Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1086 (ALL)

SHARAD KANT v. STATE OF U. P.

2017-04-24

ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA I, BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA

body2017
ORDER : 1. Case called out. None appears on behalf of the appellant to press this appeal. 2. Record shows that when this appeal was called out in the revised list on 18.11.2016, none had appeared on behalf of the appellant to press this appeal. As a result, following order was passed by us on 18.11.2016: “Case called out in the revised list. No one is present on behalf of the appellant to press this appeal. Sri Awadhesh Narain Mulla assisted by Sri Saghir Ahmad, Sri J.K. Upadhyay, Mrs. Manju Thakur and Kumari Meena, learned AGAs are present. Perused the order sheet. This appeal is of the year 1988. Record shows that the appellant is on bail. In view of above, issue non-bailable warrant against accused-appellant Sharad Kant through Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut returnable at an early date. In case the appellant surrenders and/or is arrested, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the undertaking that he shall appear before this Court on the next date fixed. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut shall submit his report along with copies of bail bonds and sureties furnished by the appellant. List this case on 05.01.2017. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned AGA free of cost within 48 hours.” 3. Record further shows that the non-bailable warrant issued against the accused-appellant-Sharad Kant could not be executed, as he was untraceable. Later on, an order was passed by this Court on 25.01.2017 for proceeding against the sureties of the accused-appellant-Sharad Kant. 4. When this matter was listed on 28.03.2017, from the perusal of the report of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut dated 01.03.2017, it transpired that Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut could not proceed against the sureties of the appellant as the bail bonds furnished at the time of his being released on bail were not available in the office of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut as the same had been transmitted to this Court. We accordingly passed an order directing the office of this Court to trace out the bail bonds and sureties furnished by accused-appellant-Sharad Kant and place the same on the record of this appeal. 5. We accordingly passed an order directing the office of this Court to trace out the bail bonds and sureties furnished by accused-appellant-Sharad Kant and place the same on the record of this appeal. 5. Office report dated 03.04.2017 reveals that lower court record was searched by the office of this Court but the bail bonds furnished by the sureties of the appellant-Sharad Kant at the time of his being released on bail, could not be traced out. 6. Thus, in view of above, it is apparent that there is hardly any possibility or likelihood of the accused-appellant-Sharad Kant, who is absconding, being arrested and produced before this Court. It is apparent that neither the appellant nor Sri D.N. Wali, whose name has been printed in the cause list, as counsel for the appellant, are interested in the disposal of this appeal. 7. To cut a long story, we do not find any prospect of the accused-appellant-Sharad Kant, who is absconding, being traced out and produced before this Court. It is apparent that he is not interested in the disposal of this appeal and has abused the liberty of bail by failing to appear before this Court despite non-bailable warrants issued against him. The question, which arises before us, is that whether we are bound to wait till the accused-appellant is searched out, if at all, and produced before us and keep on adjourning the hearing of this appeal suomotu perenially. 