Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 727 (AP)

Syed Meer Jakeer Hussain v. State Of A. P.

2005-08-08

B.PRAKASH RAO, P.SWAROOP REDDY

body2005
P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS criminal appeal is filed against the conviction imposed on the appellant-accused in s. C. No. 50 of 2002, dated 30-9-2003, on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, East godavari, Rajahmundry whereunder the learned Judge sentenced the appellant- accused to undergo life imprisonment and also pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short i. P. C ), to undergo three years imprisonment and also pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 201 I. P. C. , and to undergo three years imprisonment and pay a fine of rs. 500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 379 I. P. C. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution is that the accused is a resident of ramachandrapuram who runs foot wear shop under the name New Chaitanya Foot wear Shop at Ramachandrapuram. The deceased is a married woman hailing from Venruru Village having a son and married daughter who used to visit the shop of the accused frequently. The accused had developed illegal intimacy with the deceased. It is alleged that on 19-4-2001 at 1 p. m. , in the store room of the shop of the accused, the accused had sexual intercourse with the deceased. Thereafter the accused committed murder of the deceased by giving injection i. e. , composition of diazepam mixed with snake poison and when she was semi conscious, the accused squeezed her neck. After the offence the accused removed the dead body into his fiat Car bearing No. AP 5q 5500 and left the same at the vacant place belonging to the Endowments Department. He also committed theft of gold ornaments from the dead body of the deceased. When bad smell emanated from the car, the offence came to light. In the meanwhile on 20-4-2001, the accused pledged the ear studs of the deceased with pawn broker and borrowed Rs. 400/ -. He also committed theft of gold ornaments from the dead body of the deceased. When bad smell emanated from the car, the offence came to light. In the meanwhile on 20-4-2001, the accused pledged the ear studs of the deceased with pawn broker and borrowed Rs. 400/ -. On 21-4-2001, v. A. O. of Ramachandrapuram got information about the car which was abandoned in the vacant site of Endowments department, from which bad smell was coming and he went to the spot and got opened the dickey and found the dead body of the deceased and lodged a complaint to the police. Initially a case in Cr. No. 25 of 2001 under Section 174 Cr. P. C. was registered. Later, on the instructions of the sub-Divisional Officer, Inspector of Police took up investigation. ( 3 ) CHARGES under Sections 302, 201 and 379 I. P. C. were framed against the accused, for which he pleaded not guilty. ( 4 ) ON behalf of the prosecution, p. Ws. 1 to 18 were examined and Exs. Pl to p40 and M. Os. l to 16 were marked. ( 5 ) AFTER the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr. P. C. with reference to the incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, he denied the same and filed a written statement contending that he has not committed the offence and he is the owner of the Fiat Car bearing No. AP 5q 5500. As he had no parking place at his house, on 18-4-2001 as he was going to visakhapatnam he parked the car in the open place of Endowments Department and locked the car and also dickey he returned on 21-4-2001. After return, he was called to the Police Station at Ramachandrapuram and found the car parked outside the Police station and found the dickey lock broken. On 28-4-2001 he was produced in the court and till then he was in police custody. He has not stolen the ornaments from the dead body of the deceased and a false case is foisted against him. He also examined a witness, D. W. 1. On 28-4-2001 he was produced in the court and till then he was in police custody. He has not stolen the ornaments from the dead body of the deceased and a false case is foisted against him. He also examined a witness, D. W. 1. ( 6 ) OUT of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, P. W. I is the v. A. O. of Ramachandrapuram who got information about the dead body of the deceased lying in the car, went to the spot, opened the dickey on 21-4-2001 at 9. 