STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. ARJUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 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.

(2.) 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 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.

(3.) 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.