Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 159 (CHH)

ANWAR KHAN v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2003-08-13

K.H.N.KURANGA, L.C.BHADOO

body2003
L. C. BHADOO, J. ( 1 ) ACCUSED/appellant anwar Khan has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Cr. P. C. through the Superintendent of Jail, Raipur, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20/04/1995, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, khairagarh, in Sessions Trial No. 142/93, by which the learned Additional Sessions judge after holding the accused/appellant guilty of the commission of the offences under Sections 449, 302, 394 read with sections 397 and 201 of the IPC, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 449 of the IPC, to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 302 of the IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years on two counts under Section 394 read with Section 397 and Section 201 of the IPC. All the sentences where directed to run concurrently. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution case is that on 26/03/1993, Chandrika prasad (P. W. 15) gave information at the police Station; Kawardha at 00:30 hours that bhawanabai (the deceased) was residing in his neighbourhood and for the last two days her house was locked from outside and some foul smell was coming out from the house. On receiving the information, the Police reached the spot, broke opened the door of the house, and found that the dead body of bhawanabai was lying in a room in a swollen condition. A blanket was lying there and blood spots were found in the room. Information about death of Bhawanabai was sent to the nephew of the deceased who was residing in Village : Kharbana. Thereafter, the station House Officer Satish Dubey (PW. 23)reduced into writing the first information regarding the death of the deceased vide Ex. P-23. After inspection, Panchanama, Ex. P-1, of the dead body of Bhawanabai was prepared in the morning and the dead body was sent for post mortem examination with the police Constable namely, Amar Singh. A bedding made of old pieces of cloth, one piece of bangle, plain soil, blood stained soil and one lock of Jackson make were seized under Ex. P-2. P-1, of the dead body of Bhawanabai was prepared in the morning and the dead body was sent for post mortem examination with the police Constable namely, Amar Singh. A bedding made of old pieces of cloth, one piece of bangle, plain soil, blood stained soil and one lock of Jackson make were seized under Ex. P-2. On 28/03/1993, at about 23:30 hours, one blood stained full pant of blue colour, one blood stained shirt also of blue colour, one knife, one blood stained dhoti, one plastic box, one golden ear ring, one nose ring, one suit case along with three saris, chappal and Rs. 300/- which were found in the suit case were recovered from accused Anwar in the Village; Jewdan. On 29/03/1993, two sealed bags which were produced by Amar Singh, Constable were seized under Ex. P. 13. Witness shyamlal gave Rs. 1,300/- which were seized under Ex. P. 24. On 31/03/1993, rajendra Kumar Jain, Proprietor of M/s. Rajendra and Company produced one silver anklet, one silver armlet, one silver bangle, one paper slip which was tied with the ornaments and one book in which the entry regarding pledging of these articles were mentioned was seized under Ex. P-19. On the same day, one receipt regarding pledging of these articles was seized, on being produced by accused Anwar under Ex. P-25. On 31/03/1993, one Vilam Chand jain produced one silver necklace which was made of coins seven pieces of minted rupee, one silver and one register were seized under Ex. P-6. One pledge receipt was seized from Rajendra Kumar Jain vide (Ex. P-18a. On 1/04/1993, on enquiry, accused Anwar gave a memorandum Ex. P-3 regarding keys and one silver girdle and in pursuance to that memorandum the keys were recovered from the compound of the office of Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board. Kawardha, which were seized under Ex. P-4 Thereafter, the accused took the Police officer near the culvert of Village : Maharajpur and after digging, he took out one silver gir dle which was seized under Ex. P-5. On 20th april, 1993, the receipts, Exs. P. 7 to P. 11. regarding purchase of silver jewellery by deceased Bhawanabai were seized from banihar Das (P. W. 8) under Ex. P-14. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused/appellant. P-5. On 20th april, 1993, the receipts, Exs. P. 7 to P. 11. regarding purchase of silver jewellery by deceased Bhawanabai were seized from banihar Das (P. W. 8) under Ex. P-14. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused/appellant. ( 3 ) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge after hearing the arguments found that prima facie charges were made out against the accused/appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 449, 302, 394 read with Sections 397 and 201 of the IPC and framed the charges under Sections 449, 302, 394 read with Sections 397 and 201 of the ipc and explained them to the accused/appellant. The accused/appellant denied the charges and claimed to be tried. ( 4 ) IN order to prove the offences against the accused/appellant, the prosecution examined in all 23 witnesses. On the other hand, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr. P. C. The accused pleaded that he was innocent. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after hearing the arguments of the Additional public Prosecutor and the counsel for the accused and after believing the evidence of the prosecution, convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant for the commission of the offences as mentioned above. ( 5 ) WE have heard Mr. D. R. Sharma with miss J. A. Khan, counsel for the accused/ appellant and Mr. Ayaz Naved, Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent. ( 6 ) AS far as the nature of death of deceased Bhawanabai being homicidal is con-cerned, Shri D. R. Sharma, learned counsel for the accused/appellant has not disputed this fact. P. W. 9, Dr. R. K. Bakshi has stated that on 26-3-93, he conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of bhawanabai, and he found one stab wound of the size of 15 x 4 cms in the abdominal cavity, intestine and liver, on the left side of the abdomen; a lacerated wound of the size of 6 x 2 cms. muscle deep on the left breast; a stab injury of the size of 6 x 3 cms. extending up to abdominal cavity; and a lacerated wound of the size of 5 x 3 cms. bone deep over lumboscaral region placed obliquely. Rectum and uterus were found slightly protruding. According to the doctor, all these injuries were ante mortem in nature and homicidal. His report is Ex. P-17. extending up to abdominal cavity; and a lacerated wound of the size of 5 x 3 cms. bone deep over lumboscaral region placed obliquely. Rectum and uterus were found slightly protruding. According to the doctor, all these injuries were ante mortem in nature and homicidal. His report is Ex. P-17. He has further stated that injury Nos. 1 to 3 and the injury on the liver were dangerous to life and they were homicidal in nature. The doctor opined that looking to the nature of the injuries, the person might have died within five minutes on account of the excessive bleeding and shock. In view of the above evidence of the doctor and on perusal of the post mortem report Ex. P-17, it is clear that the death of the deceased was homicidal. ( 7 ) NOW coming to the question of involvement of the accused in the murder of bhawanabai, there is no direct evidence, as there is no eye-witness in this case. The whole case rests on the circumstantial evidence and the law on the point is that in a case based on circumstantial evidence the court can record conviction but it must satisfy itself that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt could be drawn have been established by unimpeachable evidence led by the prosecution and that all the circumstances put together are not only of a conclusive nature but also complete the chain so fully as to unerringly point only to the guilt of the accused and are not capable of any explanation which is not consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. ( 8 ) THE prosecution has tried to prove the offence against the accused/appellant by producing evidence on the following circumstances :a. The keys of the house of the deceased were recovered at the instance of the accused/appellant. b. The girdle of deceased Bhawanabai was recovered at the instance of the accused/appellant. c. The silver ornaments of deceased bhawanabai were pledged by the accused to one Rejendra Kumar and the suit case and other ornaments of Bhawanabai were seized from Village : Jewdan from the accused/appellant. ( 9 ) AS far as the recovery of the keys of the house of deceased Bhawanabai at the instance of the accused/appellant is concerned, PW. c. The silver ornaments of deceased bhawanabai were pledged by the accused to one Rejendra Kumar and the suit case and other ornaments of Bhawanabai were seized from Village : Jewdan from the accused/appellant. ( 9 ) AS far as the recovery of the keys of the house of deceased Bhawanabai at the instance of the accused/appellant is concerned, PW. 23 Satish Dubey, the Investigating officer has stated in his evidence that on 1/04/1993 in pursuance of the memo-randum Ex. P-3 given by the accused, the keys were recovered from the compound of the Office of MPEB, Kawardha from a bush which were seized vide Ex. P. 4. PW. 1 Masih prakash, the Panch witness, has supported the evidence of the I. O. and stated that the accused gave memorandum Ex. P-3 and in pursuance of the memorandum the accused took the Police to the Office of the M. P. E. B. and a bunch of 3-4 keys