30 p. m. , and found the dead body in putrefying stage. He gave Ex. Pl complaint to the police. He also witnessed the seizure of accused s Fiat Car M. O. 1 under Ex. P2 report, M. O. 2 the Tarpaulin cloth in which the dead body was wrapped. He was also present at the time of Ex. P3 inquest. He also witnessed the confession and recovery at the instance of the accused. In his presence gold ornaments, three unused compose amples, diazepam 2 ml injection bottle, one used syringe with needle, a bottle containing snake poison were recovered. M. Os. 3 to 8 being these articles. Ex. P5 is the mediators report. P. W. 1 also witnessed ex. 6 mediator s report for recovery of m. O4 ear studs at the instance of the accused from pawn broker shop. This witness also witness for recovery of some other property belonging to some other crimes and also for recovery of clothes etc. , of the deceased, M. O. 10 the petticoat. M. O. 11 the blouse. M. O. 12 the nose stud. M. O. 13 two silver anklets and also for recovery of keys of the shop and as well as the car M. Os. 14 and 15. ( 7 ) P. W. 2 is the husband of the deceased. He spoke about the deceased going to Ramachandrapuram Village from his village and about her not returning and later identified the dead body of the deceased after it was detected. ( 8 ) P. W. 3 is the son of the deceased. He spoke about his mother going to ramachandrapuram, not returning and later her dead body being found. He spoke about the deceased going to Ramachandrapuram Village from his village and about her not returning and later identified the dead body of the deceased after it was detected. ( 8 ) P. W. 3 is the son of the deceased. He spoke about his mother going to ramachandrapuram, not returning and later her dead body being found. ( 9 ) P. W. 4 is a cousin of the deceased who stated that she saw the deceased talking at the shop of the accused at 12 noon on 19-4-2001 on which day the deceased came to hospital to see her daughter. She also spoke about her finding the dead body of the deceased in the car dickey. ( 10 ) P. W. 5 is a Scavenger of ramakrishna Lodge at Ramachandrapuram. His evidence is that on 19-4-2001 at about 6 p. m. , the accused called him to attend some work and offered him Rs. 1,000/- saying that if he undertakes the work given by him he would pay Rs. 1,000/- and asked him to come the next day. As directed by the accused, he went to his shop at 4 a. m. , next day and the accused came at 4. 45 a. m. He opened the shutters of his shop and asked him to get into it. After they entered, closed the shutters. In store room dead body of a woman was found packed in tarpaulin and he asked him to assist in lifting the dead body into the car, that he assisted the accused in lifting the dead body into the car dickey and the accused asked him to get into the car, but he got frightened and went away. He identified M. O. I as the car in which he kept the dead body of the deceased. Three days after the incident he approached the Inspector of Police and informed about what has happened. At one stage, prosecution declared him hostile as he stated that he did not put the Thumb impression on the statement recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr. P. C. ( 11 ) P. W. 6 is a former domestic servant of the accused. She stated that the accused came to her about two years back and asked for snake poison for medicine purpose. P. C. ( 11 ) P. W. 6 is a former domestic servant of the accused. She stated that the accused came to her about two years back and asked for snake poison for medicine purpose. Herself and her husband caught a cobra in the fields of Ramachandrapuram and extracted venom into a bottle and gave to the accused. Again after one and half months the accused came to her and asked to supply some more venom and gave her rs. 50/ -. Herself and her husband caught another cobra and extracted venom into a bottle and gave it to the accused. ( 12 ) P. W. 7 a panch witness who was supposed to speak about the accused purchasing diazepam and compose turned hostile. ( 13 ) P. W. 8, the daughter of the deceased identified the gold ornaments of the deceased. ( 14 ) P. W. 9 is a retired ANM. Her evidence is that she knows the accused and that on 5-3-2001 while she was sitting at super Market, Ramachandrapuram, the accused asked her to sit in his shop as the super market was likely to be opened after a short while and she sat in the shop of the accused. The accused enquired her residential address and one week later the accused came to her house and gave one Puri tiffin packet. Again one week later, he visited her house and gave some injection amples of diazepam and asked her to take the injection and he offered to inject the same, she refused. The accused left the medicine at her house and went away. Again 4 or 5 days later, he came along with Pulav packet saying that it was his marriage day s gift. She took the packet, but did not consume it. Sometime later at about 8. 