8. Faced with the aforesaid contingency and looking to the huge pendency of cases before this Court, we are not inclined to pass over this appeal. Under identical circumstances, the Apex Court, after a comprehensive analysis of previous decisions on the issue, has distilled the legal position into six propositions in paragraph 19 of its judgment delivered in the case of K.S. Panduranga v. State of Karnataka (2013) 3 SCC 721 : 19.1. That the High Court cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution simpliciter without examining the merits; 19.2. That the Court is not bound to adjourn the matter if both the appellant or his counsel/lawyer are absent; 19.3. That the court may, as a matter of prudence or indulgence, adjourn the matter but it is not bound to do so;” 19.4. That it can dispose of the appeal after perusing the record and judgement of the trial court; 19.5. That the court may, as a matter of prudence or indulgence, adjourn the matter but it is not bound to do so;” 19.4. That it can dispose of the appeal after perusing the record and judgement of the trial court; 19.5. That if the accused is in jail and cannot, on his own, come to court, it would be advisable to adjourn the case and fix another date to facilitate the appearance of the appellantaccused if his lawyer is not present, and if the lawyer is absent and the court deems it appropriate to appoint a lawyer at the State expense to assist it, nothing in law would preclude the court from doing so; and 19.6. That if the case is decided on merits in the absence of the appellant, the higher court can remedy the situation. 9. Thus, in view of the legal position propounded by the Apex Court in the case of K.S. Panduranga (Supra), we proceed to examine this appeal on merits with the help of Sri A.N. Mulla assisted by Sri Saghir Ahmad, Sri J.K. Upadhyay, Kumari Meena, learned A.G.As. and Smt. Manju Thakur, Sri Syed Hasan Shaukat Abidi, learned brief holders for the State. 10. In this appeal, appellant-Sharad Kant-calls in question the legal acceptability of the judgment and order passed by VII Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut in Sessions Trial No.346 of 1985 (State Vs. Sharad Kant and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 181, under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, Police Station-Medical College, District-Meerut, whereby, accused-appellant has been sentenced to life imprisonment and five years R.I. under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, respectively. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 11. The prosecution case in short, as discernible from record, appears to be that informant-Sri R.A. Sharma, S.I. of Police Station-Medical College, District-Meerut-lodged written report regarding the incident. During patrolling on the intervening night of 19/20.05.1985 at about 2.15 A.M., he saw a retral cot on a rickshaw in front of House No. D5 39, which was covered by a black blanket. It gave an impression that somebody was lying under the blanket and one person was sitting on the back seat of rickshaw. He stopped the rickshaw and made an inquiry from the person, who was sitting on the rickshaw (accused-Sharad Kant). It gave an impression that somebody was lying under the blanket and one person was sitting on the back seat of rickshaw. He stopped the rickshaw and made an inquiry from the person, who was sitting on the rickshaw (accused-Sharad Kant). At this, accused-Sharad Kant became scared and stated that Devendra Rastogi (deceased) had become ill and he was taking him to the hospital. However, informant became suspicious and removed the blanket; he found a half-burnt dead body lying with injuries. In the meantime, accused-appellant-Sharad Kant tried to run away from scene. However, accused was apprehended after being given a mild beating; on interrogation, he disclosed that his name was Sharad Kant S/o Jagannath Prasad r/o 128, Mansa Devi, Kaliagali, Police Station-Medical College, District-Meerut and he also disclosed the name of the deceased as Devendra Rastogi. Accused further disclosed that Devendra Rastogi (deceased) and his wife were issueless and he (accused-appellant), with the intention of usurping their property, had put poison in the meal of the deceased-Devendra Rastogi in the night intervening 18/19.05.1985. Thereafter, he (Devendra Rastogi) had become unconscious and then had committed his murder by setting him ablaze and beating him. He further disclosed that he was looking for an opportunity to make the dead body of the deceased disappear and for the aforesaid reason, he had kept the dead body throughout the day, and in the night he had hired a rickshaw and since the dead body of the deceased, on account of burnt injury, had become totally unidentifiable, he was going to dispose of it at some deserted place. On being interrogated by the informant, rickshaw puller disclosed his name, as Samay Singh S/o Sawant Singh. Report was requested to be lodged and action be taken. 