JUDGMENT : Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. Morpal, maternal grandson of deceased Durga Bai, was tried by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Chhabra, District Baran for causing murder of his maternal grandmother on the intervening night of 11.7.2008 and 12.7.2008. Durga Bai, as per Dr. Lekhraj Malva (P.W. 15) who had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Durga Bai vide his post-mortem report (Ex. P. 14), had died as a result of asphyxia and cerebral anexia. 2. As per prosecution, the appellant had committed murder of his grandmother in order to commit theft. It is further case of the prosecution that the appellant had committed theft of silver and gold ornaments which consist of silver anklets weighing 750 gms., one silver Hasali (necklace) weighing 1 kg. and gold earrings weighing 15 gms. 3. After framing of charges, prosecution led evidence and examined twenty-two witnesses and got exhibited thirty-seven documents. It is a case of circumstantial evidence as no eye-witness has been examined. 4. The trial court vide impugned judgment dated 23.5.2009 convicted the appellant for offences under Sections 449, 302 and 380 IPC and sentenced the appellant as under:- "U/s. 449 IPC: Five years rigorous imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 380 IPC: Three years rigorous imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 302 IPC: Life imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment." 5. Aggrieved against the same, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 6. Criminal proceedings were set into motion on the basis of written report (Ex. P. 13) presented by Ramesh Chandra (P.W. 14) son of the deceased. On the basis of written report (Ex. P. 13), formal FIR (Ex. P. 21) bearing No. 102/08 was registered. 7. In the written report (Ex. P. 13), Ramesh Chandra (P.W. 14) stated that he alongwith his children is residing at Chhabra, whereas his mother was residing in Village Bhilwara Neecha. Age of his mother was 92 years. In the written report (Ex. P. 13), it was further stated that at some distance from the house of mother, eldest sister of the complainant namely Kanchan Bai was also residing. Age of his mother was 92 years. In the written report (Ex. P. 13), it was further stated that at some distance from the house of mother, eldest sister of the complainant namely Kanchan Bai was also residing. Complainant on the morning on 11.7.2008 received an information on his mobile from Janaki Lal (P.W. 7) that his mother is lying dead in the house. A further information was relayed to him that a large crowed had gathered outside the house of his mother. On receipt of information, the complainant went to the village, saw his mother and found that the ornaments worn by his mother i.e. one silver anklet weighing 750 gms. and one Hasali (necklace) weighing 1 kg. were missing. The complainant further stated that two earrings of gold were also found missing. In the written report, complainant specifically stated that his mother has been murdered by Babulal S/o. Bhanwarlal Meena. It was further averred that Babulal had admitted his guilt before Mangilal Meena, Jankilal Meena and Prem Narain. 8. Upon registration of the case, investigation was carried and chargesheet under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted against the appellant. The same was committed to the Court of Sessions and was entrusted for trial to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Chhabra, District Baran. 9. As stated earlier, appellant was charged for murder of his grandmother. The first charge stated that on the intervening night of 11.7.2008 and 12.7.2008 the appellant had committed murder after trespassing into the residential house and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 449 IPC. The second charge stated that on the said date and time, he had throttled Durga Bai and thus, committed offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The third charge stated that the appellant committed theft of silver and gold ornaments which consist of silver anklet weighing 750 gms., silver necklace weighing 1 kg. and earrings weighing 15 gms. 10. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution commenced its evidence. 11. Mangilal (P.W. 1) who as per the written report (Ex. P. 13) was witness to the extrajudicial confession, in court has only stated that he had seen the dead body. Thus, this witness in no manner has advanced the case of the prosecution. 12. Radheyshyam (P.W. 2) had attested Panchnama/inquest (Ex. P. 1) and also deposed that in his presence dead body was photographed. 13. P. 13) was witness to the extrajudicial confession, in court has only stated that he had seen the dead body. Thus, this witness in no manner has advanced the case of the prosecution. 12. Radheyshyam (P.W. 2) had attested Panchnama/inquest (Ex. P. 1) and also deposed that in his presence dead body was photographed. 13. Prem Narain (P.W. 3) and Sri Kishan (P.W. 4) both had attested Panchnama/inquest (Ex. P. 1). 14. Balveer Singh (P.W. 5) stated that on 16.7.2008, SHO Ram Manohar in his presence had recovered from the house of accused two gold earrings, silver Hasali (necklace), one Safi and silver anklets vide memos (Ex. P. 6 and P. 7). 15. Kallu (P.W. 6) in court deposed that he was not aware as to how Durga Bai had died. This witness has turned hostile to the prosecution. 16. Janki Lal (P.W. 7) stated that 4-5 months ago Durga Bai had died. Dead body was emitting foul smell. The witness stated that he had not seen any mark of injury on the dead body. The witness further stated that he informed Ramesh Chandra (P.W. 14) son of the deceased. Except this, this witness has not said anything incriminating to the accused. 17. Jagdish (P.W. 8) stated that about five months ago he had gone to the house of deceased and had seen the dead body. 18. Shivcharan (P.W. 9) in court deposed that on 10.7.2008 he was present in his Shop. A boy 20-25 years old came to his shop and stated that he is in need of money and he can pawn golden earrings. The witness stated that first the accused disclosed that the earrings were of his wife, later accused became perplexed and same aroused their suspicion. The witness identified Morpal as accused who had visited at his shop. However, no test identification parade was carried. 19. Ram Charan (P.W. 10) has also turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. 