State Of Maharashtra vs Arjun
- SCC(2008) 17 SCC 53
- Neutral2008 INSC 1249
- AIRAIR 2009 SC 733
- SCR[2008] 15 SCR 495
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where guilt is sought to be fastened on an accused person through circumstantial evidence, the circumstances on which reliance is placed must have been established as facts prior to the date of the occurrence; evidence of purchase or possession of materials after the date of the crime does not constitute proof that such materials were used in the commission of the crime, particularly where expert opinion establishes that the alleged instrument could not have left detectable traces on decomposed remains. A purported discovery of the victim's body at the instance of an accused person does not constitute a circumstance sufficient to fasten guilt where the discovery itself has not been established as a fact on the evidence. Where a court of first instance and an appellate court differ in their evaluation of circumstantial evidence as applied to multiple accused persons, and the appellate court finds the circumstances insufficient to prove guilt against one accused while sufficient against another, such differentiation does not ipso facto constitute an infirmity warranting reversal, provided the court's reasoning shows a proper application of the law governing circumstantial evidence.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
State of Maharashtra ...Appellant
Versus
Arjun ...Respondent
JUDGMENT
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.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free