REPORTABLE

               IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

   CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1155 OF 2004   

State of Maharashtra ...Appellant

Versus

Arjun ...Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the

Bombay High Court  at  Aurangabad.   Two persons  -  Indrajit  Kaur (hereinafter

described as A-1) and the present respondent Arjun (hereinafter described as  A-2)

had filed the appeal questioning their conviction and imposition of sentence, as done

by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad.  Each one of them was

convicted   for  offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short `the IPC') and sentenced to undergo imprisonment

for life and  to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- with default stipulations.   They were also

convicted for the offences  punishable  under

-2-

Section  201  read  with  Section  34  IPC  and  sentenced  to  undergo  rigorous

imprisonment for three years and  to  pay a

fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulations.  The appeal was allowed by the impugned

judgment, so far as present respondent is concerned.

According  to  the  prosecution,  the  appellants  were  having  illicit

relationship which was being objected to by  Jagnandan Singh (hereinafter referred to

as the 'deceased'). Taking exception to his interference to their illicit relationship, the

accused persons decided to take away his life and accordingly he was killed.  Since,

there  was  no direct evidence, the prosecution relied upon certain circumstances to

establish  that  the  accused  persons  were  guilty.  The  Trial  Court  found  the  five

incriminating circumstances to be sufficient to fasten the guilt on the accused persons

and, accordingly, convicted them, as aforenoted.  In appeal, the High Court found

that  the  evidence  was  sufficient  so  far  as  accused  No.1  is  concerned,  but  was

insufficient so far as the present respondent is concerned.  It is to be noted that apart

from five allegedly incriminating circumstances, which were pressed into service so far

as the present respondent is concerned, there were other materials to hold accused

No.1 guilty.  The High Court

-3-

was of the view that the circumstances highlighted were not sufficient to fasten the

guilt on A-2 and directed his acquittal while upholding the conviction of A-1.

In  support  of  the  appeal,  learned  counsel  for  the  appellant-State

submitted  that  the  accusations  were established  against  A-1.   The  same analogy

should have been applied in the case of the present respondent.  Learned counsel for

the respondent, on the other hand, supported the judgment of the High Court.

   The circumstances which were pressed into service to  fasten the guilt  on the

accused are, as follows:

1.    Illicit intimacy with accused No.1.

2.   The accused No.2 purchased two packets of rat killer poison from the shop of

Motichand, PW-5.  

3.   The accused No.2 purchased gunny bag (article 16), cotton rope (Articles 17, 18

and 19) and nylon rope (article 20) from the shop of Abhay Bhoj, PW-6.

4.  Discovery of dead body of Jagnandansingh from Morda Tank at the instance of

accused No.2.  

5. Dead body of Jagnandansingh was found in a gunny bag that the dead body was

tied by means of cotton rope and that two stones were found to have been tied to

gunny bag by means of nylon rope.

-4-

So far as the purchase of rat killer poison and the gunny bag is concerned,

there was no evidence to show that either  the rat killer poison or the gunny bag was

purchased prior to the date of occurrence.  It is to be  noted  that  the

body of the deceased was found in a decomposed state. The Doctor who conducted the

post mortem categorically stated that in view of the decomposed state of the dead body, it

was  not  possible  to  say  whether  any rat  killing  poison  was  used.   The  only  other

circumstance is purported discovery of the dead body at the instance of the respondent.

The High Court has found that this so-called discovery on the basis of the information

given by A-2 has not been established.   

Above being the position, we find that the High Court's judgment does not

suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference.  The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

                                    .....................J.   (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)              

                .....................J.              (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)  

New Delhi, November 05, 2008.