were recovered vide ex. P-4 on which his signature is at the portion marked as 'a' to 'a'. In view of the above evidence, it is proved that a bunch of (3-4)keys was recovered at the instance of the accused, but there is no evidence to show that these keys were of the house of the deceased. In this connection, Kailasnath has been examined as P. W. 22 and he has stated that Panchanama Ex. P. 28 was prepared, but it is incorrect to say that the locks of the house of the deceased were opened with these keys. Therefore, there is no evidence on record to show that these keys were tested with the locks of the house of the deceased and those locks were opened by these keys. Even the I. O. (P. W. 23) has also not proved this fact. There is no evidence on record to show that the keys which were recovered at the instance of the accused were of the house of deceased Bhawanabai. ( 10 ) AS far as the question of recovery of the Girdle of the deceased at the instance of the accused is concerned, P. W. 23 Satish dubey has stated that on 1/04/1993 the accused gave the information Ex. P-3 and in pursuance of that he recovered the girdle which was buried in a place near the culvert of Village : Maharajpur. P-3 and in pursuance of that he recovered the girdle which was buried in a place near the culvert of Village : Maharajpur. According to him, the accused after removing the sand took out the Girdle which was seized under ex. P-5. P. W. 1 Masih Prakash also stated in his evidence that the information memorandum Ex. P-3 was given by the accused in his presence and in pursuance of that memorandum of the accused the Girdle was seized by the Police under Ex. P-5. In his cross-examination, nothing is elicited. P. W. 6 Ramji Singh has also stated that accused anwar Khan gave information Ex. P-3 in his presence. The accused took the Police to a culvert near Maharajpur, from where, after removing the sand he took out the Girdle which was seized under Ex. P-5. Therefore, in view of the above evidence of three witnesses, the memorandum Ex. P-3 and seizure memo Ex. P-5. it stands proved that the girdle of the deceased was recovered at the instance of the accused. This girdle was identified by the nephew of the deceased namely, P. W. 8 Banihar Das as belonging to deceased Bhawanabai. Therefore, recovery of the girdle of deceased Bhawanabai from the possession of the accused/appellant stands proved. ( 11 ) AS far as the recovery of other silver ornaments of the deceased at the instance of the accused is concerned, P. W. 2 Jagdev prasad has stated in his evidence that he was present at the shop of Vilam Chand jain, at that time, Police along with the accused came to the shop and seized from vilam Chand Jain one (a necklace which is made of coins), one silver and a register under Ex. P-6. P. W. 14 Vilam Chand Jain has also stated that eleven months prior to the date of his statement, the accused came to his shop, introduced himself as Satish, pledged one silver (a necklace which is made of coins) and one silver and said that he was in need of money because he wanted to purchase one betel trolley. He paid rs. 540/- to the accused and the entries of the pledge were made in his book, Ex. P-22, the photocopy of which is Ex. P-22a. Thereafter, after eight days the Police came along with the accused and seized the same under memorandum Ex. P-6. He paid rs. 540/- to the accused and the entries of the pledge were made in his book, Ex. P-22, the photocopy of which is Ex. P-22a. Thereafter, after eight days the Police came along with the accused and seized the same under memorandum Ex. P-6. is Article 'n' and is Article 'o-l' to '0-7'. PW. 23 Satish dubey has stated that on 31/03/1993, he seized one (a necklace which is made of seven pieces of coins), one and one register from Vilam Chand Jain under Ex. P-6 which bears the signature of Vilam chand Jain. He also seized the photocopy of the registered under Ex. P-22a. In view of the above evidence, it is proved that the accused/appellant pledged these silver ornaments to Vilam Chand Jain and the same were seized at the instance of the accused from Vilam Chand Jain in presence of P. W. 2 Jagdev Prasad. In cross-examination of these three witnesses, the defence has not been able to elicit anything. ( 12 ) P. W. 23 Satish Dubey has further stated that on 28/03/1993 at about 23:30 hours in the night in village : Jewdan, he seized from the accused, one blue coloured full pant stained with blood, one light blue coloured full shirt stained with blood, one knife, one dhoti stained with blood, one small plastic box with one gold ear ring and one nose ring weighing l gms. , one suit case along with Rs. 300/-, three saris and chappals under memorandum ex. P-12 which bears the signature of accused Anwar khan. The knife is Article 1; the suit case is article A; saris are Articles B, C and D: chappals are Articles E-1 and E-2; the