RAJENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant and three other persons were charged for offences punishable under Sections 302, 392, 397, 414 and 120-B, IPC before the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sriganganagar in S.C. No. 130 of 1995. The learned trial Judge found the appellant herein, A-1 Kailash and A-2 Naresh guilty of all the above offences while the said Court found A-4 Indu guilty of offence punishable under Sections 120-B and 414, IPC. In an appeal filed against the said judgment and conviction, before the High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan, the High Court allowed the appeal of A-2 Naresh but confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the other accused. In this appeal, A-3 Rajendra Kumar alone has challenged his conviction.

(2.) The prosecution case briefly stated is as follows : A-1 Kailash who was married to A-4 Indu was having an illicit relationship with the deceased Vimla who was married to P.W. 12 Ram Nivas. It is stated after sometime the accused persons named above conspired to kill said Vimla with a view to steal her jewellery. With this intention in mind A-1 Kailash approached P.W. 3 Hari Om to rent out a room in the premises owned by P. W. 3 which was agreed to by P. W. 3 and a partial advance of Rs. 100/- was paid by A-1 to P.W. 3, with a promise that he would either pay the balance of money required as advance or would produce the guarantee of a respectable person. Soon thereafter, when the room was taken on rent, A-1 told P.W. 3 that the room will also be occupied by two others, namely, A-2 and A-3. With this arrangement the possession of the said room was taken on 15-12-1994 by A-1. It is the prosecution case that on 16-12-1994 in the morning A-2 and A-3 came with their bedding to the said room which was witnessed by P.W. 3 and occupied the same. P. W. 3 further states that on 17-12-1994 he contacted A-2 and A-3 and asked them to make arrangement for the balance of the advance money or to produce surety immediately. P.W. 3 further states that on 18-12-1994 he saw these A-2 and A-3 bring a lady whom he later identified as deceased Vimla to the said room, subsequently when questioned A-2 and A-3 supposedly told P.W. 3 that the said lady was the wife of A-1. P.W. 3 further states that on 19-12-1994 in the evening he tried to contact A-2 and A-3 but he found the room was locked. On 20-12-1994 morning P.W. 3 states he peeped through the door of the room and found a dead body in the room about which he informed the police immediately. It is the further case of the prosecution that the dead body was that of Vimla wife of P.W. 12, who, according to P. W. 12 had left the house on 19th evening, wearing six gold bracelets (bangles), one ring and two gold ear rings which were missing from the body of Vimla when she was found dead. It is the prosecution case that during the course of investigation, out of the missing jewellery, 2 bangles were recovered from one Sanjay in Ghaziabad (U.P.) to whom the appellant had sold the said bangles. The recovery was at the instance of the appellant and in the presence of P.Ws. 17 and 18. It is based on these circumstantial evidence the High Court found the appellant and two others guilty as sated above, and it is against the said judgment of the High Court the appellant is before us in this appeal.

(3.) Shri K. S. Bhati, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as amicus curiae in this case has contended that the prosecution has relied on two circumstances to base a conviction on the appellant and they are (i) that this appellant was found in the company of A-2 occupying the room rented out by P.W. 3 where Vimlas dead body was found; (ii) certain jewellery belonging to said Vimla was allegedly recovered from the shop of one Sanjay (not examined) which according to the prosecution was sold to said Sanjay by the appellant.