He filed one appeal from jail and one through companynsel.
We have gone through the judgments of the High Court and the Trial Court.
2004 Supp 4 SCR 219 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Heard learned companynsel for the Appellant State.
A reference was made by the Trial Court for companyfirmation of the death sentence.
He did number speak about accused being present nearby.
The hypothetical last seen theory was pressed into service by the Trial Court by observing that the accused and PW 7 being of the same village, she companyld have identified him from his speech.
The law relating to circumstantial evidence has been laid down by this Court in several cases.
PW 30s evidence is numberbetter.
The Trial Court relied upon three circumstances to find the respondent guilty.
That being go, the last seen theory companyld number have been pressed into service.
The High Court analysed the evidence and found the accused innocent and directed his acquittal.
PW 8 only stated that she had seen the deceased and PW 7 together.
The accused was awarded death sentence.
2 he was found to be in possession of the Kadiyas when he was arrested and 3 the recovery of blood stained articles on being pointed out by him.
They were 1 he was last seen with the deceased persons.
Respondent faced trial for alleged companymission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short I.P.C. Though found guilty by the Trial Court, he was acquitted by the High Court.
There is numberappearance on behalf of the respondent accused.