20. Har Govind (P.W. 11) stated that he had attested the site plan (Ex. P. 12). 21. Moolchand (P.W. 12) stated that vide memo (Ex. P. 12) the investigating officer had arrested the present appellant. 22. Ghasilal (P.W. 13) had also attested Panchnama/inquest report. 23. Complainant Ramesh Chandra son of the deceased appeared as P.W. 14. He deposed that for last 8-10 years he was residing at Chhabra. P. 12). 21. Moolchand (P.W. 12) stated that vide memo (Ex. P. 12) the investigating officer had arrested the present appellant. 22. Ghasilal (P.W. 13) had also attested Panchnama/inquest report. 23. Complainant Ramesh Chandra son of the deceased appeared as P.W. 14. He deposed that for last 8-10 years he was residing at Chhabra. His mother Durga Bai was residing at Bhilwara Neecha alone. On the day of occurrence he had received a telephonic call from Janki Lal who informed that his mother is lying dead. He went to the spot. After the police had arrived he went inside the house. He found dead body of his mother inside the house on a cot. The witness stated that accused Morpal had murdered his mother by way of strangulation. The witness further stated that he had identified earrings, Hasali and anklets at Chhiba Barod before the Magistrate. 24. Dr. Lekhraj Malva (P.W. 15) as earlier noticed had conducted postmortem on the dead body. 25. Bhagwan Singh (P.W. 16) was in-charge of Malkhana at P.S. Bapcha. He stated that the articles received by him were kept in the Malkhana and so long the documents remained with him they were not tempered with. 26. Rudhmal Solanki (P.W. 17) was posted as Constable at the same Police Station. 27. Ram Manohar (P.W. 18) on 11.7.2008 was posted as SHO, Police Station Bapcha. This witness has proved various facets of investigation. 28. Komal Prasad (P.W. 19) was posted as ASI at Police Station Bapcha. This witness has deposed regarding taking of special report to the Ilaka Magistrate. 29. Madan Gopal Soni (P.W. 20) deposed that on 30.7.2008 he was posted as Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chhipa Barod. Under the orders passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baran on 28.7.2008 he carried test identification proceedings for identification of gold, silver ornaments. The witness stated that on 30.7.2008 he had issued summons for calling complainant Ramesh Chandra (P.W. 14) for identification of gold and silver articles recovered during investigation. The said articles were mixed with ornaments of similar nature. The witness had rightly identified the ornaments. 30. Amar Singh (P.W. 21) being Photographer proved on record photographs (Ex. P. 25 to Ex. P. 36) and negative of the photograph as Ex. P. 37. 31. Dr. N.K. Jain (P.W. 22) had also conducted autopsy of dead body of deceased Durga Bai alongwith Dr. Lekhraj Malva (P.W. 15). 32. The witness had rightly identified the ornaments. 30. Amar Singh (P.W. 21) being Photographer proved on record photographs (Ex. P. 25 to Ex. P. 36) and negative of the photograph as Ex. P. 37. 31. Dr. N.K. Jain (P.W. 22) had also conducted autopsy of dead body of deceased Durga Bai alongwith Dr. Lekhraj Malva (P.W. 15). 32. Thereafter statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All incriminating evidence were put to him and he denied the same and pleaded false implication. 33. In the present case, deceased was closely related to the accused-appellant. Prosecution has suggested theft as a motive for committing murder. It is case of the prosecution that she was murdered in the house when she was alone. However, prosecution has not examined any witness of last seen. But the prosecution case rests on the recovery of stolen articles from the possession of the accused which have been identified by Ramesh Chandra (P.W. 14) son of the deceased after the same were recovered from the house of the accused at his behest. Besides the recovery of stolen articles from the appellant, it is to be noted that Shiv Charan (P.W. 9) who is an independent witness has deposed that the accused had came to his shop on 10.7.2008 for selling the stolen articles and had demanded Rs. 5000/-. 34. Shri S.L. Songara learned counsel for the appellant could not demolish the testimony of Shiv Charan (P.W. 9) who has deposed in categorical terms that the accused had arrived at his shop and had demanded Rs. 5000/- for pawning the stolen articles of jewelry. 35. Balveer Singh (P.W. 5) has also proved recovery of stolen jewelry from the appellant. This witness has deposed that in his presence accused from his house had got recovered ornaments belonging to the deceased. This witness has attested memos (Ex. P. 6 and Ex. P. 7). The stolen articles recovered at the instance of accused have been duly identified by Ramesh Chandra (P.W. 14) complainant, before the Judicial Magistrate. Appellant has furnished no explanation as to how he came in possession of the articles purportedly recovered from him. Furthermore, Shiv Charan (P.W. 9) has testified in explicit terms that the accused-appellant had come to his shop to sell the articles which were later recovered from his possession. 36. Appellant has furnished no explanation as to how he came in possession of the articles purportedly recovered from him. Furthermore, Shiv Charan (P.W. 9) has testified in explicit terms that the accused-appellant had come to his shop to sell the articles which were later recovered from his possession. 36. Thus, to us, the fact that at the time when deceased, a widow lady aged 92 years, was found murdered, she was not having articles of jewelry worn by her assume importance. Silver and gold ornaments were stolen at the time of incident. The said stolen articles have been recovered in pursuance of disclosure (Ex. P. 19) suffered by the accused. The said articles have been identified by the complainant Ramesh Chandra (P.W. 14). He has stated that the articles recovered from the accused were the same which were used by his mother. The articles were identified in presence of a Judicial Magistrate. A further evidence led by the prosecution that the accused had approached Shiv Charan (P.W. 9) at his shop to sell or pawn the articles recovered in lieu of Rs. 5000/-, to us, complete the chain of circumstances to arrive at a conclusion that the offence has been committed by the appellant and by nobody else. 37. Therefore, it is apparent that the trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant. 38. Hence, no interference is warranted and the present appeal being devoid of merit is hereby, dismissed.