BAIJU ALIAS BHAROSA versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [1978] 2 S.C.R. 594 · Decided: 19-01-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
594 
BAIJU ALIAS BHAROSA 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
January 19, 1978 
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.] 
Evidence Act, (Act I of 1872), 1872-Ss. 110, 114 illustration (a)-Recent 
and unexplained possession of goods-Presumptive evidence against the accused 
not only of theft, but of the charge of murder as well-Value of circumstan-
tial evidence. 
The appellant, on the pretext of and promise to beget a child to the family 
of the deceased Ramdayal by sorcery, and after winning confidence committed 
murders of Ramdayal, his wife Smt. Fulkunwar, his mother Smt. Bhagwanti and 
his nephew Rambakas, on the night of January 20, 1975 and also stole of 
various articles which were recovered from the appellants' residence soon after. 
The trial court convicted him of offences u/s 394 and u/s 302 I.P.C. for com-
mitting the robbery and each of the four murders and sentenced him to death. 
On appeal the High Court of Madhya Pradesh confirmed the conviction and the 
sentence. 
Dismissing the appeals by special leave the Court 
HELD : 1. The question whether a presumption should be drawn under 
illustration (a) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act is a matter which depends 
on the evidence and the circumstances of each case. Thus the nature of the 
stolen article, the ma11ner of its acquisition by the owner, the nature of the 
evid.enee about its identification, the manner in which it was dealt with by the 
appellant, the place and the circumstances of its recovery, the length of the inter-
vening period, the ~bility or otherwise of the appellant to explain his possession, 
are factors which have to be taken into consideration in arriving at a decision. 
[600 E-G] 
2. Recent and unexplained possession of stolen articles may well be taken 
to be presumptive evidence of the charge of murder. [600 B-C] 
E 
The prosecution succeeded in proving beyond any doubt that the commis-
sion of the murders and the robbery formed part of one transaction and the 
recent and unexplained possession of the stolen property by the appellant justified 
the presumption that it was he and no one else, who had committed the murders 
and the robbery. The appellant was given an opportunity to explain his poe-
session, as well as his conduct in decoying Smt. Lakhpatiya and the other per-
sons who died at his hand, but he was unable to do so. [600 D-E] 
Wasim Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [1956] S.C.R. 191; Abisher v. Stare 
F 
of Uttar Pradesh, [1974] 4 S.C.C. 254 followed. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JuRISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 128 
and 129 of 1977. 
Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 
17-9-76 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeals 
Nos. 477 and 488 of 1976 and Criminal Reference Nos. 5 and 6 of 
G 
1976. 
P. C. Bhartari for the Appellant in Crl. A. No. 128/77. 
R. K. Jain, Amicus Curiae, for the Appellant in Crl. A. 129/77. 
I. N. Shroff for Respondent in both the appeals. 
H 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SHINGHAL J. Ramdayal (deceased) son of Ranglal (P.W. 2) 
lived in his house at village GauripurJ district Sarguja, with his two 
' 
) 
( 
} 
• 
;a_, 
) 
BAIJU v. M. P. STATE (Shinghat /.) 
595 
wives Smt. Fulkunwar (deceased) and Smt. Lakhpatiya (P.W. 1), 
A 
his father Ranglal, his mother Smt. Bhagwanti (Deceased) and 
his nephew Rambakas ( d~eased). Although Ramdayal married 
twice, he did not have a child and he and his family were 
keenly interested in his having a child somehow. It is alleged 
that in the month of Kuar appellant Baiju alias Bharosa gave out that 
he had been sent by one Niranjan Gauntia and introduced himself · to 
the family as a sorcerer or wizard who could bring about the birth of a 
B 
child in the family with his extraordinary powers. He visited the 
family several times and practised sorcery. In those days Smt. 
Fulkunwar was suffering from small-pox and the appellant therefore 
went away saying that he would return after her recovery. He wt.nt 
there again in the month of Kartik of his own accord and practised 
sorcery in Ramdayars house for two nights. He went to Ramdayal's 
house again in the month of Aghan and practised sorcery. He had a 
C 
well of Ramdayal's house dug in and took out a piece of bone which, 
according to him, was an evil omen and prevented the birth of a 
child. 
He started taking Ramdayal and his wives to an adjoining 
"nala" at mid night on the pretext of driving away the evil spirit. In 
this way, it is alleged, the appel

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.