JUDGMENT 1. - Dead body of newly wedded bride Kamlesh, bedecked with various ornaments and henna painted hands. was found buried in the fodder of cattle-shed. In her silence lied her desires, by the myriads slain and dead. She remained blown out lamp, lone and alone on a forlorn grave. Gopal, a young cattle care-taker (appellant herein) was tried in connection with murder of Kamlesh before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Sambhar Lake, District Jaipur, who convicted and sentenced the appellant under section 302 IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/- with default stipulation. 2. Kamlesh got married on February 26, 2000 and after spending three days in her Sasural (in-law's house) she had come back to her parental house on February 29, 2000. In the evening of March 1, 2000 she did go to Bada (open yard) for some house hold work. There was cattle-shed in bada and appellant used to work as cattle care taker in the parental home of Kamlesh for the last five years. When Kamlesh was not seen in the house even after the sun set she was vigorously searched but all efforts of her search were in vain. Police was, therefore, approached to search her. Before police could find some clue, somebody at 12 0' Clock in the night located the dead body of Kamlesh concealed in the fodder of cattle-shed. Mohan Lal the uncle of Kamlesh, rushed to the police station Sambharlake and lodged written report (Ex. P-2). A case under section 302 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. On completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case camp up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Sambhar Lake District Jaipur. Charge under section 302 IPC was framed against the accused, who denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as may as 19 witnesses. In the explanation under Section 313 Cr.PC., the appellant claimed innocence. The defence of appellant was that since he was demanding the wages for his labour of five years, he was falsely implicated in the case. No witness in defence was however examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated herein above. 3. There is no direct evidence to connect the appellant with the murder of Kamlesh. No witness in defence was however examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated herein above. 3. There is no direct evidence to connect the appellant with the murder of Kamlesh. In support of the charge levelled against him the prosecution relied upon circumstantial evidence which consisted of : (i) the fact of homicidal death of Kamlesh, (ii) the fact that the appellant himself received injuries, (iii) the fact that appellant was seen last in the company of Kamlesh on the evening preceding the discovery of dead body, (iv) motive for the offence, (v) the recovery of lathi in pursuance of the statement made by the appellant, (vi) the fact that appellant had absconded, (vii) the extra-judicial confession of the appellant, (viii) piece of fodder found on the shirt of appellant, matched with the fodder in which dead body of Kamlesh was concealed. DEATH WAS HOMICIDAL 4. In order to establish that the death of Kamlesh was homicidal in nature, prosecution examined Dr. Sukhram Nehra (Pw.12), who conducted autopsy on the dead body and found following ante mortem injuries vide post-mortem report (Ex. P-21) : 1. Lacerated wound laterally on At. eyebrow size 3cm x 1 cm x deep to bone with contusion over At. upper eyelid and over the forehead 4cm x 3cm in size upto hair line on At. side. 2. Lacerated wound behind & below Rt. Pinno on Rt. side of upper part of neck size 3cm x 2cm x 3cm deep 3. Contusion 4cm x 2.5cm at lower half of Rt. extension. 4. Contusion over At. Carotid region size 4cm x 6cm Pinno 5. Contusion 3cm x 1 cm on At. side of neck on middle part. According to Dr. Sukhram Nehra the cause of death of Kamlesh was coma due to blood loss and injury to vital organ brain. INJURIES SUSTAINED BY APPELLANT 5. The second circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is that when appellant was arrested on March 2, 2000, he was having injuries on his nose, back and knee. The appellant was medically examined and as per injury report (Ex.P-22) following injuries were found on his person : 1. Abrasion 1/2 cm x 1/2cm over middle of nose 2. Abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm on back side of chest between both scapular over vertebral column 3. Contusion 11/2cm x 1cm around injury No.2 4. The appellant was medically examined and as per injury report (Ex.P-22) following injuries were found on his person : 1. Abrasion 1/2 cm x 1/2cm over middle of nose 2. Abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm on back side of chest between both scapular over vertebral column 3. Contusion 11/2cm x 1cm around injury No.2 4. Abrasion 1 cm x 1/2cm over Rt. knee anetriorly. It is contended on behalf of the prosecution that the possibility that the appellant had received the said injuries because of scuffle at the time of incident, cannot be ruled out. Kamlesh was a young lady and finding her alone when appellant made attempt to molest her, she caused abrasions by her nails on the nose and back of appellant. On the other