30 p. m. , she went for taking bath in her home without closing the front and back doors of the house and after return she found gold chain missing from almyrah. ( 15 ) P. W. 10 is a retired Co-operative urban Bank Secretary of Ramachandrapuram. He was examined to show that the accused took loan from the bank for the purpose of his shop. ( 16 ) P. W. 11 a pawn broker who was supposed to state about the accused pledging gold ornaments of the deceased turned hostile. ( 15 ) P. W. 10 is a retired Co-operative urban Bank Secretary of Ramachandrapuram. He was examined to show that the accused took loan from the bank for the purpose of his shop. ( 16 ) P. W. 11 a pawn broker who was supposed to state about the accused pledging gold ornaments of the deceased turned hostile. But, he admitted the documents relating to the transaction. ( 17 ) P. W. 12 is the person who lent rs. 20,000/- to the accused on the security of c book of the car bearing No. AP 5 Q 5500. ( 18 ) P. W. 13 is the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Alamuru at the relevant time who conducted Test Identification Parade of material object which P. W. 8 identified. ( 19 ) P. W. 14 is the Medical Officer who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and according to him, the body was in decomposed state, it was swollen, tongue protruded and there was a fracture of left hyoid bone and that the deceased might have died due to asphyxia on account of pressure over the neck and diazepam sedative poisoning. ( 20 ) P. W. 15 is the photographer who took photographs of the dead body of the deceased lying in the car dickey. ( 21 ) P. W. 16 is another photographer who took photographs of the shop of the accused. ( 22 ) P. W. 17 is the A. S. I. who registered the case on the complaint of P. W. 1. ( 23 ) P. W. 18 is the Inspector of Police who investigated the case. ( 24 ) THE only witness D. W. 1 examined on behalf of the accused is the proprietor of ramakrishna Lodge, Ramachandrapuram. He is examined to show that P. W. 5 was never engaged by him for cleaning the toilets etc. , the claim of P. W. 5 being he came to know the accused as the accused was visiting the lodge for toilet purpose. ( 25 ) THUS, there are no eye-witnesses for the offence and on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the learned Judge found the accused guilty. , the claim of P. W. 5 being he came to know the accused as the accused was visiting the lodge for toilet purpose. ( 25 ) THUS, there are no eye-witnesses for the offence and on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the learned Judge found the accused guilty. ( 26 ) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-accused that the circumstantial evidence is not sufficient to hold the accused guilty, that the car of the accused was parked in the open place belonging to the Endowments Department as there was no parking place available at the residence of the accused and that somebody might have opened the dickey of the car and kept the dead body of the deceased in the dickey, that the accused cannot be made responsible for the same and nothing was recovered at the instances of the accused and the alleged recoveries are all false, the evidence of P. W. 5 who claims to have helped the accused in lifting the body of the deceased from the shop of the accused into the dickey is also false and the evidence of D. W. 1 reveals that P. W. 5 was not at all working in the lodge of d. W. 1 as claimed by him. ( 27 ) NOW the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds to allow the appeal? ( 28 ) THE learned trial Judge has referred the following seven circumstances to arrive at a conclusion about the prosecution case: 1. That the dead body of the deceased was found in the car bearing No. AP 5q 5500 (MO. 1) belonging to the accused on the night of 21-4-2001 and the said car was parked in the Endowments department s land at Ramachandrapuram. 2. Recovery of articles M. Os. 3 to 8 and 16 in pursuance of confession made by the accused under seizure panchanama exs. P4 and P5. 3. Identification of the articles i. e. , M. Os. 3, 4, 12 said to be the articles worn by the deceased which were identified by the deceased s daughter-P. W. 8 in the identification parade held by the munsif Magistrate, Alamuru (P. W. 13) on 26-3-2001. 4. P4 and P5. 3. Identification of the articles i. e. , M. Os. 3, 4, 12 said to be the articles worn by the deceased which were identified by the deceased s daughter-P. W. 8 in the identification parade held by the munsif Magistrate, Alamuru (P. W. 13) on 26-3-2001. 4. The evidence of Nimmalapudi Lakshmi (P. W. 4) disclosing the fact that she saw the deceased in the shop of the accused in the afternoon of 19-4-2001 where she had last seen the deceased. 5. The evidence of Vaddi Sathiraju (P. W. 5) that the accused contacted him in the afternoon of 19-4-2001 seeking his assistance to go over to his shop on the next morning by 4. 30 a. m. , and when he went to his shop he was compelled to assist the accused in lifting the dead body of a female from the shop into the car (MO 1) kept outside the shop. 6. The evidence of M. Sundaramma (P. W. 9) that the accused developed friendship and used to visit her house and during his visit, he gave dizopham and syringe advising her to take injection. 