for robbing her of these gold earings worth Rs. 8000/- which may be identified by Smt. Nandu, Smt. Dakhu, Smt. Laxmi. 3. A crime was registered and investigated. The accused Radha was arrested on 17.2.87 and on her interrogation it came to light that she alongwith one Laxman had given the gold earings to Yashwant Saraf of Nathdwara in exchange for a Gold Chain and Rs. 2410/- cash. On the information of the appellant the gold earings, Chain and cash were recovered and on her information blood stained clothes and an axe was also recovered from her possession. The appellant was tried, convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 4. The prosecution case is solely based on circumstantial evidence as no one has witnessed the incident. The fact of homicidal death of Smt. Kuku Bai is not in doubt. The question is whether the circumstantial evidence in the case is sufficient to establish the charge of murder against the appellant. The circumstances on which the prosecution case is based are; (i) That the accused gave information to the prosecution witnesses as to the murder of Smt. Kuku Bai and as to the place where her dead body could be found, which information proved to be true, (ii) The information given by the appellant about the gold ornaments and pursuant to that information the gold earings being recovered from Yashwant Saraf to whom the appellant had sold the same, (iii) Recovery from her of gold chain and cash pursuant to the information about the same given by her. (iv) Recovery of blood stained cloths and an axe from the appellant's possession. 5. (iv) Recovery of blood stained cloths and an axe from the appellant's possession. 5. The first circumstances that the appellant gave information about the homicidal death of Smt. Kuku and about the place where her dead body was lying has been amply proved by the prosecution witnesses. Even the appellant herself in her statement under Section 315 of the Cr.P.C. admitted to have given this information to the members of the family of the deceased. So this circumstance is clearly proved against the appellant. 6. So far as the recovery of gold earings form Yashwant Saraf on the information of the appellant is concerned, the defence version is some what different. The appellant in her statement under Section 315 of the Cr.P.C. was stated that on the date of the incident at about 11 A.M. 12 noon in the day. Bhagwan Lal and Laxman Lal had come to her in her filed and told her that they had certain ornaments which were to be disposed of. They requested her to go alongwith them to Nathdwara. At the same time they informed the appellant that they had killed Kuku Bai and would give half of the money to her, then she went alongwith both of them to Nathdwara and got the ornaments sold to a Goldsmith in Nathdwara. Laxman Lal gave her a gold chain to keep and told her that they will share the money equally in three shares. Thus from this statement and from the prosecution evidence, there is no doubt that the appellant knew where the ornaments were and the fact that the ornaments were recovered from Yashwant Saraf can be taken to be proved. 7. The third circumstance of the gold chain and the money which was received in exchange for the gold earings of the deceased having been recovered, from the possession of the appellant on her information has also been proved by ample evidence. The only difference in the versions is as to who gave her the s chain and who kept the money. The appellants version was that Laxman gave her the chain after disposal of gold earings of the deceased and Bhagwanlal kept the money. But that the appellant had knowledge about all this and her participation in getting the gold ornaments of the deceased disposed of cannot be doubted. The evidence also shows that her explanation was false. 8. The appellants version was that Laxman gave her the chain after disposal of gold earings of the deceased and Bhagwanlal kept the money. But that the appellant had knowledge about all this and her participation in getting the gold ornaments of the deceased disposed of cannot be doubted. The evidence also shows that her explanation was false. 8. The fourth circumstance is as to the recovery of blood stained clothes and an axe from the appellant. The prosecution has examined PW 11 Gulab on the point. He has proved the recovery. Nothing in the cross-examination of this witness has come which would dis-credit him and thus, the recovery of blood stained clothes and blood stained axe from the house of the appellant has also been proved. The question now is whether this circumstantial evidence is sufficient to hold the appellant guilty of murder of Smt. Kuku Bai. 9. In Sharad v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1984 SC, 1622) Supreme Court has set out following conditions on the fulfilment of which alone a case against accused based on circumstantial evidence could be said to be fully established. The conditions are as under:- (1) 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. (2) 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. (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) 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. 10. It was also observed in this case that a case can be said to be proved only when there is certain and explicit evidence and no person could be convicted on pure moral conviction. 11. In Ram Avtar v. State (Delhi Administration) ( AIR 1985 SC 1692 ) it was observed that in a murder case the circumstantial evidence must be complete and conclusive before an accused can be convicted thereon. 11. In Ram Avtar v. State (Delhi Administration) ( AIR 1985 SC 1692 ) it was observed that in a murder case the circumstantial evidence must be complete and conclusive before an accused can be convicted thereon. This, however, does not mean that there is any particular or special method of proof of circumstantial evidence. However, the Court must guard against the danger of not considering circumstantial evidence in its proper perspective e.g. where there is a chain of circumstances linked up with one another, it is not possible for the Court to truncate and break the chain of circumstances. In other words, where a series of circumstances are dependent on one another they should be read as one integrated whole and not considered separately, otherwise the very concept of proof of circumstantial evidence would be defeated. Thus, where circumstantial evidence consists of a chain of continuous circumstances linked up with one another, the Court has to take the cumulative effect of the entire evidence led by the prosecution before acquitting or convicting an accused. 