Holding

The circumstantial evidence was insufficient to fasten guilt on the accused A-2, and the High Court's acquittal was upheld.

Summary

The State of Maharashtra prosecuted Arjun (A-2) and another accused (A-1) under IPC sections 302/34 and 201/34 for the murder of Jagnandan Singh. The trial court convicted both based solely on five pieces of circumstantial evidence, including alleged purchase of rat poison, a gunny bag, ropes, and the discovery of the body by A-2. The Bombay High Court upheld A-1's conviction but acquitted A-2, finding the evidence insufficient to link him to the crime. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the circumstances—particularly the timing of the purchases and the alleged discovery of the body—could be proved beyond reasonable doubt. It held that there was no evidence the rat poison or gunny bag were bought before the offence, the decomposed state of the body precluded any toxicological conclusion, and the claim that A-2 discovered the body was not established. Consequently, the Court dismissed the State's appeal, leaving A-2 acquitted.

Issues considered

Whether the circumstantial evidence presented was sufficient to convict the accused under sections 302 and 201 read with section 34 of the IPC.
Whether the purchase of rat poison and a gunny bag prior to the occurrence can be proved.
Whether the alleged discovery of the dead body by the accused constitutes a reliable circumstance of guilt.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 201, s. 302, s. 34

Subjects

murdercircumstantial evidenceacquittalIPC 302IPC 201criminal lawappealrat poisongunny bag

Judgment

[2008) 15 S.C.R. 495

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA A
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 1 C
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
1

A-2. .
10
Respondent-Accused No.2 was prosecuted u/ss. 302/
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 F 1

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
495 H
496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R.

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
interference. [Paras 5 and 6] [498-E-H]
0
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 PASAYAT, 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
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. ARJUN 497
[DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, A
)r-
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 B
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.
")- 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,
the prosecution relied upon certain circumstances to establish
10
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 .
I
3. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the
G
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
"Y for the respondent, on the other hand, supported the judgment
of the High Court.
H

--f
498 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R.
~

l
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.

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.
c
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 "
D 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 r-
y }-
rope. i

5. So far as the purchase of rat killer poison and the gunny ,,_
I

E bag is concerned, there was no evidence to show that either .'
I-
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. 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. " ~-

>
"'-
~
(;...