LexGULABCHAND versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-(
'
GULABCHAND
A
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
MARCH 28, 1995
(G.N. RAY AND FA1ZAN UDDIN, JJ.]
B
Indian Penal Code, 1860 :
Sections 302, 394, 397-Murder and robbery-Accused-ATTest
of-Recovery of articles of deceased from the house of accused-Accused not
C
affluent enough to possess. omaments--Sale of ornaments by accused imme-
diately on the next day of murdo-Murder and robbery held integral parts of
the same transaction-Presumption under section 114(a) of the Evidence Act,
1872 held applicable--Omviction by High Court held valid.
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 :
Section 114-lllustl'ation( a )--Possession of stolen goods-Presumption
as to guilt-Applicability of
D
The appellant along with other co-accused was prosecuted under
sections 120-B, 302, 394 and 397 of the India Penal Code i.e. for entering E
into a criminal conspiracy and pursuant thereto having committed the
murder of K while committing robbery of her ornaments. The Trial Court
(i) acquitted all the accused under section 120-B; (ii) acquitted the appel-
lants under section 302, 394 and 397 but convicted him under section 380.
State preferred appeals before the High Court which (i) dismissed the
F
appeal against acquittal of the accused persons; and (ii) convicted the
appellant under sections 302, 394 and 397 and sentenced him to life under
section 302 and for seven years in respect of other offences. From the
evidence it was established that (i) soon after the appellant's arrest articles
belonging to the deceased were recovered by police from the appellant's G
house; (ii) Next day to the murder the appellant sold some of the orna-
ments to PW 12.
Against his conviction and sentence the appellant preferred appeal
before this Court contending that the possession of stolen articles ipso
facto does not warrant a conclusion that such stolen articles were received H
27
28
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1995] 3 S.C.R.
A only by committing robbery and murder; for possession of stolen articles,
no conviction can be based under sections 302, 394 and 397 of the Indian
Penal Code.
Dismissing the appeal, this Court
B
HELD : 1. It is true that simply on the recovery of stolen articles, no
inference can be drawn that a person in possession of the stolen articles
is guilty of the offence of murder and robbery. But culpability for the
aforesaid offences will depend on the facts and circumstances of the case
and the nature of evidence adduced. In the instant case, it has been
C established that immediately on the next day of the murder, the appellant
sold some of the ornaments belonging to the deceased and within 3-4 days,
the recovery of the said stolen articles was made from his house, at the
instance of the accused. Such close proximity of the recovery should not
be lost sight of in deciding the present case. [31-F, 32-C-D]
D
2. It has been rightly held by the High Court that the accused was
not affiuent enough t~ possess the said ornaments and from the nature
of the evidence adduced in this case and from the recovery of the said
articles from his possession and his dealing with the ornaments of the
deceased immediately after the murder and robbery, a reasonable
E inference of the commission of the said offence can be drawn against
the appellant Excepting an assertion that the ornaments belonged to the
family of the accused which claim bas been rightly discarded, no
plausible explanation for lawful possession of the said ornaments
immediately after the murder has been given by the accused. In the facts
F of this case the murder and robbery have been proved to have been
integral parts of the same transaction and therefore the presumption
arising under illustration (a) of Section 114 Evidence Act is that not
only the appellant committed the murder of the deceased but also
committed robbery of her ornaments. Therefore, there is no reason to
G interfere with the impugned decision of the High Court. [32-G-H, 33-A-B]
Santhanakrishnan v. State of Rajasthan, AIR (1956) S.C. 54, held
inapplicable.
Tulsi Ram v. State, AIR (1954) S.C. 1 and Earabharappa v. State of
H Kamataka, [1983] 2 S.C.C. 330, relied on.
,,_
r
-
-{
. -<
GULAB CHAND v. STA TE
29
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. A
140 and 140A of 1984.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.11.83 of the Madhya
Pradesh High Court ill Crl. A. No. 327 and 326 of 1980.
Amtiaz Ahmed, A.C. for the Appellant
U manath Singh for the Respondent.
The foExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.