State of Maharashtra v. Arjun

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma
Judgment Date: 2008-11-05
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal dismissed.
Final Disposition: Appeal dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

State of Maharashtra

Respondents

Arjun (Accused No.2)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sushil I. Karanjkar
• Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure (for the Appellant)

Counsels for Respondents

• Shivaji M. Jadhav
• Pramji Paul (for the Respondent)

Case Synopsis & Summary

State of Maharashtra v. Arjun involves a murder case where two accused were charged under sections 302/34 and 201/34 IPC for the killing of Jagannandan Singh after he objected to their illicit relationship. The trial court convicted both on circumstantial evidence. The Bombay High Court, Osmanabad Bench, affirmed the conviction of Accused No.1 while acquitting Accused No.2. In appeal, the State contended that the evidence of illicit intimacy with Accused No.1, along with the accused’s alleged purchases of rat killer poison, gunny bag, cotton rope and nylon rope, and the discovery of the dead body at the instance of the respondent, together with the body found in a gunny bag tied with rope and stones, should lead to conviction of the respondent under section 302 read with 34 IPC and 201 read with 34 IPC. The Supreme Court examined whether five incriminating circumstances could conclusively fasten guilt on the respondent. It held that the purchases of rat killer poison and the gunny bag were not shown to have occurred before the incident, and the postmortem could not establish poison use due to the decomposed state of the body. The so-called discovery was not established, and the High Court’s acquittal of the respondent did not suffer from infirmity. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the High Court’s acquittal of Accused No.2 while maintaining the conviction (and related sentence) of Accused No.1.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 302 read with Section 34 IPCSection 201 read with Section 34 IPC

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The State argued that the chain of five incriminating circumstances—illicit intimacy with Accused No.1; purchase of rat killer poison; purchase of gunny bag and ropes; discovery of the dead body at the instance of the respondent; and the body found in a gunny bag tied with ropes and stones—collectively pointed to the respondent’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence should be sufficient to convict under section 302 read with 34 IPC and 201 read with 34 IPC, and the High Court erred in acquitting the respondent. The circumstantial evidence, if rightly considered, establishes a tight sequence linking the respondent to the crime.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent’s counsel argued that the five incriminating circumstances were not proved beyond reasonable doubt and that the chain of circumstances was not complete. The purchases of poison and bag materials could not be shown to have occurred before the incident, the decomposed state of the body rendered poison attribution uncertain, and the so-called discovery was not properly established. Hence, there was no compelling circumstantial case against the respondent to convict under the cited sections.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

[2008) 15 S.C.R. 495 A # ST ATE OF MAHARASHTRA _v._ ## ARJUN (Criminal Appeal No. 1155 of 2004) NOVEMBER 5, 2008 ,B ## [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] _Penal Code, 1860_ - _ss. 302134 and 201134_ - _Prosecution under, of two accused_ - _Conviction of both by trial court on the basis of circumstantial evidence_ - _High Court convicting A-1 while acquitting A-2_ - _Appeal against acquittal_ - _Held: Circumstances relied on not sufficient to fasten the guilt on A-2._ . 1 C 1 Respondent-Accused No.2 was prosecuted u/ss. 302/[10 ] 34 and 201/34 IPC alongwith Accused No. 1 for having caused death of a person. Prosecution case was that the , deceased was objecting to the illicit relationship between the accused persons. The case was based on circumstantial evidence. Trial court convicted both the ' E accused relying on five circumstances. High Court confirmed the conviction of Accused No. 1 while 1 acquitting the respondent-accused. In appeal against acquittal, State contended that in 1 F the circumstances that respondent had illicit intimacy with Accused-1; that he purchased rat killer, gunny bag, nylon rope and cotton rope; that the dead body of the deceased was discovered at his instance; and that the dead body was found in gunny bag tied with cotton ' G ropes and two stones were tied with nylon rope, respondent is liable to be convicted. Dismissing the appeal, the Court H 495 496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R. A A HELD: Regarding the circumstances of purchase of rat killer poison and the gunny bag , there was no evidence to show that either the rat killer poison or the . gunny bag was purchased prior to the date of occurrence. The body of the deceased was found in a 8 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 c 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 respondent-accused has not been established. Thus, the High Court's judgment does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant 0[interference. [Paras 5 and 6] ][[498-E-H] ] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.1155 of 2004. From the final Judgment and Order dated 8.8.2003 of the E High _Court_ of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Criminal Appeal No. 204 of 1998 . . ' Sushi I Karanjkar and Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure for the Appellant. F Shivaji M. Jadhav and Pramji Paul for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a. Division Bench of the Bombay High Court G at Auiangabad. ·Two persons - lndrajit Kaur (hereinafter described as A-1) arid the present respondent Arjun (hereinafter described as A-2) had filed the appeal questioning their conviction and imp-osition of sentence, as done by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad. H Each one of them was convicted for offences punishable under 497 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA _v._ ARJUN [DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] _)r-_ ")- '( ~ _"Y_ A Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ·the I PC') 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. B I 2. According to the prosecution, the accused persons were having illicit relationship which was being objected to by[c ] 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, 10 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 E insufficient so far as the present respondent is concerned. It is ' to be r.oted 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 F 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. I G H _--f_ 498 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R. ~ \ r- }- A 4. 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 - B killer poison from the shop of Motichand, PW-5. c 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, PW6. ~~ 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. D 5. So far as the purchase of rat killer poison and the gunny E 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 F[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. " _y_ i **==> picture [16 x 6] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----** .·~ **----- End of picture text -----** I- G 6. 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. H[K.K.T. ] ## Appeal dismissed. " **==> picture [8 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----** ~- **----- End of picture text -----** > "'-