http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  1472 of 2007

PETITIONER: Hemant Trivedi

RESPONDENT: State of Rajasthan

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/10/2007

BENCH: S.H. Kapadia & B. Sudershan Reddy

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1927 of 2006)

B.Sudershan Reddy, J.

Leave granted.  2.   This appeal by special leave is directed against the  judgment of the Rajasthan High Court confirming the  conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the  Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ’IPC’) and  the sentence of imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.  2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further 3 months  rigorous imprisonment. He was also convicted for the  offence punishable under Section 201 IPC and sentenced to  undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a  fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to  undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 month.  Both  sentences were directed to run concurrently.   

3.      The conviction of the appellant is based on  circumstantial evidence.  

4.       In brief, the case of the prosecution is that the  appellant is a permanent resident of village Kojra,  District Sirohi, Rajasthan.  The appellant was, however,  living with his sister in Mumbai.  The deceased-Uma was  working in a beauty parlor. She was living in the  neighbourhood where the appellant was living along with  his sister. Both of them developed intimacy and fell in  love with each other. The appellant approached the mother  of the deceased Anandi Devi (PW-13)  and proposed to  marry  the deceased. Anadi Devi (PW-13) rejected the  proposal made by the appellant. The appellant threatened  that he would kidnap the deceased if he is not allowed to  marry her. Thereafter, the appellant and deceased  disappeared from Mumbai. Anandi Devi (PW-13) did not  lodge any complaint whatsoever to the police about the  disappearance of her daughter.   

5.      In the month of March,1998 the appellant along with  deceased came to his ancestral village Kojra and stayed  in the village temple for a night.  Thereafter, the  appellant and deceased entered the ancestral house called  ’Rawla’ in the same village after performing religious  rites in the presence of the appellant’s sisters and  other family members. They started living in the house  called ’Rawla’.  Thereafter, they were regularly coming  and going to the village Kojra. On 6.4.1998 both the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

appellant as well as deceased-Uma  talked to Anandi Devi  (PW-13) on telephone and assured her  that they would  soon be returning Mumbai.  The appellant and deceased  visited the village in June and stayed in the house.  Thereafter deceased was not seen with the appellant.  

6.      On 5.7.1998 Lal Shanker(PW-1) informed the police  that a dead body was lying in the house ’Rawla’. On  receiving the information the S.H.O. Police Station,  Pindwada (PW-21) rushed to the spot where Lal Shankar  (PW-1) gave the report exhibit P-78  in which it is  stated that  at about 9.00 A.M. on 5.7.1998 he climbed on  the roof of the house of the appellant to see the water  level in the nearby pond. It was raining.  He found the  ventilator of the room open and he peeped into the  ventilator of the room and found a dead body lying  therein.  He accordingly informed the police.  The police  broke open the lock and found the dead body in a highly  decomposed condition.  The dead body was identified as  that of the wife of the appellant.  Based on the  information   police   registered a case for offence  under Section 302 of the IPC and proceeded with  investigation. The Police prepared the inquest report and  the site plan.  The ornaments found on the dead body were  removed.  The appellant was arrested on suspicion.  On  the basis of the information given by the appellant his   blood stained trouser  and some ornaments of the deceased  were recovered.  The statements of Rajendra Trivedi (PW- 2) and Bharat Prabhu Lal (PW-8) were recorded under  Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure.  

7.      The police  after investigation filed charge sheet  against the appellant and one Puran Kumar(since  acquitted) for the offences punishable under Sections   302 and 201 of the IPC.  

8.      The appellant denied the charges leveled against him  and  claimed trial.  The prosecution, in order to  establish the case, examined in all 22 witnesses. No  witness was examined on behalf of the appellant.  The  learned Sessions Judge upon appreciation of evidence  available on record found no case against Puran Kumar   and consequently, acquitted him of all the charges.   The  appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under  Section 302 and 201 of the IPC.  On appeal, the High  Court having reconsidered the entire matter confirmed the  conviction and sentences imposed against the appellant by  the Trial Court.  

9.      We have elaborately heard the learned counsel  appearing for the appellant as well as for the State and  perused the evidence available on record.  

10.     Shri Nalin Kumar, learned Amicus Curiae for the  appellant strenuously contended that the chain of  circumstances is not complete and, therefore, the  conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained. It was  contended that even the dead body was not identified. The  learned Amicus Curiae contended  that even assuming that  the prosecution has been able to establish the  circumstance of being last seen together, namely the  deceased having left with the appellant on 5.6.1998, that  by itself could not connect the appellant with the  commission of crime in the circumstances of the case.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

11.     Dr. N.M. Ghatate, learned senior counsel appearing  for the State submitted that the evidence of PW-8, 9 and  13 conclusively establishes the case of the prosecution  and there is nothing elicited from them in the cross- examination to doubt the veracity of the prosecution  case. It was submitted that PWs. 8 and 9 are related to  the appellant and there is no reason to disbelieve the  evidence.    

12.     Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and  on perusal of the record, we find that the courts below  have not committed any error in coming to the conclusion  to convict the appellant of the charges framed under  Section 302 and 201 of the IPC.  