12. In AIR 1955 NUC (Supreme Court) 5807, Sunny Boy v. The State of Madras a boy of 19 was prosecuted for the murder of an old priest Father aged 79. He was acquitted by that Sessions Judge on the charge of murder but was convicted in the alternative under S. 379 or S. 411, Penal Code for either the theft of certain articles belonging to the murdered man or for being a receiver. The State Government appealed and the High Court convicted the boy of the murder and sentenced him to death. He appealed to the Supreme Court. The circumstantial evidence against the accused was that certain articles of food, an umbrella and some clothes belonging to the deceased were recovered within eight hours of the murder from the possession of the accused. The accused gave a false explanation of the possession of umbrella and denied possession of other articles. The shirt and the coat which the accused was wearing at the time of his arrest were stained with human blood. The accused produced a chopper from his possession with which the crime could have been committed. The motive for the murder was also proved. It was held by the Supreme Court that the High Court was justified in setting aside the acquittal and convicting the appellant of the murder. 13. The accused produced a chopper from his possession with which the crime could have been committed. The motive for the murder was also proved. It was held by the Supreme Court that the High Court was justified in setting aside the acquittal and convicting the appellant of the murder. 13. In Ram Bharosey v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 704 when the murder had taken place in the night the accused was seen in the early hours getting down the roof of the house and had disappeared from his house thereafter and when he was arrested he produced articles which were removed from the body of the deceased and the inquest was made shortly after dawn & not late in the day were found to be sufficient to connect the accused with the offence of murder. 14. In Baiju v. State of Madhya Pradesh ( AIR 1978 SC 522 ) the following observations in paragraph 14 of the Judgment are relevant and we consider it necessary to reproduce the entire paragraph. "As has been stated the prosecution has succeeded in proving beyond any doubt that the commission of the murders and the robbery formed part of one transaction, and the recent and unexplained possession of the stolen property by the appellant justified the presumption that it was he, and no one else, who had committed the murders and the robbery. It will be recalled that the offences were committed on the night intervening January 20 and 21, 1975, and the stolen property was recovered from the house of the appellant or at his instance on January, 28, 1975. The appellant was given an opportunity to explain his possession, as well as his conduct in decoying Smt. Lakhpatiya and the other persons who died at his hand, but he was unable to do so. The question whether a presumption should be drawn under illustration (a) of S. 114 of the Evidence Act is a matter which depends on the evidence and the circumstances of each case. The question whether a presumption should be drawn under illustration (a) of S. 114 of the Evidence Act is a matter which depends on the evidence and the circumstances of each case. Thus the nature of the stolen article, the manner of its acquisition by the owner, the nature of the evidence about its identification the manner in which it was dealt with by the appellant, the place and the circumstances of its recovery, the length of the intervening period, the ability or otherwise of the appellant to explain his possession are factors which have to be taken into consideration in arriving at a decision. We have made mention of facts and circumstances bearing on these points and we have no doubt that there was ample justification for reaching the inevitable conclusion that it was the appellant and no one else who had committed the four murders and the robbery. In the face of the over-whelming evidence on which reliance has been placed by the High Court, it is futile to argue that the murders could not have been committed by a single person. As has been stated, there is satisfactory evidence on the record to show that dead bodies of Ram Dayal and Smt. Fulkunwar were found at two different places near the `nala' so that it cannot be said that they were murdered together. As regards Smt. Bhagwati and Rambaks, the evidence on the record shows that they were murdered while they were asleep in the house, and there is no reason why a single person could not have committed their murders also." 15. In Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1987, Supreme Court, 350 four accused persons were found to have hired a taxi of deceased (Taxi driver) for going to certain long distance place. The taxi was intercepted by Dy. Supdt. of Police near town and recovery of licence and other related documents together with a loaded country made pistol and the wrist-watch of the deceased was made. The statement made by co-accused leading to the recovery of the dead body of the deceased embedded in a Canal and the appellant Balwinder Singh was absconding until he was intercepted some days after the incident, as also the false plea of the appellant and denial of his arrest were found to be sufficient circumstances holding him guilty of murder. 16. 