12. Contents of written report were taken down in the concerned Check FIR at Case Crime No.181, under Sections 302, 201 IPC at Police Station-Medical College, District-Meerut on 20.05.1985 at 02.15 A.M. Check FIR is Exhibit Ka-6. On the basis of entry made in the Check FIR, a case was registered against the appellant in the concerned General Diary of aforesaid date and time at Case Crime No.181. Copy of the concerned General Diary is Exhibit Ka-21. 13. On the basis of entry made in the Check FIR, a case was registered against the appellant in the concerned General Diary of aforesaid date and time at Case Crime No.181. Copy of the concerned General Diary is Exhibit Ka-21. 13. After the registration of the case, the investigation was entrusted to Sultan Singh-S. I., P.W.8, who recorded statement of Sulekh Chandra-Head Moharrir, P.W.9 and informant-R. A. Sharma-S. I., P.W.3 and proceeded to the spot where he found the corpse of Devendra Rastogi in a retral cot placed on a rickshaw covered with a blanket. The accused-appellant led the members of the police force to the place where murder had taken place and on his pointing out a blanket was recovered, which is material Exhibit Ka-5. He obtained the incriminating articles from the accused and prepared custody memos material Exhibit Ka-1 to material Exhibit Ka-4 ('Tahmad' and blood stained 'underwear', grinded 'Datura seed', recovery memo of cot, blood stained 'Baan', rickshaw, capsule and injection). He inspected the place of occurrence and prepared site plan, Exhibit Ka-8. He also proved the report of the Chemical Analysis, Exhibit Ka-18. 14. Stream of events suggests that the Investigating Officer Sultan Singh P.W.8 took steps for holding inquest of deceased-Devendra Rastogion-20.05.1985. It commenced at 06:15 A.M. and completed at 08:15 P.M., the same day. In the opinion of the inquest witnesses and the Investigating Officer, it was thought proper to send the dead body for postmortem examination for ascertaining the real cause of death. The inquest report is Exhibit Ka-14. Thereafter, relevant papers-Police Form 13-Exhibit Ka-9, Sketch of the corpse Exhibit Ka-10, Report of C.M.O. Exhibit Ka-11, and another letter to C.M.O. Exhibit Ka-12 were prepared in the process for sending the dead body for autopsy at mortuary-Meerut. 15. Record further reflects that postmortem examination on the cadaver of the deceased-Devendra Rastogi was conducted at the mortuary-Meerut on 21.05.1985 at 03.30 P.M. by Dr. Fariduddin P.W.7, who noted following antemortem injuries on the body of the deceased:- “Average built body, rigor mortis absent. All over body is highly decomposed. Skin peeled off all over body except face, left side of neck. From upper part of chest. This area is blackened, greenish colouration present, as of , teeth loose in their sockets, scalp hair easily detachable, stomach open, body swollen. Maggots ½ cm. x 1 cm. present. Eyes bulging out. All over body is highly decomposed. Skin peeled off all over body except face, left side of neck. From upper part of chest. This area is blackened, greenish colouration present, as of , teeth loose in their sockets, scalp hair easily detachable, stomach open, body swollen. Maggots ½ cm. x 1 cm. present. Eyes bulging out. P.M.-Burn present on left side face, forehead front and upper part of chest, left side of neck, crackening of skin present.” 16. In the opinion of the doctor, cause of death could not be ascertained, hence, viscera was preserved. This postmortem report has been proved by Dr. Farriuddin P.W.7 as Exhibit Ka-7. 17. After completing investigation, the Investigating Officer filed chargesheet, Exhibit Ka-17 against the appellant under Sections 302, 201 IPC. 18. Thereafter, the case of the appellants was committed to the Court of Sessions, from where, it was made over to the concerned trial court for conduction of trial and disposal. 19. The learned trial Judge (VI Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut) heard the appellant on point of charge and found prima facie ground existing for framing charges under Sections 302, 201 IPC, and accordingly, framed the charges vide order dated 30.1.1986. After framing charges under aforesaid sections of IPC, the same were read over and explained to the accused persons, who denied the charges and opted for trial. 20. The prosecution, in order to prove the guilt of the accused examined as many as nine prosecution witnesses of whom Mahender Rastogi P.W.1, Kusum Rastogi P.W.2, Ram Autar Sharma P.W.3, Gyan Prakash P.W.4, Kacheru Mal P.W.5, Suresh Kaushik P.W.6, Dr. Farududdin P.W.7, Sultan Singh P.W.8 and Sulekh Chandra P.W.9. 