Page 1

               NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2371 OF 2010

Raghuvendra     ..Appellant

Versus

State of M.P.            ..Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Madan B. Lokur, J.

1.  The  appellant  (Raghuvendra)  is  aggrieved  by  the  

judgment and order dated 23rd October, 2008 passed by the High  

Court of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.754 of 2000.  By the  

judgment and order under appeal, the conviction of the appellant for  

an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the  

Indian Penal Code was affirmed. We find no merit in the appeal and  

it is dismissed.

2. On 10th February, 1998 the informant Gulab Ahirwar (PW-

3) found a dead body in his fields.  He immediately informed the  

police and a first information report was recorded on the basis of his  

1

Page 2

information.   A  few  articles  lying  near  the  dead  body  were  also  

recovered.

3. The dead body could  not  be immediately  identified  but  

subsequently,  in  the  course  of  investigations  in  a  different  case  

altogether,  the  police  apprehended  Raghuvendra  and  during  his  

interrogation  on  16th March,  1998  he  confessed  to  killing  the  

deceased with the assistance of his uncle.  Based on this statement  

given  by  Raghuvendra,  the  dead  body  was  identified  with  the  

assistance of  Guddi  Bai  (PW-13,  the widow of  the deceased)  and  

Sadhana (PW-14, the daughter of the deceased).

4. It  also  transpired  from  the  investigations  that  the  

deceased Bhagwan Singh was known to Raghuvendra and his uncle.  

They were apparently involved in several thefts and there was some  

dispute about sharing the proceeds.   Raghuvendra and his  uncle  

would often visit Bhagwan Singh at his residence and they would  

also consume liquor together.

5. On 9th February, 1998 Raghuvendra and his uncle came to  

the house of the deceased in Vidhisha and they and the deceased  

left for Bilaspur the next morning, that is on 10th February, 1998.  It  

is soon thereafter that the dead body of Bhagwan Singh was found  

in the fields of Gulab Ahirwar (PW-3).

6. During  the  course  of  investigations,  the  investigating  

2

Page 3

officer also recovered, at the instance of Raghuvendra and his uncle  

certain articles of the deceased in Bhopal.

7. On  these  broad  facts,  a  charge-sheet  was  filed  and  

Raghuvendra  and  his  uncle  were  charged  with  having  murdered  

Bhagwan  Singh  and  thereby  having  committed  an  offence  

punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.  Both  

of them pleaded not guilty and were therefore tried by the learned  

Additional Sessions Judge, Khurai, District Sagar (Madhya Pradesh).  

Vide his judgment and order dated 5th February, 2000 in Sessions  

Case No.205 of 1998 the learned Additional Sessions Judge found  

Raghuvendra and his uncle guilty of having caused the murder of  

Bhagwan Singh.  

8. The  two  principal  grounds  on  which  the  conviction  of  

Raghuvendra and his uncle was based were the statement of Guddi  

Bai (PW-13), Sadhana (PW-14) as well as the medical evidence.  The  

learned  Additional  Sessions  Judge  concluded  that  there  was  no  

reason  to  disbelieve  Guddi  Bai  and  Sadhana  and  he  was  of  the  

opinion  that  based  on  their  statement,  the  recovery  of  articles  

belonging to the deceased at the instance of Raghuvendra and his  

uncle and on the basis of the ‘last seen theory’, there was sufficient  

circumstantial evidence to convict them.

9. Feeling  aggrieved  by  the  judgment  and  order  of  the  

3

Page 4

learned  Additional  Sessions  Judge,  Raghuvendra  and  his  uncle  

preferred  an  appeal  in  the  High  Court  of  Madhya Pradesh which  

came to be dismissed by the judgment and order under appeal.

10. The High Court examined the record of the case and also found  

that there was no reason to disbelieve Guddi Bai and Sadhana.  Both  

witnesses knew Raghuvendra and his  uncle quite well  since they  

were frequent visitors to their house.  The High Court also came to  

the conclusion that the ‘last seen theory’ was applicable to the facts  

of the case since Raghuvendra and his uncle had visited the house  

of  the deceased on 9th February,  1998,  stayed overnight and left  

with him for Bilaspur in the morning on 10th February, 1998.  It is  

soon thereafter that the dead body of Bhagwan Singh was recovered  

from  the  fields  of  Gulab  Ahirwar  (PW-3)  though  it  was  not  

immediately identified.   These facts coupled with the recovery of  

certain  articles  belonging  to  the  deceased  at  the  instance  of  

Raghuvendra and his uncle were relied upon by the High Court to  

confirm their conviction.  

11. Only Raghuvendra has challenged his conviction before us - his  

uncle has not preferred any petition in this court.

12. There is no doubt that Raghuvendra knew the deceased quite  

well and perhaps they were involved in some thefts.  Guddi Bai and  

Sadhana also knew Raghuvendra since he was a frequent visitor to  

4

Page 5

their house.  The identification of Raghuvendra therefore is not an  

issue before us.

13. It has also come on record that Raghuvendra and his uncle had  

stayed overnight at the residence of the deceased in Vidhisha on 9 th  

February, 1998 and left the next morning for Bilaspur with Bhagwan  

Singh.  It is on the morning of 10th February, 1998 that the dead  

body of Bhagwan Singh was found in the fields of Gulab Ahirwar  

(PW-3)  who  gave  a  statement  on  the  basis  of  which  the  first  

information report was registered.

14. The fact that the deceased was ‘last seen’ with Raghuvendra  

and his dead body was found soon thereafter coupled with the fact  

that certain articles belonging to the deceased were recovered from  

the custody of Raghuvendra and his uncle at their instance leaves  

no room for doubt that the three of them were travelling together.  

Among the articles recovered from Raghuvendra and his uncle was a  

purse belonging to the deceased and some other personal effects  

including  clothing.   These  were  identified  as  belongings  of  the  

deceased  and  were  perhaps  carried  by  him  while  travelling  to  

Bilaspur.

15. There is no manner of doubt, on these facts, that the death of  

5

Page 6

Bhagwan Singh was caused by Raghuvendra and his uncle. No other  

inference is possible or even suggested.

16. No substantial question of law has arisen in this case and on  

the facts as found by the learned Additional Sessions Judge as well  

as  by  the  High  Court  we  see  no  reason  to  interfere  with  the  

conviction of Raghuvendra for an offence punishable under Section  

302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

17. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

……………………….…J              ( Madan B. Lokur )

……………………….…J                ( N.V. Ramana )

New Delhi; January 07, 2015  

6