JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant was the accused in Sessions Case No. 80 of 1994 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu. He was found guilty u/s 459, 397 and 302 I.P.C. and sentenced as under: U/s 459 I.P.C. 10 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to further undergo 6 months R.I. U/s 397 I.P.C. 2 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to further undergo 6 months R.I. U/s 302 I.P.C. Imprisonment for life. All the sentences had to run concurrently. 2. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the present action for filing the appeal has been resorted to. 3. The prosecution case is woven like this: (i) In the intervening night of 21.4.94 and 22.4.94 at 2.15 A.M. informant Bharat Mal (P.W. 1) lodged a written report (Ex.P 1) with the police station, Bagar (Disstt. Jhunjhunu) stating therein that on 21.4.94, at about 11 PM. he heard a loud shouting of Chor-Chor from the side of the house of his Bhabhi. He immediately reached there and found Ram Swaroop (PW. 6), Tulsaram (PW. 5), Mohan, Mahendra, Raju (PW. 7) and Mahendra Jat (PW. 10) standing behind the Bhabhis house and were persuading to catch the thief, whom they had seen running away from there. After they proceeded to chase the thief, the informant found his Bhabhi lying on cot. He tried to wake her but she was dead already. The ornaments from her nose, neck and legs were missing. The informant also proceeded to follow the thief after raising his voice and shouting that the thief had killed his Bhabhi and committed theft of ornaments. The thief hidden in a trench of the field of Sunda Ram, was caught and the informant identified him as Naval Singh already known to the informant being regular visitor of the village. He was taken to Bhabhi house by the informant and other persons and they made him to sit In the house. (ii) The Police Station, Bagar registered a case U/s. 394 and 302 I.P.C. and Investigation commenced. After completion of investigation the I.O. submitted charge sheet against the appellant in the court of Civil Judge (J.D.)-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu from where the case was committed to the trial court. (iii) The trial court framed charges U/s. 458, 397 and 302 I.P.C. The appellant denied charges and claimed trial. After completion of investigation the I.O. submitted charge sheet against the appellant in the court of Civil Judge (J.D.)-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu from where the case was committed to the trial court. (iii) The trial court framed charges U/s. 458, 397 and 302 I.P.C. The appellant denied charges and claimed trial. (iv) The prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and produced 18 documents. Thereafter statement of the accused appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The appellant produced one defence witness and exhibited five documents. The trial court recorded the order of conviction and passed the sentence mentioned herein above. 4. There is no direct evidence in this case. The prosecution in the trial court relied upon the following circumstances to connect the appellant with the crime: (i) The appellant was seen running out of the house of the deceased and was caught, hidden in a trench, immediately after the incident. (ii) The appellant at the time of his arrest was found wearing two chappals of different colours (green and yellow) out of which one belonged to the deceased. Another pair of chappals of green and yellow dolour was found near the cot on which Banarasi was found murdered. (iii) Dented ornaments having removed with the help of iron palta from both the legs of the deceased, were recovered at the instance of the accused appellant. (iv) Ante-mortem multiple abrasions on both the legs, just above the ankles, and teeth bite on the cheek of Banarsi (deceased) were found in the post-mortem examination. Accused appellant was also having abrasions on his face and nose at the time of his arrest. 