21. Thereafter, evidence for the prosecution was closed and statement of accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he claimed to have been falsely implicated in the case on account of enmity. He denied the entire prosecution allegation and stated that he did not know accusedSamay Singh (rickshaw puller). His defence was further that prior to the alleged incident, his brother-Shishir Kant-was murdered by Chandra Pal, Ram Chandra and others and they won over the police personnel of concerned police station, who fabricated a false case against him. 22. Except as above, no other defence evidence was adduced, therefore, evidence for defence was also closed and the case was posted for argument. 23. 22. Except as above, no other defence evidence was adduced, therefore, evidence for defence was also closed and the case was posted for argument. 23. The learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut after considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and scrutinizing the evidence brought on record, both oral as well as documentary, convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and awarded the aforesaid sentence to him, while acquitting co-accused Samey Singh from the charge levelled against him under Section 201 IPC. 24. Hence, this appeal. 25. Sri Saghir Ahmad, learned AGA has submitted that prosecution case, as disclosed in the evidence, is that in the night between 19/20 May, 1985 at about 12.30 A.M. S.I. Ram Autar Sharma, who was on patrolling duty, reached near DBlock, Constables Khiley Singh and Gyan Prakash, who were also on duty met him there, when they reached near H.N.39 DBlock, Shastri Nagar, they noticed a rickshaw on the main gate of the house, on which a retral cot was placed and a body wrapped in a black blanket was lying on the cot and a person beside it. They challenged the rickshaw puller, on inquiry, accused-Sharad Kant, who was sitting beside the wrapped person, informed that Devendra Rastogi being unwell is being taken to hospital for treatment. On suspicion, S.I. Ramavtar Sharma removed the blanket from the face of the wrapped person and found it to be dead body having burn injuries on the face. The face was crushed in order to avoid its identification. Sharad Kant tried to escape but was overpowered by Ram Autar Sharma and the two accompanying Constables. Mahendra Rastogi and a few other persons also assembled at the spot. Accused Sharad Kant confessed his guilt and stated that he has killed Devendra Rastogi by administering 'Dhatura' poison mixing in milk and giving him poisonous injection in the night between 18/19.5.1985. He further confessed that he burnt the face of Devendra Rastogi so that the body could not be identified. On his pointing out-Dhatura, an injection, a bottle of kerosene oil and some burnt clothes of other incriminating aspects were recovered from the house of Devendra Rastogi in which accused was also staying. Sharad Kant and the rickshaw puller were thereafter taken to police Station-Medical College, wherein, they (police personnel) lodged the FIR. On his pointing out-Dhatura, an injection, a bottle of kerosene oil and some burnt clothes of other incriminating aspects were recovered from the house of Devendra Rastogi in which accused was also staying. Sharad Kant and the rickshaw puller were thereafter taken to police Station-Medical College, wherein, they (police personnel) lodged the FIR. Thereafter, the dead body of Devendra Rastogi was sent for postmortem examination. On medical examination the doctor found burn injuries on the left side of face, forehead and upper part of chest, nose etc. The cause of death could not be ascertained as such viscera was preserved. The Chemical Analyst vide his report dated 4.8.1986 opined that the stomach, small intestine, liver, kidney and spleen had traces of Dhatura poison. The bottle containing black grains was also found to be Dhatura poison. The capsule in a plastic cover was found to contain 'Pethidine Hydrochloride' poison injection. 26. He further stressed that in order to prove the case of the prosecution besides the police personnel Mahendra Rastogi an eye-witness, who was present at the time of arrest of the accused and on whose pointing out recoveries were made has been produced. 