hand learned counsel for the appellant urged that the appellant gave explanation in his statement under section 313 CrPC that he received the injuries while he was beaten up by the villagers. We find ourselves unable to accept the submission. The nature of injuries sustained by the appellant could not have been the result of beating by the villagers. Possibility that abrasions over middle of nose and back side of chest were caused with the nails by Kamlesh during struggle, cannot be ruled out. LAST SEEN 6. The prosecution examined Smt. Lada Devi (Pw.2) and Mohan Lal (Pw.1) to prove that the appellant and Kamlesh were last seen together in the Bada which was at a distance of their residential home. Mohan Lal used to keep his buffaloes and fodder in the said Bada. In his deposition Mohan Lal stated that marriage of his niece Kamlesh was celebrated on February 26, 2000 and on February 29, 2000 she came to his house with her husband Rajesh, Nandoi Ramavtar and Devar Trilok. On March 1, 2000 around 4 PM his mother Lada Devi, Kamelsh and cattle care taker Gopal had gone to the Bada for milking the cattle. Lada Devi and Gopal after milking cattle came back with milk and she-buffaloes and Kamlesh remained in the Bada pursuant to the direction of Lada Devi providing fodder to the calves. Lada Devi and Mohan Lai then took the cattle to the well and Gopal after handing over milk at the house went back to the Bada. Lada Devi and Gopal after milking cattle came back with milk and she-buffaloes and Kamlesh remained in the Bada pursuant to the direction of Lada Devi providing fodder to the calves. Lada Devi and Mohan Lai then took the cattle to the well and Gopal after handing over milk at the house went back to the Bada. Leaving the cattle at the well when Mohan Lai and Lada Devi came to house, they did not found Kamlesh there. Attempts for her search were made but she could not be found. Gopal was also missing. Thereafter Gumshudgi-report (report of missing person) was lodged at the police station. Vigorous search of Kamlesh was on and when heap of fodder was thoroughly combed, dead body of Kamlesh was found. Testimony of Mohan Lai gets corroboration from the evidence of Lada Devi. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant canvassed that even if this circumstance that the appellant was last seen in the company of the deceased is accepted, no inference can be drawn that it was the appellant who committed the crime because the appellant was working as 'Hall' and there was nothing unnatural in the appellant being in the company of the deceased. Reliance is placed on Prem Thakur v. State of Punjab, (1982) 3 SCC 462 wherein it was observed as under (Para 7): "The circumstance that the appellant was last seen in the company of the deceased can be accepted as proved but no inference can arise therefrom that the appellant had committed their murder. The appellant was working with the deceased and others and there was nothing unnatural in the appellant being in the company of his companions on the evening before the murders were committed." 8. It is well settled that the accused and deceased were together prior to the occurrence, does not by itself lead to irresistible inference that the accused must have murdered the deceased unless it is further established that during the interval between the time when they were last seen together and the time in which the victim died every circumstance was inconsistent with the innocence of the accused. In the instant case the circumstance of last seen assumes significance in view of the fact that the appellant and deceased together accomplished the journey from childhood to youth. In the instant case the circumstance of last seen assumes significance in view of the fact that the appellant and deceased together accomplished the journey from childhood to youth. The appellant had seen every steps of the deceased which she took in growing as young lady since he had been residing with her in the same house for the last five years. The possibility that the appellant would have knitted the dreams to marry with the deceased, cannot be ruled out.MOTIVE : 9. There must exist a motive for every voluntary act. The term is applied to morals by analogy from the motive power in the physical world. But man is not a mechanical animal, he is the creature of passions and affections, he has reason and choice and we cannot always assign or detect the motive of a given act. Different persons react differently under given circumstances. It is difficult to lay down a hard and fast rule as to how and in what manner a person would react and to achieve his motive could go to what extent in the commission of crime under a particular circumstance. It is not possible to measure up the extent of his feelings, sentiments and desire and say as to what compelled him to commit a particular crime. There may be persons who under frustration and mere trifling domestic matters take decision to commit a serious crime, while others may approach it with cool and calm mind and think more dispassionately before taking any hazardous and serious steps. It all depends as to how a person reacts in a given circumstance and it is he alone who best knows his