5. Recently the Apex Court decided Balwinder Singhs case (1996 Cr.L.J. 883) based on a circumstantial evidence and observed as under:- "In a case based on circumstantial evidence, it is now well settled that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully proved and these circumstances must be conclusive in nature to connect the accused with the crime. All the links in the chain of events must be established beyond a reasonable doubt and the established circumstances should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence. All the links in the chain of events must be established beyond a reasonable doubt and the established circumstances should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence. In a case based on circumstantial evidence the court has to be on its guard to avoid the danger of allowing suspicion to take the place of legal proof and has to be watchful to avoid the danger of being saved by emotional consideration. However, strong they may be, to take the place of proof." It is in the context of the above settled principles that we shall analyse the evidence led by the prosecution.Caught Immedaitely after the Incident 6. The evidence of the first circumstance caught immediately after the incident is based on the testimony of Bhagirath (Pw. 1), Rameshwar (Pw. 2), Birbal (PW. 4), Tulsa Ram (Pw. 5), Ramswaroop (Pw. 6), Raju (Pw. 7), Mahendra (Pw. 10) and Kurda Ram (Pw. 11). Ramswaroop (Pw. 6) is the star witness of the prosecution, in the site plan (Ex.P 3) house of Ramswaroop has been shown at 150 steps away from the house of the-deceased. This witness had seen the appellant coming out of the house of the deceased at about 11 RM. on 21.4.94. He has identified the appellant in the Court. He stated that he got up at about 11 P.M. for drinking water. At that time he had seen Naval Singh coming out of the house of Banarsi (deceased). On being enquired by him the appellant started running. When he shouted `Chor-Chor', Raju, Tulsa Ram, Bhagirath, Mahendra and Mohan came and they chased the thief and found him in the field of Sunda Ram. They took him to the house of Banarsi where they found Banarsi dead. There was a mark of teeth bite on her face and she also sustained injuries on her legs. Under the cot an iron Palta was lying. Two chappals of different sizes and colours were also lying nearby out of which one was yellow and another was green. Bhagirath (Pw. 1) stated that after hearing the shout of `Chor-Chor' he reached at the house of Bhabhi Banarsi where, he found her dead. Tulsa Ram, Mohan, Ramswaroop, Raju, Mahendra and other persons were also shouting Chor-Chor. They chased the thief and caught him in the field of Sunda Ram. Bhagirath (Pw. 1) stated that after hearing the shout of `Chor-Chor' he reached at the house of Bhabhi Banarsi where, he found her dead. Tulsa Ram, Mohan, Ramswaroop, Raju, Mahendra and other persons were also shouting Chor-Chor. They chased the thief and caught him in the field of Sunda Ram. The thief was Naval Singh (appellant) already known to him (Bhagirath) for the last 15 years. Naval Singh was taken to the house of Banarasi and F.I.R. was lodged in the police station. Banarsi was wearing only a silver chain. Other ornaments from her person were missing. Rameshwar (Pw. 2), Birbal (Pw. 4), Tulsa Ram (Pw. 5), Raju (Pw. 7), Mahendra (Pw. 10) and Kurda Ram (Pw. 11) have corroborated the testimony of Ramswaroop (Pw. 8) and Bhagirath (Pw. 1). Kurda Ram (Pw. 11) who is harijan by caste stated that he was in his field where he heard shouting of `Chor-Chor'. He found Tulsa Ram, Mohan, Mahendra, Bhagirath and Raju running towards the field and they caught accused appellant Naval Singh in the trench of churi. Naval Singh belonged to village Lamba and was known to him. The prosecution has examined these witnesses in order to establish the fact that accused had been caught immediately after the incident. 7. Mr. Vikram Singh, the learned counsel for the appellant, has contended that F.I.R. was lodged at 2.15 A.M. on 22.4.94 but cross-examination of Bhagirath (Pw. 1) reveals that he instituted F.I.R. with the police stating at 11.30 P.M. On 21.4.94 after catching hold of the accused-appellant. He categorically denied of having lodged F.I.R. at 2.15 A.M. He also stated that accused appellant was arrested at 2.30 A.M. and at the same time arrest memo was prepared. The accused-appellant was taken by the police at 5 A.M. Mr. Vikram Singh, the learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention towards arrest memo of the accused appellant (Ex. P 12) according to which the accused appellant was arrested at 4.15 P.M. on 22.4.94. Mr. Vikram Singh, the learned counsel for the appellant, contended that looking to the statement of Bhagirath (Pw. 1), the whole case of prosecution has become doubtful and the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused appellant had been caught immediately after the incident. P 12) according to which the accused appellant was arrested at 4.15 P.M. on 22.4.94. Mr. Vikram Singh, the learned counsel for the appellant, contended that looking to the statement of Bhagirath (Pw. 1), the whole case of prosecution has become doubtful and the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused appellant had been caught immediately after the incident. The learned counsel has further contended that when the F.I.R was lodged at 2.15 A.M. on 22.4.94 then, why the accused appellant who, according to prosecution was handed over to the police was not arrested then and there? The learned counsel has referred the statement of Matu Ram (Pw. 1), who stated that Naval Singh was arrested by the police at about 3.30 PM. on 22.4.94 from his house situated in village Lamba. Net argument of the learned counsel is that the testimony of prosecution witnesses does not inspire confidence and the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused appellant was immediately caught after the incident. 