27. He adds that the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. In the present case the chain of evidence is complete and no other inference can be drawn except the one that it was only Sharad Kant who committed the murder of Devendra Rastogi. It has been established beyond reasonable doubt that accused-Sharad Kant was sitting beside the dead body. It is also important to note that the dead body had burn injuries and the killer had tried to deface the body so that it could not be identified/recognized. The subsequent recoveries on the pointing out of accused-Sharad Kant strengthens the fact that it was none else but the accused who had committed the murder of deceased. Accused could not give any satisfactory explanation about the possession of the dead body. 28. The evidence of Smt. Kusum Rastogi lends support to the prosecution version. The deceased had no issue and the accused who was living near the house of the deceased was a usual visitor to the house of deceased. The deceased used to treat him like his own son. The accused, therefore, wanted to grab the property of the deceased. 29. The evidence of Smt. Kusum Rastogi lends support to the prosecution version. The deceased had no issue and the accused who was living near the house of the deceased was a usual visitor to the house of deceased. The deceased used to treat him like his own son. The accused, therefore, wanted to grab the property of the deceased. 29. At the end, learned AGA vehemently submits that the only conclusion, which can be drawn from the above circumstances, is that it was only the accused, who has committed the murder of Devendra Rasogi. The prosecution has established the guilt of the accused. The accused therefore, should be convicted for the murder of deceased. 30. We have bestowed our thoughts to the submissions of learned AGA and perused the entire lower court record. 31. The core consideration that crops up for adjudication in the appeal relates to the fact whether the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt charge against appellant and the trial court has based its finding of conviction on evidence on record? 32. At the onset, we may take note of the first information report and particularly the crux contents, which describe the incident in a manner that informant-Sri Ram Autar Sharma, S.I. of Police Station-Medical College, District Meerut-lodged written report reciting that during patrolling on the intervening night of 19/20.05.1985 at about 2.15 A.M., he saw a retral cot covered by a black blanket on a rickshaw in front of House No. D39. On suspicion, informant stopped the rickshaw and made a query from the accused-Sharad Kant. At this, accused-Sharad Kant became confound and stated that Devendra Rastogi (deceased) had become unwell, therefore, he (accused) was taking him to the hospital. However, informant became suspicious and removed the blanket; informant found a half-burnt dead body lying with injuries. In the meantime, accused-appellant-Sharad Kant tried to run away from the scene. However, accused was apprehended after being given a mild beating. On interrogation, he disclosed that his name was Sharad Kant S/o Jagannath Prasad r/o 128, Mansa Devi, Kaliagali, Police Station-Medical College, District-Meerut and he also deposed the name of the deceased was Devendra Rastogi. Accused further disclosed that Devendra Rastogi (deceased) and his wife were issueless and the accused-appellant, with the intention of usurping their property, had put poison in the milk of the deceased-Devendra Rastogi in the night intervening 18/19.05.1985. Accused further disclosed that Devendra Rastogi (deceased) and his wife were issueless and the accused-appellant, with the intention of usurping their property, had put poison in the milk of the deceased-Devendra Rastogi in the night intervening 18/19.05.1985. Thereafter, he had become unconscious and then he had committed his murder by setting him ablaze and beating him. He further disclosed that he was looking for an opportunity to make the dead body of the deceased disappear and for the aforesaid reason, he had kept the dead body throughout the day, and in the the night he had hired a rickshaw and since the dead body of the deceased, on account of burnt injury, had become totally unidentifiable, he was going to dispose of the dead body at some deserted place. On being interrogated by the informant, rickshaw puller disclosed his name, as Samay Singh S/o Sawant Singh. 33. In the backdrop of aforesaid factual allegations, we have to scrutinize testimony of the prosecution witnesses, who claim themselves to have been present on the spot and witnessed the incident. 