7. The evidence of the Medical Officer p. W. 15 that the deceased died due to asphyxia due to pressure over the front of the neck and diazepam substance poison. And held the accused guilty. ( 29 ) IN view of the fact that there is no dispute with regard to certain circumstances, we feel the following circumstances have to be proved against the accused to sustain the conviction. 1. That the accused himself kept the dead body of the deceased in his fiat Car bearing No. AP. 5q 5500 and left it in the open place of endowments Department where it was found. 2. Any part of the stolen property that was lost from the body of the deceased was recovered from the possession or at the instance of the accused. There is no dispute about the homicidal death of the deceased and about the car bearing No. AP 5q 5500 belonging to the accused and about he himself leaving the car in the open place of Endowments department where it was found with the dead body of the deceased. There is no dispute about the homicidal death of the deceased and about the car bearing No. AP 5q 5500 belonging to the accused and about he himself leaving the car in the open place of Endowments department where it was found with the dead body of the deceased. ( 30 ) THE circumstances of P. W. 4, the cousin of the deceased finding the deceased in the shop of the accused on 19-4-2001, we feel is not of any great consequence as according to P. W. 4 at 12 noon the deceased was found in the shop of the accused. According to the prosecution, the death took place at 1 p. m. In fact there is no positive material to show that the death took place at 1 p. m. Even assuming that the death took place at 1 p. m. , from 12 noon to 1 p. m. , over a period of one hour, it is possible that the deceased can go elsewhere from the shop of the accused. ( 31 ) THE eviction of P. W. 9, Sundaramma on which the prosecution wanted to depend to show that the accused used to develop friendship with woman and visit them for obvious purposes is not believed by the learned Judge and we do not propose to differ. Similarly the prosecution case that the accused procured snake poison with the help of P. W. 6 also cannot be relied upon as it looks too artificial to accept that when the accused wanted, P. W. 6, with the help of her husband caught a cobra extracted venom and gave to the accused, thereafter when the accused wanted some more venom, they caught hold of another cobra and extracted some more venom. We are not inclined to give any importance to this. ( 32 ) IT has to be now examined as to whether the accused left the car in the open place belonging to Endowments department by keeping the dead body of the deceased in the dickey. ( 33 ) THE strongest circumstance is of the dead body being found in the car of the accused, there is no dispute about the car belonging to the accused and according to his examination under Section 313 Cr. P. C. , the accused himself left the car, at the place where it was found with the dead body. ( 33 ) THE strongest circumstance is of the dead body being found in the car of the accused, there is no dispute about the car belonging to the accused and according to his examination under Section 313 Cr. P. C. , the accused himself left the car, at the place where it was found with the dead body. The evidence of P. W. 5, Sattiraju shows that the accused took his help for transporting the dead body into the car. When P. W. 5 refused to say that he signed his 164 Cr. P. C. statement, he was declared hostile. Perhaps it was not necessary to declare him hostile. Out of ignorance, he might have stated that he did not put his thumb impression on 164 Cr. P. C. statement. His evidence is that he was attending to scavenging work at Ramakrishna Lodge which is located at the shop of the accused, that the accused used to visit the lodge for attending toilet needs as such he knew him. That on 19^-2001 at 6 p. m. , the accused called him to attend some work and offered him Rs. 1,000/- and asked him to come to his shop at 4 a. m. , next day. Accordingly, he went at 4 a. m. The accused came at 4. 45 a. m. , opened the shutters of the shop and asked him to get into the shop. After they entered, the accused closed the shutters. They entered the storeroom. There the dead body of a female touched his feet. He asked the accused to switch on the light, but the accused told him that it was not necessary. The dead body was already packed in tarpaulin. The accused asked him to assist in shifting the dead body into the car dickey, which was kept in reverse position at the shop. He assisted the accused in shifting the dead body into the car dickey. Thereafter the accused asked him to get into the car, but he got frightened and went away. He stated that after 3 days he himself approached the police and informed about what has happened. According to p. W. 18, the Investigating