8. On the other hand Mr. Agrawal, the learned P.P. has contended that I.O. Nitya Nand (Pw. 13) in his cross-examination has stated that F.I.R. was lodged at 2.15 A.M. and he reached at the spot at about 2.45 A.M. He took the accused with him for Investigation up to police station and did not arrest him at the spot. The accused was arrested by him at 4.15 P.M. Birbal (Pw. 4) in his cross-examination, stated that police did not do anything in the night. Upto whole night Thanedar remained there. The statements of the witnesses go to show that accused appellant was taken by the police from the house of Banarsi in the intervening night of 21.4.94 and 22.4.94 but he was arrested on 22.4.94 at 4.15 P.M. and this fact has been convincingly explained by Nityanand I.O. (PW. 13); 9. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced before us and we are of the considered view that the prosecution has reasonably explained the arrest of the accused appellant and the fact that arrest memo was prepared at 4.15 p.m. on 22.4.94 does not render the circumstance, that the accused was caught immediately after the incident, doubtful. There is no reason to disbelieve the statements of the witnesses Ram Swaroop, Bhagirath and Birbal. The witnesses produced by the prosecution cannot be termed as interested witnesses. There is no reason to disbelieve the statements of the witnesses Ram Swaroop, Bhagirath and Birbal. The witnesses produced by the prosecution cannot be termed as interested witnesses. Their presence at the spot was quite natural. The defence version that the accused appellant was arrested from his house at about 3.30 P.M. on 22.4.94, was not introduced at the beginning of the trial. No question was asked from any of the prosecution witnesses that appellant Naval Singh was arrested from his house and was not caught immediately after the incident. No explanation was given by the accused appellant in his examination U/s. 313 Cr.PC. as to what was he doing in the intervening night of 21.4.94 and 22.4.94 in village Hamir Vas. It has not been brought out from the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses as to why the accused appellant was falsely implicated by the prosecution witnesses. Was he, in inimical relations with the prosecution witnesses? Nothing could be elicited from the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses so as to create doubt in our mind about the false implication of the accused appellant. No doubt that there are minor contradictions about the time of preparing memos by the I.O. but this itself is not sufficient to discard the testimony of the prosecution witnesses which stood close judicial scrutiny and inspires confidence. Under these circumstances we hold that the accused appellant was seen running out of the house of the deceased and was caught immediately after the incident. Thus the prosecution is successful in proving the first circumstance against the accused appellant.Recovery of Chappals 10. The evidence of second circumstance pertaining to recovery of chappals of different colours based on the testimony of Pyarelal (Pw. 3), Birbal (Pw. 4), Tulsa Ram (Pw. 5), Ramswaroop (Pw. 6), Srichand (Pw. 8), Mahendra (Pw. 10) and Nityanand (Pw. 13). Two chappals of different colours (green and yellow) were seized through seizure memo (Ex.P 11) on 22.4.94 at 8.45 A.M. by the I.O. Nityanand in the presence of Birbal Ram and Pyarelal under the cot on which Banarsi Devi was murdered. The accused appellant was arrested through arrest memo (Ex.P 12) on 22.4.94 at 4.15 PM. At that time was also wearing two chappals of different colours (green and yellow) and of different sizes. The accused appellant was arrested through arrest memo (Ex.P 12) on 22.4.94 at 4.15 PM. At that time was also wearing two chappals of different colours (green and yellow) and of different sizes. Pair of chappal seized through Ex.P 11 from the place of occurrence was marked by the trial court as Article 4 and another pair of chappal szied through Ex.P 12 from the person of the accused was marked as `Article-3'. Independent seizure memo of the pair of chappals seized from the accused appellant was also prepared by the I.O. and was marked by the trial court as Ex.P 13. Both the packets of chappals were sent to F.S.L. for examination and according to F.S.L. report (Ex.P 17) Part-1 which contains one blue and one yellow coloured hawai chappals of left foot each allegedly recovered from the place of occurrence and one blue and one yellow coloured hawai chappal of right foot each in Part-4 allegedly recovered from the accused appellant, made fellow pairs of each other. 