blouse is Article 1; the shirt is Article H; the full pant is Article G; and the golden ear ring and nose ring are Articles Q and R. P. W. 4 jhaduram has stated in his evidence that when the accused was sleeping in his in-law's house at Village; Jewdan, the Police came and seized the above items from the accused under Ex. P-12. Therefore, PW-4 has also corroborated the recovery of above items from the possession of the accused. PW-5 Santosh Kumar has also stated that ex. P-12 bears his signature. In view of the above evidence, it stands proved that the above items mentioned in Ex. P-12 viz. P-12. Therefore, PW-4 has also corroborated the recovery of above items from the possession of the accused. PW-5 Santosh Kumar has also stated that ex. P-12 bears his signature. In view of the above evidence, it stands proved that the above items mentioned in Ex. P-12 viz. , the clothes of the accused, saris of the deceased, one knife, one golden ear ring and one nose ring, the suit case etc. were seized from the possession of the accused. The defence has not been able to elicit anything from the cross-examination of these witnesses which makes their evidence doubtful. PW. 13 rajendra Kumar has stated in his evidence that he takes the silver and gold ornaments on pledge. He further stated that the accused introduced himself as Satish Kumar dewangan and pledged one silver anklet, one silver armlet and one silver bangle with him in lieu of Rs. 1,500/ -. After taking these ornaments on pledge, PW-13 paid Rs. 1,500/-to the accused and an entry to that effect was made in a book (register), Ex. P-18, which bears his signature and the receipt bears the signature of the accused as Satish kumar at portion marked as 'a' to 'a'. He further stated that the accused who was present in the Court was the person who pledged the ornaments to him. The photocopy of the register is Ex. P-18a. The articles which were pledged with him by the accused are Articles K, L and M found in the Court. He stated that the Police seized these articles under Ex. P-19 which bears his signature. ( 13 ) MR. D. R. Sharma, counsel for the accused/applicant submitted that memorandum Ex. P-3 given under Section 27 of the Evidence Act by the accused does not bear the signature of the accused. According to the learned counsel, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jackaran Singh v. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1995 SC 2345 : (1995 Cri lj 3992) if the memorandum does not bear the signature of the accused the same cannot be used against the accused and recovery at the instance of the accused based on that memorandum cannot be considered as evidence against the accused. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, we do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the accused/appellant. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, we do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the accused/appellant. The Hon'ble Apex Court made the above observations for the reason that in the said case the Court reached the conclusion that the prosecution witnesses in their evidence made exaggerations. Moreover, the panch witnesses were not examined in the case to testify the authenticity of the memorandum, therefore the Hon'ble Apex Court had not placed reliance on the evidence of seizure. But in the present case, the situation is entirely different. The Panch witnesses have been examined and they namely, Ramjit Singh and Masih Prakash, have stated that the accused/appellant had given the memorandum in their presence. ( 14 ) NOW coming to the question whether these seized articles belonged to deceased bhawanabai, P. W. 8 Banihar Das, the nephew of the deceased, has stated that bhawanabai was issueless and she had adopted him. On Thursday, at about 1 O' clock in the night, Kawardha Police telephoned him at his residence at Village : kharbana and informed him about the death of Bhawanabai. On the next day morning he reached the house of Bhawanabai. Bhawanabai was 70 years old and she used to wear silver ornaments. She had purchased one silver anklet, one silver armlet, one silver bangle, one ,one ,one ear ring etc. from the shop of Fateh Chand. The ear ring was of gold. PW. 8 has also stated that these ornaments were purchased by bhawanabai in his presence. The purchase receipts were seized by the Police under memorandum Ex. P. 14 which are Exs. P-7 to P-11. Bhawanabai used to wear the green coloured sari (Article 'c' ). He (P. W. 8) further stated that the silver ornaments which were sized by the Police including silver gir -dle,armlet, anklet and were identified by him in front of the Naib Tehsildar and the Naib Tehsildar prepared identification memorandum Ex. P. 15 which bears his thumb impression. P. W. 11 G. P, Choudhary. Naib Tehsildar has corroborated the evidence of this witness and stated that the silver ornaments were