Officer, after completion of inquest at 12 noon, the dead body was sent to Government Hospital, ramachandrapuram and on the same day, he examined P. Ws. l and 5 and some others. He stated that after 3 days he himself approached the police and informed about what has happened. According to p. W. 18, the Investigating Officer, after completion of inquest at 12 noon, the dead body was sent to Government Hospital, ramachandrapuram and on the same day, he examined P. Ws. l and 5 and some others. The inquest was held on 22-4-2001 that means P. W. 18 examined P. W. 5 on 22-4-2001. The complaint - Ex. P1 was given on 21-4-2001 at 10 p. m. , i. e. , on the next day of Ex. Pl, he was examined. P. W. 5 in his chief examination stated that 3 days after the incident he himself approached the police and informed about the incident. The incident took place on 19-4-2001. ( 34 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant-accused contends that P. W. 1 in his evidence has admitted that P. W. 5 was present at the time of inquest, but there is no reference of his presence in the inquest. The evidence of P. W. 18 is that after inquest, he examined P. W. 5. Much importance need not be given to the absence of P. W. 5 s name in the inquest report, as, after the inquest, he might have informed the police about what he has seen. ( 35 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant-accused further contends that in case P. W. 5 really helped the accused in lifting the dead body into the car, his natural conduct would be to inform some one immediately and his failure to inform the same for 3 days makes his evidence unbelievable and shows that he was planted by the police. The learned Counsel further contends that in fact he was not at all working in the lodge as seen from the evidence of D. W. 1, lodge owner. We are not inclined to give any importance to the evidence of D. W. 1 as he has not produced any register to show the names of the persons working in the lodge and to show that P. W. 5 was not working there. The question is whether the evidence of P. W. 5 can be relied upon as for 3 days he has not informed anyone about his participation in lifting the body of the deceased. The question is whether the evidence of P. W. 5 can be relied upon as for 3 days he has not informed anyone about his participation in lifting the body of the deceased. ( 36 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant-accused relied on a decision of our High Court Yedlapati Raghavendra prasad v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2001 (1) ALD (Crl.) 42 (AP ). In that case a professor was killed by a Doctor. While the deceased was going on a scooter, the assailant followed him in a car and the deceased stopped his scooter and when he was entering the house of another doctor, the accused-doctor dealt blows on the head of the deceased. Two students who were behind the car of the accused and who stopped their motor cycle near the car of the accused and who claim to have seen the attack and even questioned the accused did not reveal the incident for two days to any one including the son of the deceased whom they informed about the incident but not about the name of the assailant. Similarly they did not inform the father of one of the eye-witnesses, (amongst those two students) who was an Assistant Registrar of the concerned college about the name of the assailant though they informed about the incident. In those circumstances, the hon ble High Court held that the claim of those two persons as eye-witnesses cannot be accepted. We feel that the above decision is not applicable to the present case. In that case eye-witnesses were educated people being Engineering College students. The deceased was their own professor and the accused was a Medical officer of their college and father of one of the witnesses was Assistant Registrar of the same college. In such circumstances they were expected to reveal about their being eye-witnesses to the incident, immediately. In the present case, P. W. 5 is an illiterate and a scavenger. The accused never told him in advance, as to what was the work he was to attend by taking rs. 1,000/ -. In such circumstances they were expected to reveal about their being eye-witnesses to the incident, immediately. In the present case, P. W. 5 is an illiterate and a scavenger. The accused never told him in advance, as to what was the work he was to attend by taking rs. 1,000/ -. He asked him to come next day and till he went into the store room of the shop of the accused, P. W. 5 was not aware as to what work he has to attend, in the circumstances, having gone there, there was no other option for him but to help the accused to lift the body of the deceased into the car. Obviously he got frightened and refused to accompany the accused in the car and went away. He was not aware as to who was the