11. The witnesses Pyarelal (Pw. 3), Birbal (Pw. 4), Tulsa Ram (Pw. 5), Ramswaroop (Pw. 6), Srichand (Pw. 8), Mahendra (Pw. 10) and Nityanand (Pw. 13) have corroborated seizure of chappals of different colours and the fact pertaining to seizure of pair of chappals from the place of occurrence as well as from the possession of the accused, has been established by the prosecution. Though in the seizure memos and in the statements of witnesses the colours of chappals have been mentioned as green and yellow whereas in the F.S.L. report the colours of chappals have been narrated as blue and yellow. We have carefully perused the testimony of the witnesses as well as the seizure memos and F.S.L. report. No doubt that in the FSL report the colours of both the pairs of chappals sent for examination are shown as blue and yellow, but on the basis of this technical mistake alone we cannot doubt the recovery of chappals. We cannot disbelieve the prosecution witnesses who have established the recovery of chappals of green and yellow colours. Their testimony has not been shattered in the cross examination. Nityanand investigating Officer (Pw. We cannot disbelieve the prosecution witnesses who have established the recovery of chappals of green and yellow colours. Their testimony has not been shattered in the cross examination. Nityanand investigating Officer (Pw. 13) was also not cross-examined about sending sealed packets of the chappals to F.S.L. There was though ample scope of cross-examination regarding running of accused wearing chappals of different sizes and regarding time of their recovery but nothing could be elicited in the cross examination. Persons who are well versed with colours know that colour `bluish green' and `greenish blue' are very near to colours `blue' and green and mistakes may be occurred in identifying the said colours.Thus, the prosecution is successful in proving that `two pairs' of different colours and different sizes of chappals were recovered. One such pair was found under the cot on which Banarsi (deceased) was murdered and another identical pair of chappals was possessed by the accused appellant at the time of his arrest.Recovery of Ornaments 12. The evidence of third circumstance that is recovery of ornaments of the deceased at the instance of appellant, is based on the testimony of Bhagirath (Pw. 1), Rameshwar (Pw. 2), Pyarelal (Pw. 3) and Nityanand (Pw. 13). A recovery memo Ex.P7 was prepared by Nityanand-I.O. (Pw. 13) on 24.4.94 at 11.30 A.M. which bears signatures of Bhagirath and Rameshwar Lal. The recovery of silver ornaments and coins mentioned in the recovery memo, was effected on the basis of disclosure statement of the accused appellant recorded u/s. 27 of the Evidence Act by Nityanand I.O. on 24.4.94 at 9.45 A.M. The disclosure statement was recorded in the memo Ex.P 16 and it bears thumb impression of the accused appellant. A perusal of recovery memo (Ex.P7) reveals that accused appellant himself got recovered the ornaments and the coins from a trench in the filed of Sunda Ram. The accused appellant got recovered following articles from the trench after digging clay by his own hands: (i) two silver kadis (bangles) in bended condition. (ii) two Chhalkadas. (iii) plastic begs containing coins (iv) currency notes amounting to 305/- Rs. (v) one small Iron box containing Badalla. 13. Witnesses of seizure memo Bhagirath (Pw. 1) and Rameshwar (Pw. 2) have admitted their signatures on the said memo and stated that said articles were recovered in their presence at the instance of accused appellant. Pyarelal (Pw. (ii) two Chhalkadas. (iii) plastic begs containing coins (iv) currency notes amounting to 305/- Rs. (v) one small Iron box containing Badalla. 