16. In Kanbi Karsan Jadav v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1966, Supreme Court 821 it was observed that mere fact that the dead body was pointed out by the prisoner or was discovered as a result of a statement made by him would not necessarily lead to the conclusion of the offence of murder. The discovery of the silver buttons belonging to the deceased with human bloodstains at the instance of the prisoner is a circumstance which may raise the presumption of the participation of the prisoner in the murder. It was further observed that in Wasim Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1956 SC 400 it was held that the recent and unexplained possession of stolen property would be presumptive evidence against a prisoner on a charge of robbery as also of a charge of murder. But it must depend upon the circumstances of each case. Ultimately it was held that pointing out a dead body of the deceased, his pointing out the silver buttons of the deceased which were stained with human blood and the presence of his hairs on a pania (Scarf) on which there were the hair of the deceased also were three important facts to connect the appellant with the commission of the offence. However, it appears that a statement of the approver was also available in that case. 17. In Pohalya Motya Valvi v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 Supreme Court, 1949 , it was observed that where two persons are charged of murder and the information given by one of the accused leading to the discovery of the murder weapon is capable of two interpretations i.e. (1) he was the person who concealed the weapon, or (2) that he had the knowledge of the place where it was hidden, the accused could not be convicted for murder on the basis of such information. The recovery of murder weapon becomes incriminating not because of its recovery at the instance of the accused but the element of criminality tending to connect the accused with the crime lies in the authorship of concealment, namely that the appellant who gives information leading to its discovery was the person who concealed it. The recovery of murder weapon becomes incriminating not because of its recovery at the instance of the accused but the element of criminality tending to connect the accused with the crime lies in the authorship of concealment, namely that the appellant who gives information leading to its discovery was the person who concealed it. But where two accused are charged for murder and the information given by one leading to the discovery of murder weapon is capable of two constructions the one beneficial to the accused will have to be adopted. It was further held in this case that the circumstance that blood stains were found on Dhoti of an accused Agriculturist was not by itself sufficient to prove the offence. 18. In Naresh Kumar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1980 Supreme Court, 1168, the circumstantial evidence was that the deceased was raped by more than one person and then thrown into the well. There was no evidence to indicate involvement of appellant in the act of murder. It was held that appellant could not be convicted on mere speculation. The fact that the appellant was party to the dragging of the deceased was not sufficient to presume that he committed the murder. It was further observed that in the cases of circumstantial evidence no such presumption could be drawn unless the circumstances proved were completely incompatible with the innocence of the accused. 19. Examining the present case in the light of the aforesaid case law, we find that from the evidence of witnesses the following facts have been established. (i) The appellant having come to the house of the deceased on the date of the incident in the morning for borrowing Rs. 200/- and sitting with Kuku Bai for a while. (ii) In the evening when she returned from Nathdwara, she first feigned ignorance as to the where abouts of the deceased and on being asked about her had stated that she had left Kuku Bai in the village itself. (iii) Her disclosure to the members of the family of the deceased about the murder of deceased, cutting of her ears and the place where the dead body was lying. (iii) Her disclosure to the members of the family of the deceased about the murder of deceased, cutting of her ears and the place where the dead body was lying. (iv) Her anxiety to see that nobody should go to the place where the dead body was lying which is reflected in her caution to the members of the family of the deceased not to go to the place where the dead body was lying as two person armed with guns were sitting there who would kill anyone going to the place. (v) Recovery of the dead body at the place as disclosed by the appellant and the ears of the dead body found to be cut as disclosed by the appellant. (vi) The information given by the appellant that the six gold earings were with Yashwant Saraf at Nathdwara and the recovery of these at the instance of the appellant from the shop of Yashwant Saraf. (vii) The recovery of the Gold Chain and the money which was received in exchange of the gold earings from the possession of the appellant. (viii) The recovery of clothes from the appellant on which blood stains were found and recovery of an axe from the appellant. 20. In our opinion the aforesaid established facts leave no doubt that the appellant was not only guilty of robbery but was also guilty of murder of Smt. Kuku Bai. Chain of the circumstances is so complete as to leave no doubt about the guilt of the appellant and all the circumstances taken together are totally incompatible with the innocence of the appellant. From the aforesaid circumstantial evidence an inference can be safely drawn that the appellant was guilty of murder of Smt. Kuku Bai. 21. There is no force in the contention that even the police had initially directed the investigation against Laxman and on his committing suicide in custody the attention was diverted to the appellant and she was made a scape-goat. The guilt of the appellant has been independently proved and the fact that Laxman also might have been involved does not absolve the appellant. 22. There is a connected appeal (D.B. Cr. Appeal No. 302/89) filed by Yashwant the person from whom the gold earings were recovered at the instance of the appellant. There is one charge against him of having knowingly purchased the gold earings belonging to the deceased. 22. There is a connected appeal (D.B. Cr. Appeal No. 302/89) filed by Yashwant the person from whom the gold earings were recovered at the instance of the appellant. There is one charge against him of having knowingly purchased the gold earings belonging to the deceased. There is no reason why he should be deprived of the gold chain and the cash he had given to the appellant in exchange for the gold earings. It appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has inadvertently given the complainant the double benefit of receiving back the gold earings as also the gold chain and the cash given in exchange for them. We, therefore, allow the appeal of Yashwant and direct that the gold chain and Rs. 2300/- in cash recovered at the instance of the appellant shall be returned to him. 23. In the result, we dismiss the appeal of Smt. Radha and confirm the conviction and sentence imposed on her by the trial court. We allow the appeal of Yashwant and modify the direction as to disposal of property as above. *******