34. Mahendra Rastogi P.W.1 claims himself to have been present on the spot and he is the real brother of deceased-Devendra Rastogi. He deposed that on the night between 19/20.5.1985 at about 2.30 A.M. he saw a cot on a rickshaw in front of the House No. D-39; cot was covered by black cloth and it gave an impression that somebody was lying. He got information from there that his brotherDevendra Rastogi had been murdered. He further deposed that accused-Sharad Kant and Suresh Kaushik were present there and accused-Sharad Kant confessed his guilt. He testified that he did not know the name of rickshaw puller. 35. Mahendra Rastogi P.W.1 also deposed that Sharad Kant had opened the lock of the house of Devendra Rastogi with a key. The key was lying in the pocket of Sharad Kant. He further deposed that accused Shard Kant handed over the seeds of Dhatura, half filled bottle containing kerosene oil, blood stained knife and burnt clothe from inside the house of Devendra Rastogi to the police. He also pointed out the place where the blood was lying. The Sub-Inspector sealed the articles on the spot and prepared a custody memo and after completing the above formalities, the Sub Inspector locked the house. After 8-10 days, the Sub Inspector had handed over the key to Mahendra Rastogi. He also pointed out the place where the blood was lying. The Sub-Inspector sealed the articles on the spot and prepared a custody memo and after completing the above formalities, the Sub Inspector locked the house. After 8-10 days, the Sub Inspector had handed over the key to Mahendra Rastogi. He further deposed that his brother Devendra Rastogi was aged about 50 years and his wife was a teacher in Kandhla. Devendra Rastogi was issueless and he was working as a teacher in Kandhla. Accused-Sharad Kant used to come to the house of Devendra Rastogi as the house of his uncle (mausa) where he was residing was in front of house of Devendra Rastogi. Devendra Rastogi loved Sharad Kant like his son. The deceased wanted to adopt a small child. While Sharad Kant came to know about it, he was perplexed. 36. Smt. Kusum Rastogi, wife of the deceased-Devendra Rastogi has virtually dittoed the testimony of Mahendra Rastogi P.W.1. She deposed that the accused-appellant resided at a distance of about 20 paces in the house of his uncle (mausa). On 18.04.1985, accused-Sharad Kant went to Kandhla and said to her husband that his two gas connections were to be delivered and on this pretext, he took Devendra Rastogi with him from Kandhla. When her husband did not return to Kandhla till 29.4.1985, she (Smt. Kusum Lalta) came to Meerut in order to inquire about her husband. She saw the accused and her husband at her residence in Meerut. She was informed by her husband that he was indisposed. Sharad Kant assured her that he will bring back Devendra Rastogi in two days, whereupon she went back to Kandhla on 30.4.1985. However, her husband never returned. On 12.05.1985, Sharad Kant went to Kandhla and informed that Devendra Rastogi will come within 1-2 days and told her that he himself was going to Saharanpur. On 20.05.1985, she was informed that her husband had been murdered and then she came to Meerut. She further stated that she was not in a position to tell why Sharad Kant had committed murder of Devendra Rastogi. 37. On 20.05.1985, she was informed that her husband had been murdered and then she came to Meerut. She further stated that she was not in a position to tell why Sharad Kant had committed murder of Devendra Rastogi. 37. S.I. Sri Ram Autar is the informant of the incident and he has got himself examined before the trial court as P.W.3 and in his testimony recorded before the trial court fully supported the prosecution case, as spelt out in the F.I.R. He also proved the check F.I.R. Exhibit Ka-6 by deposing that the same was scribed on his dictation by Head Moharrir Sulekh Chand P.W.9. As per testimony of S.I. Sri Ram Autar, he has given detailed description of the incident in a consistent manner. He arrested the accused on the spot. He deposed that upon interrogation the accused disclosed his name and address and the rickshaw puller also disclosed his name as Samay Singh. He left the rickshaw and the accused in the supervision of the two Constables and came back to Medical College. He further deposed that no public witnesses were available at the time of incident because the moment he saw the rickshaw, the accused was overpowered and arrested. 