13. Witnesses of seizure memo Bhagirath (Pw. 1) and Rameshwar (Pw. 2) have admitted their signatures on the said memo and stated that said articles were recovered in their presence at the instance of accused appellant. Pyarelal (Pw. 3) has also stated that the said articles were recovered in his presence. Recovery memo (Ex.P7) was prepared on which Rameshwar and Bhagirath had signed, though he was also present but he was not asked to sign by the I.O. on the said document. Nityanand I.O. (Pw. 1) has also corroborated the testimony of Bhagirath and Rameshwar. He has stated that the disclosure statement Ex.P 16 was reduced into writing in the words of the accused appellant and it bears thumb impression of the accused. On the basis of this disclosure statement the ornaments were recovered through Ex.P. 7. Document Ex.P. 7 also bears thumb impression of the accused appellant and it was signed by the witnesses. He also prepared site plan of the place of recovery as Ex.P.8. This document also bears thumb impression of the accused appellant and it was signed by the witnesses Pyarelal and Rameshwar Lal. These witnesses also corroborated the statement of Nityanand. 14. The prosecution also recovered art iron `palta' from the house of Banarsi Devi (deceased) near her charpai (cot) on 22.4.94 at 9 A.M. through Ex.P 6. The iron palta was bending and there were marks over it showing that it was used for some purpose. Iron palta was recovered in the presence of witnesses Bhagirath and Rameshwar Lal and they have also proved its recovery from the place of incident in their respective statements. Nityanand I.O. (Pw. 13) has corroborated the recovery of iron palta. 15. Recovery of bending silver kadies at the instance of the accused appellant reveals that they were removed with the help of some instrument. Similarly bending iron palta seized near the cot of the deceased on 22.4.94 prima facie suggest that said silver kadies were removed with the help of iron palta which in the process of removing was also bended. Iron palta and silver kadies were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Rajasthan for examination. Similarly bending iron palta seized near the cot of the deceased on 22.4.94 prima facie suggest that said silver kadies were removed with the help of iron palta which in the process of removing was also bended. Iron palta and silver kadies were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Rajasthan for examination. Ex.P 18 report received from F.S.L. establishes that white metal traces were present on palta which telly with the scratches and dents on ankles and bangles. So the prosecution is successful in establishing the connection of palta with the dents found on silver ornaments recovered at the instance of the accused and the circumstance pertaining to recovery of ornaments has been proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused appellant.Injuries found on the person of accused and the deceased 16. The evidence of 4th circumstance that is injuries found on the person of the accused appellant, is based on the testimony of Nityanand (Pw. 13) and Dr. Rajendra Singh Shekhawat (Pw. 12), Dr. Shekhawat stated that he conducted post-mortem of the body of Banarsi Devi deceased and the cause of death was due to asphixia caused by strangulation. He found multiple abrasions measuring 2x 1 cm. x .5 x .5 cm. on both the legs above ankles of the deceased. He also found teeth bite marks 4 cm. x 3 cm. in non-eliplical form on left cheek of the deceased. Dr. Shekhawat also examined accused appellant on 23.4.94 at 10 A.M. and found multiple linear abrasions on both sides of the face and on the left side of the nose. He also found abrasions on right knee and left knee of the accused appellant. According to doctor the said injuries were caused within 36 hours from the time of examination. Dr. Shekhawat categorically stated that the injuries on the person of Banarsi Devi were ante mortem.The accused appellant in his examination U/s. 313 Cr.PC. has stated that he sustained injuries by virtue of beating by the police.The learned counsel for the accused appellant has contended that the prosecution has failed to connect the injuries sustained by the deceased as well as by the accused appellant with the incident and the accused appellant sustained injuries not at the time of the incident but afterwards when he was beaten by the police. We have considered the arguments advanced before us and we hold that the argument of the learned counsel is not well founded. The statement given by the accused appellant is after thought as no question in this regard was asked in the cross-examination from Nityanand A.S.I. or from any other witness. On the contrary when accused appellant was arrested through arrest memo (Ex.P 12). Injureis were found on his person and the said injuries were mentioned in the arrest memo. As such the prosecution is successful in establishing the 4th circumstance beyond reasonable doubt against the accused appellant. 