deceased and obviously he was under constant fear for some time. In the said circumstances, his not informing anyone about the incident looks reasonable and cannot be compared with the circumstances of the case referred in the decision Yedlapati Raghavendra prasad v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (supra ). In the cross-examination of P. W. 5 it was elicited that he gave information to the Inspector of Police on the day when there was a rumour that the dead body was seen in the car. It is not known on what day exactly this witness has come to know about the rumour. Nobody knows exactly on what day the rumour started. It may be on 21-4-2001 when P. W. 1 gave complaint. P. W. 5 was recalled twice for cross-examination. First time he was recalled and it was elicited from him that he was not aware of the particulars of the car, but that is of no consequence as admittedly the car belongs to the accused, as admitted by the accused in his examination under Section 313 Cr. P. C. In P. W. 5 s further cross-examination after two months, it was elicited that he omitted to state to the police the earlier the accused asked him to come at 4 a. m. , and contradiction Ex. D3 is marked as per which, he went at 5 a. m. , and not at 4 a. m. This one hour difference is of no consequence as he is an illiterate. D3 is marked as per which, he went at 5 a. m. , and not at 4 a. m. This one hour difference is of no consequence as he is an illiterate. In Rammi v. State of M. P. , 1999 (2) ALD (Crl.) 708 (SC) = AIR 1999 SC 3544 , the hon ble Supreme Court observed that eyewitnesses not informing the family of the deceased nor the police about the incident and about their being eye-witnesses need not always be taken as doubtful circumstance. In Para 8 of the judgment, the Supreme Court observed as follows : "such a remark on the conduct of a person who witnessed the murderous attack is least justified in the realm of appreciation of evidence, this Court has said time and again that the post event conduct of a witness varies from person to person. It cannot be a cast-iron reaction to be followed as a model by everyone witnessing such event. Different persons would react differently on seeing any violence and their behaviour and conduct would therefore, be different. We have not noticed anything which can be regarded as an abnormal conduct of P. W. 9 Ram Dulare. " ultimately, the Supreme Court did not rely on the evidence of above P. W. 9 for the reason that the author of the F. I. R. who mentioned the name of P. W. 9 in the F. I. R. stated in his evidence that there was no such person known to him and as P. W. 9 in his cross-examination stated that he did not mention anything about the incident to anybody else at all until he was questioned by the police. ( 37 ) IN the case on hand, the behaviour of P. W. 5 in not informing the police for two days cannot be criticized in the circumstances referred and the view of the supreme Court referred in Para 8 supports this view and unlike P. W. 9 in the above case who did not inform anyone until the police questioned him P. W. 5 himself gave information to the police on the day when there was a rumour that the dead body was in the car and that was immediately after the inquest and the evidence of P. W. 18, investigating Officer is that his statement was recorded immediately after the inquest. Thus, there are no circumstances to disbelieve the evidence of P. W. 5. He has no enmity with the accused. ( 38 ) THE accused in his 313 Cr. P. C. examination has stated that on 18-4-2001 evening he went to Visakhapatnam. He parked the car in the open place belonging to Endowments Department and returned on 21-4-2001. The most significant aspect here is that it is not the case of the accused that he regularly used to park the car in the open place of Endowment department. In his written statement filed along with 313 Cr. P. C. examination, the words used are : "i am the owner of the Fiat Car bearing no. AP 5q 5500. Since I have no parked place in my house, I parked my car in the open space belonging to Endowments department on the evening of 18-4-2001. " that means regularly he was parking his car elsewhere, probably near his house and only on that day, he parked the car at the open place of Endowments Department. The person going on a long tour will naturally park the car at more safer place like his house or near his house and not at an open place where it would not be safe. In case, he really left the car while going out of station, immediately on his return first thing he would do is, go to the car from the railway Station or bus stand whatever it is and get the car home. The accused has not stated at what time exactly he returned from Visakhapatnam, he says that on 21-4-2001 evening he was confined in the Police Station. As per the prosecution case on 21-4-2001 the complaint was