13.     The prosecution in order to prove the crucial  circumstance of appellant and deceased "last seen"  together has examined Bharat Prabhu Lal (PW-8)  who is  none other than a cousin  of the appellant. It is in his  evidence that in the last week of March, 1998 the  appellant visited the village Kojra accompanied by the  deceased-Uma.  He introduced Uma as his wife.  The couple  stayed in the temple. Next day, both of them went to  nearby village named Malgauv and returned after 3-4 days  along with appellant’s sisters Kamla, Usha, Hansa etc.  They started living in their ancestral house namely  ’Rawla’ after performing religious ceremony of house  warming. On 5.6.1998  the appellant along with deceased  met him. They spent night on the terrace of the temple.  In the morning of 6th June, 1998 he found appellant alone.  The appellant was getting ready for going to Mumbai.   Thereafter the deceased was not seen alive.  

14.     Nelesh Trivedi (PW-9) is another important witness  who is none other than a cousin brother in relation of  the appellant. It is in his evidence that the appellant  visited the village in the month of March along with the  deceased. The appellant introduced the deceased as his  wife named Uma. His version is consistent with what has  been stated by  Bharat Prabhu Lal (PW-8).  It is stated  by him that he had seen the appellant and deceased Uma  together on 30th March, 1998.  Thereafter he had not seen  the deceased alive. PW-8 and 9 consistently speak about  the circumstance of the appellant and deceased last seen  together.  

15.     It is clear from the evidence available on record  that the appellant was providing misleading information  as regards the whereabouts of deceased-Uma.  PW-8 stated  that on 6th June, 1998 on inquiry the appellant stated  that his wife Uma had gone to Jhadoli to meet her  maternal uncle and from there she will join him at Sirohi  and both of them will go to Mumbai from Sirohi. On 17-18th  June, 1998 he received a message from  Mumbai through one  Raju Ram to inquire about the whereabouts of the  wife of  the appellant as it was found that the appellant returned  to Mumbai alone.  He inquired from the appellant about  the whereabouts of the deceased-Uma and appellant told  him that Uma had gone to village Gol.  Thereafter he  stated that Uma had gone to his sister Dodva or Pandiv.   PW-8 confronted the appellant as to why he was providing  misleading information. He told him that he had left Uma  at Nala Supara Railway Station, Bombay with her mother.  On 30th June, 1998 the appellant again visited the village   along with his friend Puran (co-accused, since

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

acquitted).  He again gave some misleading information.    Nilesh Trivedi (PW-9) also stated that the appellant was  giving misleading information about the deceased-Uma.   Thus, the evidence of PW-8 and 9 undoubtedly reveal that  the appellant was providing misleading information about  the whereabouts of Uma. Thus, it is the second  incriminating circumstance against the appellant.  

16.     The appellant was arrested vide memo Ex. P-16.   While in police custody the appellant gave information  vide Ex. P-73 leading to the recovery of key of the room  in which the dead body of Uma was found.  It is true the  lock was broken by the police but the evidence available  on record suggests the recovered key is of that lock  which was broken for opening the room in which the dead  body was found. The appellant did not offer any  explanation whatsoever in this regard. This is yet  another incriminating circumstance connecting the  appellant to the murder of the deceased. Similarly the  trouser of the appellant was recovered vide Ex. P-11.   Blood stains on the trouser were found to be of human  origin as per the F.S.L. report Ex. P-79.  It is  true as  contended by the learned Amicus Curiae there is no  reliable evidence that the blood stains found on the  trouser were of the same group that of the blood group of  the deceased. But the fact remains the appellant has not  given any cogent and acceptable explanation as to the  presence of human blood on his trouser.  This is also yet  another incriminating circumstance that goes against the  appellant.  

17.     Anandi Devi (PW-13) is the mother of the deceased.  She performed the last rites of her deceased daughter. In  the evidence she stated in categorical terms that she  performed funeral of her daughter. That crucial sentence  of the evidence is as under:   "Thereafter on 6.7.98 the telephone  of police came to my elder brother of  my husband that Uma has been  murdered. Then we started from Bombay  and came to Kojra village. And I did  funeral of my daughter in the  village."

This part of the evidence is not subjected to any cross- examination whatsoever by the defence.  The evidence of  PW-8 and PW-13 conclusively establish the dead body  recovered which was in a highly decomposed condition was  identified as that of Uma. There is no reason to  disbelieve the evidence of PW-8 and 13.  

18.     The prosecution case does not rest solely on the  circumstance of "last seen" together.  The circumstance  of "last seen" together may not by itself necessarily  lead to the inference that it was the accused who  committed the crime. The evidence available on record  clearly establish connectivity between the accused and  the crime which we have noted supra.  

19.     The High Court came to the right conclusion that the  chain of circumstances taken individually and  cumulatively leads to the one and only conclusion that it  was the appellant, who committed the murder of deceased- Uma. In our considered opinion the High Court rightly  confirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

for the charges framed against him.  

20.     Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.