38. Constable Gyan Prakash, P.W.4 has virtually dittoed the testimony of S.I. Sri Ram Autar P.W.3. He deposed at the fag end of his deposition that S.I. Sri Ram Autar P.W.3 went to the police station leaving the dead body in the Rickshaw and the two accused under their supervision. He also deposed that the accused gave out their names and addresses and confessed guilt. He also submitted that one of his companion Constable Khiley Singh was having a torch with him and there was sufficient electric light coming out of the houses and the electric rods. 39. Kacheru Mal P.W.5 is the Grocery Shopkeeper. He deposed that he never kept 'Dhatura' in his shop for sale. He had never sold 'Dhatura' seeds to Sharad Kant (accused). 40. Suresh Kaushik P.W.6 deposed that the police had recovered no article from accused-Sharad Kant. He expressed ignorance about the accused and disowned his examination by the police. 41. Dr. Farruddin P.W.7 is postmortem doctor and he has deposed that he had conducted the postmortem of the deceased-Devendra Rastogi at about 3.30 P.M. on 21.05.1985. He deposed that dead body was three days old. He expressed ignorance about the accused and disowned his examination by the police. 41. Dr. Farruddin P.W.7 is postmortem doctor and he has deposed that he had conducted the postmortem of the deceased-Devendra Rastogi at about 3.30 P.M. on 21.05.1985. He deposed that dead body was three days old. He found on the external examination of the deceased that the dead body was of average built. The body was decomposed. Rigor mortis had passed off. The skin had peeled out from place to place. Stomach was open. There was greenish disclouration. Teeth and hair were loose. The eyes were protruding. He found no ante-mortem injury on the dead body. He also found postmortem burn on the left side face, left side forehead and left side neck. The two lungs and the liver were decomposed. The doctor could not ascertain the cause of death. However, he preserved viscera. He proved the postmortem report Exhibit Ka7. In the opinion of the doctor, the death of Devendra Rastogi could possibly have been caused on the night 18/19.5.1985. 42. S.I. Sri Sultan Singh P.W.8 is the Investigating Officer of this case. The case was registered in his presence. He recorded the statement of Head Moharrir-Salekh Chand and that of S.I. Ram Autar Sharma and proceeded to the spot. He found the dead body of Devendra Rastogi in a retral cot placed on a rickshaw covered with a blanket. The two police constables along with two accused were under the supervision of the police constables. The accused disclosed their names, as Sharad Kant and Samey Singh. The accused-appellant Sharad Kant admitted his guilt in the presence of Mahendra Rastogi and other police officials. The accused led to the discovery of the place of incident and the incriminating articles. He obtained the incriminating articles from the accused and prepared custody memos Exhibit Ka1 to Exhibit Ka-4. He proved custody memo of blanket Exhibit Ka-5. He also prepared site plan of the place of incident Exhibit Ka8. After completing the all formalities, he submitted charge-sheet against the appellants, Exhibit Ka-17. 43. The viscera of deceased-Devendra Rastogiand the other incriminating articles recovered from the house of the deceased were sent to the Forensic Science Labroatory, Agra for chemical examination. He also prepared site plan of the place of incident Exhibit Ka8. After completing the all formalities, he submitted charge-sheet against the appellants, Exhibit Ka-17. 43. The viscera of deceased-Devendra Rastogiand the other incriminating articles recovered from the house of the deceased were sent to the Forensic Science Labroatory, Agra for chemical examination. The report of Joint Director, Legal Scientific Laboratory, Agra (Exhibit Ka-18) reveals that the stomach, portion of intestine, portion of liver, kidney and a part of spleen contained 'Dhatura poison'. The three injections, which were sent for analysis were found to contain 'Pethidine Hydrochloride' poison. S.I. Sultan Singh P.W.8 has proved this report as Exhibit Ka-18. 