given at about 10 p. m. By that time the name of the accused was not at all in the picture. As such, his being confined by police by the evening of 21-4-2001 is nothing but false. ( 39 ) IN case some one has killed the deceased, there was no possibility of the dead body being found in the dickey of the car of the accused, there was no possibility of taking away the car else where keeping the dead body in it and then again parking it at Endowments ground. ( 39 ) IN case some one has killed the deceased, there was no possibility of the dead body being found in the dickey of the car of the accused, there was no possibility of taking away the car else where keeping the dead body in it and then again parking it at Endowments ground. Even assuming that with a false key the car was taken from there and dead body was kept in it, it would not be again parked there unless it is mischievously and deliberately done to implicate the accused in the case. There is no material to show that anyone had such motive to falsely implicate the accused in such a serious case. There is no possibility for someone to open the dickey and keep the dead body in it while it was parked there itself as Ex. P38 rough sketch of scene of offence shows the endowments office is located at 123 feet and its car shed is located at 24 feet and a boys hostel is located at 50 feet from the place where the car was parked. Such being the situation, nobody would take risk of carrying the dead body and keeping it in the dickey of the car. There is a boys hostel just 50 feet away and boys would be obviously moving. If some stranger wanted to dispose of the dead body, he would have definitely chosen more safer place than the dickey of the car parked at a risky place. All these circumstances show that it was the accused himself that has kept the dead body of the deceased in the car with the help of P. W. 5 and left it in the open place. This would further lead to the obvious conclusion that the accused himself killed the deceased as there is no explanation as to how the deceased died. The motive may be to steal the ornaments of the deceased or some sexual perversion. ( 40 ) ANOTHER circumstance is that of recovery of the ornaments of the deceased at the instance of the accused. We feel that recovery of M. O. 4 from P. W. 11, at the instance of the accused is proved. P. W. 11, Pawn broker turned hostile. His evidence is that he does business in lending monies by pledging gold ornaments. We feel that recovery of M. O. 4 from P. W. 11, at the instance of the accused is proved. P. W. 11, Pawn broker turned hostile. His evidence is that he does business in lending monies by pledging gold ornaments. He said that he had no acquaintance with the accused, the accused never came to him. He admitted that police seized account books from him that Ex. P13 account books belongs to his business concern. As per the printed voucher affixed to the account book it stands in the name of Syed Javed ahmed of Ramachandrapuram Village (name of the accused is Jakeer Ahmed ). It is also noted as Chaitanya Foot Wear and jakeer and that was written on 21-4-2001. The voucher is marked as Ex. P14 under which M. O. 4 was pledged. He further stated that subsequently the endorsement of chaitanya Foot Wear and Jakeer was taken from him by the police. Ex. P15 is the relevant entry in the account book at page No. 88 relating to Ex. P14 voucher. He stated that he cannot say whether M. O. 4 was pledged under Ex. P14 voucher. In the cross-examination he stated that in Ex. P15 the words Jakeer was added when the police contacted him at the instance of the police. This evidence of P. W. 11 who wanted to help the accused shows that m. O. 4 was pledged with him. P. W. 8, the daughter of the deceased identified M. O. 4 in the Test Identification Parade. In her cross-examination she stated that there was no specific identification marks on M. O. 4. On the basis of this, the learned Counsel for the accused contends that it cannot be said that M. O. 4 belonged to the deceased and that is a common item used by any woman. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the accused relied on a decision in Bharat v. State of M. P. , 2003 SCC (Crl.) 738, wherein the Hon ble Supreme court held that identification of ornaments which are commonly available and worn by village ladies and which do not have any particular design cannot be safely accepted. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the accused relied on a decision in Bharat v. State of M. P. , 2003 SCC (Crl.) 738, wherein the Hon ble Supreme court held that identification of ornaments which are commonly available and worn by village ladies and which do not have any particular design cannot be safely accepted. We feel that the above decision is not applicable to the present case as we are relying on the recovery of M. O. 4 from the possession of P. W. 11 and not other ornaments recovered at the instance of shop etc. For recovery of the same, there is documentary evidence in the shape of exs. P13 to P. 15. ( 41 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant-accused further relied on a decision reported in Ashish Batham v. State of m. P. , AIR 2002 SC 3206 , and contended that in the case of circumstantial evidence, the chain must be complete and that in the present case, there is no such circumstantial evidence. In Para 6 of the judgment, the hon ble Supreme Court referring to previous judgment of Supreme Court has observed that: "the principles which should guide and weigh with the Courts administering criminal justice in dealing with a case based on circumstantial evidence, have been succinctly laid down as early as in 1952 and candidly reiterated time and again, but yet it has become necessary to advert to the same, once again in this case having regard to the turn of events and the manner consideration undertaken in this case by the Courts below. In Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 343 . It has been held as follows : in dealing with circumstantial evidence the rules specially applicable to such evidence must be borne in mind. In such cases there is always the danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof and therefore, it is right to recall the warning addressed by Barom Adderson to the jury in Reg. In such cases there is always the danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof and therefore, it is right to recall the warning addressed by Barom Adderson to the jury in Reg. v. Hodge, (1838) 2 Lewin 227, where he said: the mind was apt to take a pleasure in adapting circumstances tone another and even in straining them a little, if need be, to force them to form parts of one connected whole; and the more ingenious the mind of the individual, the more likely was it, considering such matters, to overreach and mislead itself, to supply some little link that is wanting to take for granted some fact consistent with its previous theories and necessary to render them complete. it is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. " in Para 8 of the judgment, the Hon ble supreme Court observed as follows : "on the mere suspicion, however, strong or probable it may be is of no effective substitute for the legal proof required to substantiate the charge of commission of a crime and grave the charge is greater should be the standard of proof required. Courts dealing with criminal cases at least should constantly remember that there is a long mental distance between may be true and must be true and this basic and golden rule only helps to maintain the vital distinction between conjectures and sure conclusions to be arrived at one the touch stone of a dispassionate judicial scrutiny based upon complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case as well as quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record. " that was a case where, in the absence of the parents of the two deceased, the accused has allegedly entered the house and killed both the deceased girls and went away. Some people have allegedly seen him entering the house, there were certain recoveries. It was found that the injuries found on the victim could not have been caused with a single individual within a short span. The recovery at the instance of the accused was after second remand and it was a busy place where offence could not have taken place without attracting the attention of any one nearby or regular passers by at the point of time in the area. We feel that the facts of the above case are not at all applicable to the present case where the dead body of the deceased was admittedly found in the dickey of the car of the accused and we held that in the circumstances, there was no possibility for anyone else to keep the dead body in the car and there is the evidence of P. W. 5 who helped the accused in shifting the dead body of the deceased into the car. ( 42 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant-accused wanted to rely on the circumstance that the car dickey being found broken to say that somebody broke open the dickey of the car and kept the dead body of the deceased in it. As already observed by us, absolutely there was no possibility for someone else to keep the dead body in the dickey of the car. As smell was coming from the dickey of the car, somebody might have broken the dickey and opened it and we are not inclined to give any importance to this circumstance. In the above circumstances, we see no grounds to interfere with the findings of the learned sessions Judge. ( 43 ) ACCORDINGLY, the criminal appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant-accused by the Principal Sessions Judge, East godavari at Rajahmundry, in S. C. No. 50 of 2002, dated 30-9-2003.