intention and motive to commit a crime and the extent thereof. In the present case the appellant in his statement under section 313 CrPC pleaded that he was not paid wages for five years and when he demanded the same he was falsely implicated in the case. There may be half truth in the statement of appellant. Possibly the appellant himself would have declined the wages because he himself was interested in marrying Kamlesh but after her marriage with another person, the appellant became frustrated. He did not relish the marriage of Kamlesh and soon after she came back, he found opportunity to take revenge and to release his frustration. Possibly the appellant himself would have declined the wages because he himself was interested in marrying Kamlesh but after her marriage with another person, the appellant became frustrated. He did not relish the marriage of Kamlesh and soon after she came back, he found opportunity to take revenge and to release his frustration. We thus find that there was strong motive behind the murder of Kamlesh.RECOVERY OF LATHI : 10. On the basis of disclosure statement (Ex.P-42) of the appellant, Lalit Pareek 1.0., (Pw.19) reached at the cattle-shed, the place shown by the appellant and got recovered lathi vide recovery memo (Ex.P-12). Motbirs of recovery Harzi Ram (Pw.5) and Amar Chand (Pw.6) supported the recovery. A look at the memo Ex. P-20 reveals that lathi was stained with blood which appeared to have been washed with water. The Supreme court in Pohalya v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 1949 indicated that the recovery of blood stained weapon becomes incriminating not because of its recovery at the instance of the accused but the element of criminality tending to connect the accused with the crime lies in the authorship of concealment, namely, that the accused who gave the information leading to its recovery was the person who concealed it. In the present case the prosecution has established that the appellant himself had concealed the blood stained lathi which was the weapon of offence. Therefore, this linchpin of the prosecution case provides incriminating evidence against the appellant. (Emphasis supplied)ACT OF ABSCONDING AND EXTRA JUDICIAL CONFESSION : 11. Prosecution witnesses Raghunath (Pw.10), Bhanwar Lal (Pw.11) and Rameshwar (Pw.9) deposed that after the dead body of Kamlesh was found, the villagers and police made attempt to search the appellant but he could not be located. In the morning of next day around 6 AM, they saw the appellant going towards village Sekhoon. Seeing them coming towards him, appellant started running but the witnesses caught hold of him. Appellant then confessed that he committed murder of Kamlesh. The act of absconding is normally considered somewhat as weak link in the chain of evidence but in the facts of the present case the act of appellant in leaving the house of informant Mohan Lal, where he was residing and serving as cattle-care taker for the last five years, without permission, assumes significance and it provides incriminating evidence against the appellant. Why would, a servant leave the house at the crucial time when the son-in-law and other near relatives of his master were around ? Having examined the credentials Raghunath (Pw.10) and Rameshwar (Pw.9) and ascertained the words used by the appellant, we are of the view that extra judicial confession made by the appellant affords a piece of reliable evidence. Rameshwar (Pw.9) stated that appellant said "Gusse main Aakar mughse Kamlesh ki hatya ho gai" (Because of anger I murdered Kamlesh). According to Raghunath (Pw.10) appellant said "Maine Kamlesh Ko Mar Diya" (I murdered Kamlesh). In Heramba Brahma v. State of Assam, AIR 1982 SC 1595 it was held that to afford a piece of reliable evidence, extra judicial confession must pass the test of reproduction of exact words and the reason for confession and person selected in whom confidence is reposed. In the present case extra judicial confession has passed the tests indicated in Heramba Brahma v. State of Assam (supra). Rameshwar (Pw.9) and Raghunath (Pw.10) categorically deposed that the appellant reposed confidence in them and after making confession of his guilt, he made request to them to save him from the clutches of police.PIECE OF FODDER : 12. There is yet another incriminating evidence against the appellant. At the time of arrest i.e. on March 2, 2000 piece of fodder was found over the shirt of appellant. The police also seized the piece of fodder from the place of incident and both the pieces were sent to FSL for examination. As per FSL report Ex. P-40, both the pieces of fodder were found similar. 13. We thus find that the circumstances attendant upon in the instant case conclusively establish that it was the appellant and appellant alone who committed murder of Kamlesh. The circumstances are capable of supporting the exclusive hypothesis that the appellant is guilty of the crime of which he is charged. 14. For these reasons, we do not find any merit in the instant appeal and the same stands accordingly dismissed. The conviction and sentence awarded to appellant under section 302 IPC are confirmed.Appeal Dismissed - Conviction Sustained. *******