44. Head Moharrir, Salekh Chand P.W.9 deposed that he was posted at Police Station-Medical College, Meerut. He also deposed that he prepared the check report on the basis of of the information supplied by S.I. Sri Ram Autar Sharma. He registered a case in G.D. Report No.2 at 2.15 A.M. on 20.05.1985 and proved the copy of the G.D. as Exhibit Ka20. He further deposed that vide G.D. Report No.21 at 2.35 P.M. S.I. Sri Sultan Singh (I.O.) came back to the police station from the spot and handed over the sealed articles to him. He deposed that accused were kept in the police lockup and the articles were kept in the Malkhana. He proved the copy of the G.D. Report Exhibit Ka-21. 45. Above analysis and critical scrutiny would suggest that the fact of occurrence is consistently proved to have been caused by the accused. There is no substantial contradiction occurring in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses of fact-Mahender Rastogi P.W.1, Kusum Rastogi P.W.2 and the S.I. Ram Autar Sharma P.W.3-and their testimony, on the whole, appears to be on target, proving the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt that it was accused-Sharad Kant who murdered Devendra Rastogi on 20.05.1985. It being so, we can observe in all fairness that the testimony forthcoming is innocuous and in conformity with the medical evidence and giving thrust to the prosecution case, eventually establishing the charges against the accused. 46. If we read deposition of Mahender Rastogi P.W.1, Kusum Rastogi P.W.2 and Ram Auta Sharma P.W.3 in toto, then we found reason to believe that accused and accused alone is the perpetrator of the crime. 46. If we read deposition of Mahender Rastogi P.W.1, Kusum Rastogi P.W.2 and Ram Auta Sharma P.W.3 in toto, then we found reason to believe that accused and accused alone is the perpetrator of the crime. In this respect, the deposition of Smt. Kusum Rastogiwife of deceased-Devendra Rastogi-very much strengthens the case of the prosecution. She has stated in her deposition distinctly that it was accused-Sharad Kant, who had gone to Kandhala and he had called Devendra Rastogi (deceased) on a false pretext to Meerut. He had visited Kandhala and contacted Smt. Kusum Rastogi twice after that on and before the commission of crime and had given her false assurances regarding the coming back of her husband Devendra Rastogi. These circumstances would obviously lead to the conclusion that Sharad Kant had actually persuaded Devendra Rastogi to accompany him to Meerut and that he had been staying in the company of Devendra Rastogi at house No. D39 Shastri Nagar, Meerut. 47. So far as motive part is concerned, deposition of Mahender Rastogi P.W.1 (brother of the deceased) and Kusum Rastogi P.W.2 (wife of the deceased) is of paramount importance and their depositions disclose that accused-Sharad Kant-used to visit deceased's house; deceased-Devendra Rastogi loved accused-Sharad Kant like his son; deceased was issueless and wanted to adopt a child; accused-Sharad Kant got annoyed on learning about the aforesaid fact. While collectively responding to the depositions of P.W.1 and P.W.2 qua motive, it reflects a clearcut image of appellant's covetousness. 48. Resultantly, there is no reason to believe that the accused has been falsely implicated in this case. No such suggestion was made to the witnesses or to the investigating officer. It is rather inconceivable in a case of this nature either the witnesses or the investigating agency would enable the real culprit to escape and rope in innocent person. All the circumstances relied on by the prosecution have been proved and they form a chain, which leads to the only conclusion that the offence must have been committed by the accused. 49. The learned trial Judge while appraising the facts and circumstances of the case and evaluating testimony of the prosecution witnesses has rightly convicted the accused and passed just sentence, which finding and sentence is upheld by us in this appeal invoking Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Consequently, the appeal which is sans merit is accordingly dismissed. 50. 49. The learned trial Judge while appraising the facts and circumstances of the case and evaluating testimony of the prosecution witnesses has rightly convicted the accused and passed just sentence, which finding and sentence is upheld by us in this appeal invoking Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Consequently, the appeal which is sans merit is accordingly dismissed. 50. Accused-appellant-Sharad Kant is absconding. CJM-Meerut is directed to trace out the accused-appellant and send him to jail so that he may serve out the remaining part of his sentence. 51. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the lower court for its intimation and follow-up action.