identified by witnesses Suresh Chand and Banihar Das before him and identification memorandum ex. P-15 was prepared by him. P. 15 which bears his thumb impression. P. W. 11 G. P, Choudhary. Naib Tehsildar has corroborated the evidence of this witness and stated that the silver ornaments were identified by witnesses Suresh Chand and Banihar Das before him and identification memorandum ex. P-15 was prepared by him. In view of the above evidence, it is proved that the silver ornaments and clothes of the deceased as well as the blood stained clothes of the accused were seized from the possession of the accused and some ornaments were seized from the possession of Vilam Chand jain and Rajendra Kumar with whom the accused pledged those ornaments. P. W. 8 banihar Das has identified those ornaments in the Court as well as before the Naib tehsildar that these ornaments belonged to bhawanabai. The accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr. P. C. has simply denied the recovery and the memorandums. He has not claimed these ornaments or no explanation has been offered by him as to how these ornaments came into his possession. ( 15 ) APART from that, PW. 1 Masih prakash has stated in his evidence that bhawanabai was residing in his neighbourhood and accused Anwar Khan took the house of the deceased on rent two-three days prior to the day on which the foul smell was emanating from the house of the deceased and thereafter, Police brought the accused to the residence of Bhawanabai. P. W. 15 chandrika Prasad has stated in his evidence that 3-4 days prior to the death of Bhawanabai, twice he saw the accused sitting at the residence of Bhawanabai and that is how he knew the accused. He has further stated that he had also identified the accused in front of the Naib Tehsildar. In the cross-exami-nation he has stated that 2-3 days prior to the death of the deceased, accused took the house of the deceased on rent. P. W. 10 J. R. Chaurasia, Naib Tehsildar has stated in his evidence that on 2-4-93 the identification parade of accused Anwar was conducted by him. The accused was mixed with seven persons, Chandrika Prasad had identified the accused and the identification memorandum Ex. P. 18 was prepared which bears the signatures of accused Anwar Khan and witness Chandrika Prasad. P. W. 10 J. R. Chaurasia, Naib Tehsildar has stated in his evidence that on 2-4-93 the identification parade of accused Anwar was conducted by him. The accused was mixed with seven persons, Chandrika Prasad had identified the accused and the identification memorandum Ex. P. 18 was prepared which bears the signatures of accused Anwar Khan and witness Chandrika Prasad. In view of the above evidence, it stands proved that before the death of deceased Bhawanabai, the accused took the house of the deceased on rent 2-3 days earlier, which is proved by P. W. 1 Masih Prakash and PW. 15 Chandrika prasad. Even, P. W. 15 had identified the accused in front of P. W. 10 J. R. Chaurasia. the Naib Tehsildar and stated that twice he saw the accused sitting at the house of the deceased. The silver ornaments and clothes of the deceased were seized from the possession and at the instance of the accused within a period of 2-5 days from the day of the death of Bhawanabai. ( 16 ) APART from that, the clothes of the accused i. e. the full pant and shirt as also the knife and the Girdle of the deceased which were recovered at the instance of the accused and silver anklet which was recovered at the instance of the accused from rajendra Kumar were found stained with blood as per the FSL report Ex. P. 29. It is true that as per the Serologist's report, the blood stains on the Girdle, ring and silver anklet were not found sufficient to give the opinion regarding blood group by the serologist. But looking to the other evidence which has been evaluated above, this report of F. S. L. Ex. P-29, that these articles were found stained with blood lends support to the prosecution case that the accused is the person involved in the heinous crime of the murder of deceased Bhawanabai. ( 17 ) NOW, we have to examine as to whether on the basis of the above circumstantial evidence the accused can be connected with the murder of Bhawanabai. ( 17 ) NOW, we have to examine as to whether on the basis of the above circumstantial evidence the accused can be connected with the murder of Bhawanabai. The relevant law on this point has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A. Deivendran v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in AIR 1998 SC 2821 : (1998 Cri LJ 814) in para 20 of the judgment has laid down that :"a presumption under Section 114 illustration (a) of the Evidence Act should be drawn in a given situation is a matter which depends on the evidence and the circumstances of the cases. The nature of the stolen articles, the nature of its identification by the owner, the place and the circumstances of its recovery, the intervening period between the date of occurrence and the date of recovery, the explanation of the persons concerned from whom the recovery is made are all factors which are to be taken into consideration in arriving at a decision. " ( 18 ) IN the case of Ronny alias Ronald james Alwaris v. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1998 SC 1251 : (1998 Cri LJ 1638) in para 31 of the judgment, the hon'ble Apex Court held "recovery of articles belonging to the deceased family from the possession of the accused soon after the incident, possession remained unexplained by the accused, so the presumption under illustration (a) of Section 114 of the Evidence act will be attracted. Murder and robbery of the articles found to be part of the same transaction and thus, it can be concluded that the accused and no one else had committed the murders and the robbery". In this case, the articles of the deceased were seized within a short period after murder of three persons in the house and that was the only circumstantial evidence. Based on the recovery of the articles of the deceased, the hon'ble Court held that the presumption under Section 114 (a) of the Evidence Act can be drawn and it can be concluded that the accused persons had committed the murders. Based on the recovery of the articles of the deceased, the hon'ble Court held that the presumption under Section 114 (a) of the Evidence Act can be drawn and it can be concluded that the accused persons had committed the murders. ( 19 ) IN the case of Nawabuddin alias nawab v. State of Delhi , reported in AIR 2001 SC 979 : (2001 Cri LJ 1638) in para 32, the Hon'ble Court held that the accused persons from whom the recoveries were made, consequent upon their disclosure statements, did not offer any explanation regarding their possession of the stolen properties. Thus, by drawing a presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act it can safely be held that the accused persons were at least guilty of the offence of robbery. Similarly, recent and unexplained possession of stolen properties could be taken to be presumptive evidence of the charge of murder as well. ( 20 ) IN the matter of Lachhman Ram v. State of Orissa reported in, AIR 1985 SC 486 : (1985 Cri LJ 753), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that recovery of stolen articles at the instance of the accused were made very soon after the occurrence, therefore, accused are liable to be convicted under Section 395 of the IPC with the aid of Section 114 of the evidence Act. ( 21 ) HAVING regard to the above law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, we now proceed to consider the evidence produced by the prosecution in the present case relating to recovery and seizure of articles at the instance of the accused. The dead body of Bhawanabai was found in her house on the night of 25-3-93 (i. e. 00:30 hours of 26-3-93 ). The doctor who conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of deceased Bhawanabai has opined that the duration of death was 2-4 days. The charge against the accused is that between the period 22nd and 25th of March, 1993, he committed the murder of Bhawanabai. Exs. P. 18a, P. 20, P-21 and P. 22 are the papers regarding pledging of silver ornaments belonging to the deceased i. e. silver anklet, silver armlet and silver bangle with M/s. Rajendra and Company. A perusal of the said documents show that the ornaments were pledged by the accused on 23-3-93. The documents were seized under Ex. Exs. P. 18a, P. 20, P-21 and P. 22 are the papers regarding pledging of silver ornaments belonging to the deceased i. e. silver anklet, silver armlet and silver bangle with M/s. Rajendra and Company. A perusal of the said documents show that the ornaments were pledged by the accused on 23-3-93. The documents were seized under Ex. P-25 from Rajendra Kumar who has been examined as P. W. 13. The said witness in his evidence has stated that he was doing the business of sale and pleading of gold and silver ornaments and he has stated that the accused, whom he has identified in the Court, had pledged the aforesaid ornaments with him. The accused had introduced himself to the witness as Satish Kumar Dewanagan. After taking these ornaments on pledge for rs. 1. 