17. Mr. Vikram Singh, the learned counsel for the appellant has further contended that F.I.R. lodged in this case, is a post investigative document as is evident from the statement of Bhagirath (Pw. 1) who has categorically stated that he lodged F.I.R. at 11.30 P.M. on 21.4.94 and not at 2.15 A.M. on 22.4.94. The argument of the learned counsel is that by the time the F.I.R. was lodged, the investigation already commenced. Mr. Vikram Singh, the learned counsel, has placed reliance on Ramanuj v. State of Rajasthan (1996 (2) Western Law Cases Rajasthan page 191) and Satpal v. State of Rajasthan (Criminal Law Reporter Rajasthan 1992 page 76) . We have gone through the decision cited before us and carefully perused the F.I.R. (Ex.P 1) lodged and exhibited by Bhagirath (Pw. 1). It is a hand written document in which Bhagirath (Pw. 1) had himself, in his hand writing mentioned "21/22-4-96 time 2.15 A.M." No doubt Bhagirath stated in his cross-examination that he lodged the report at 11.30 P.M. and not at 2.15 A.M. but he was not confronted with the F.I.R. (Ex.P 1) so as to provide him opportunity to refresh his memory as in (Ex.P 1) Bhagirath himself had mentioned the date and time and in his examination chief he admitted that the F.I.R. was in his handwriting and he had put his signatures on it. According to report (Ex.P 2) registered by the police, the police station Bagar was at a distance of 1 Km. from the place of incident. The incident occurred at 11 P.M. and it was quite natural that report was lodged within 3 and 1/2 hours. It seems improbable looking to the distance of the police station, that report was lodged at 11.30 P.M. that is within 1/2 hour the incident. from the place of incident. The incident occurred at 11 P.M. and it was quite natural that report was lodged within 3 and 1/2 hours. It seems improbable looking to the distance of the police station, that report was lodged at 11.30 P.M. that is within 1/2 hour the incident. Thus we find no substance in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that the FIR was post investigative document. The learned counsel for the appellant, has also placed reliance on State of U.P v. Sukhbhasi and Ors. (AIR 1985 Supreme Court 1224) . Hardayal and Prem v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1991 Supreme Court 269) . Surendra Pal Jain v. Delhi Administration (1993 Cr. Law General 1871) and Sharad v. State of Maharashtra (A.I.R. 1984 Supreme Court 1622). We have gone through the aforesaid decisions cited before us and respectfully perused the observations made in the said decisions. In all these cases, settled principles pertaining to circumstantial evidence have been laid down. We have already referred to gist of these principles while quoting an extract from Balwinder Singhs case (supra) and it is not necessary for us to repeat the same again. 18. In the case before us, the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution, formed a chain and sequences so complete by themselves that one was left in no manner of doubt that the appellant alone had committed the crime. The appellant was seen running out of the house of the deceased and was caught immediately after the incident. On the basis of his disclosure statement the ornaments of the deceased were recovered. The abrasion marks were found on both the legs above the ankles of the deceased. Silver kadies, having dents, were recovered at the instance of the accused appellant. Iron palta having dents was found under the cot of the deceased and Forensic Science Laboratory detected metallic traces on Iron palta. Deceased Banarsi sustained ante mortem abrasions on both of the legs Just above the ankles and teeth bite on her cheek. Abrasions on the face and nose of the accused were also found. The accused appellant was found wearing pair of chappals of different colours which made fellow pairs of chappals found and seized from the place of Incident. All the circumstances connect the accused appellant with crime and we hold that circumstances are fully proved and conclusive. Abrasions on the face and nose of the accused were also found. The accused appellant was found wearing pair of chappals of different colours which made fellow pairs of chappals found and seized from the place of Incident. All the circumstances connect the accused appellant with crime and we hold that circumstances are fully proved and conclusive. In nature to connect the accused appellant with the guilt. The prosecution has established the chain of events beyond reasonable doubt and they are consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally Inconsistent with his Innocence. 19. In the result the appeal is dismissed and the judgment of the trial court is maintained.Appeal dismissed. *******