500/- he (P. W. 13) made entry to that effect in his register copy of which is Ex. P. 18a and he had issued the receipt Ex. P-20 to the accused. He stated that Ex. P-21 is the slip attached to pledged ornaments. All the above documents are dated 23-3-98 which indicates that immediately after the murder of deceased Bhawanabai i. e. on 23-3-93 the accused was in possession of the ornaments belonging to the deceased and he had pledged the same with Rajendra kumar (P. W. 13 ). This evidence of the prosecution shows that the accused/appellant was in possession of the ornaments belonging to the deceased on the next date of the incident and he had pledged the same with rajendra Kumar (P. W. 13) and Rajendra kumar had issued the receipts (Exs. P-18a, p-20, P-21 and P-22 ). This shows that on the next date of the incident he was found in possession of the ornaments belonging to the deceased which have been identified as belonging to the deceased by the nephew of the deceased namely, Banihar Das (P. W. 8 ). Thus, it is proved that on the next day of the incident the appellant was found in possession of the ornaments belonging to the deceased which was recent possession. ( 22 ) BHAWANABAI was found dead in her house on 26/03/1993 and soon thereafter, between the period 28/03/1993, and 1/04/1993, all the silver ornaments and clothes of the deceased were seized either from the possession of the accused or at the instance of the accused. ( 22 ) BHAWANABAI was found dead in her house on 26/03/1993 and soon thereafter, between the period 28/03/1993, and 1/04/1993, all the silver ornaments and clothes of the deceased were seized either from the possession of the accused or at the instance of the accused. Since these articles were seized within a period of five days from the date of the murder of the deceased and the accused had pledged the ornaments on 23-3-93 i. e. immediately after the murder, and no explanation has been offered by the accused regarding his possession of these articles, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court it can safely be concluded that the accused is the only person who is responsible for the murder of Bhawanabai. Looking to the proximity between the date of death and recovery of the articles of the deceased from the possession of the accused an irresistible conclusion can be arrived at and presumption can be drawn under Section 111 (a) of the evidence Act that the accused is the only person who committed the murder of the deceased. Moreover, as per the evidence of p. W. 1 Masih Prakash and P. W. 15 Chandrika prasad, the accused took the house of the deceased on rent only 2-3 days prior to the date of incident and even P. W. 15 Chandrika prasad saw the accused at the residence of the deceased on two occasions before the murder of the deceased. Therefore, after due consideration of the above circumstantial evidence, we are of the opinion that these circumstances have formed a complete chain so as to bring home the guilt of the accused of committing the murder of the deceased, without giving room to any other hypothesis consistent with his innocence. ( 23 ) AS far as the question of the commission of offence under Sections 449, 394 read with Sections 397 and 201 of the IPC is concerned as has been discussed above, the accused was seen sitting in the house of bhawanabai before her death, the body of bhawanabai was found dead in injured condition in the house, the stolen articles of the deceased were found in the possession of the accused which were robbed from the house of the deceased and thereafter, the house was locked from outside. Therefore, committing house trespass in order to commit the offence punishable with death and also committing the robbery of the articles of the deceased after causing fatal injuries to the deceased are the facts which are integral parts of the whole incident. As such, it can safely be concluded that the accused committed the house trespass at the house of Bhawanabai, thereafter he assaulted her, caused grievous injuries to her, murdered her, and took away the various ornaments of silver, gold and other articles. Therefore, offence under Section 449 of the IPC for committing the house trespass in order to the commission of an offence punishable with death as well as Section 394 read with Section 397 of the IPC for causing grievous hurt while committing the robbery to cause the death are also proved against the accused/ appellant. As far as the question of the offence under Section 201 of the IPC is concerned, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this offence is not proved against the accused/appellant because there is no evidence that the accused in order to screen himself from the legal punishment caused disappearance of the evidence. ( 24 ) IN view of the above, as far as the conviction and sentences of the accused/ appellant under Sections 302, 449 and 394 read with Section 397 of the IPC are concerned, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment of the learned trial court. However, the offence under Section 201 of the IPC is not proved. ( 25 ) IN the result, the appeal of the accused/appellant is dismissed to the extent that the conviction and sentences of the accused/appellant under Sections 302, 449 and 394 read with Section 397 of the IPC are maintained. However, he is acquitted of the charge under Section 201 of the IPC and his conviction and sentence under Section 201 of the IPC to set aside. Appeal dismissed. --- *** --- .