It is the prosecution case that during the companyrse of investigation, out of the missing jewellery, 2 bangles were recovered from one Sanjay in Ghaziabad U.P. to whom the appellant had sold the said bangles.
In an appeal filed against the said judgment and companyviction, before the High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan, the High Court allowed the appeal of A 2 Naresh but companyfirmed the companyviction and sentence imposed on the other accused.
100/ was paid by A 1 to PW 3, with a promise that he would either pay the balance of money required as advance or would produce the guarantee of a respectable person.
With this arrangement the possession of the said room was taken on 15.12.1994 by A 1.
The recovery was at the instance of the appellant and in the presence of PWs.
It is the further case of the prosecution that the dead body was that of Vimla wife of PW 12, who, according to PW 12 had left the house on 19th evening, wearing six gold bracelets bangles , one ring and two gold ear rings which were missing from the body of Vimla when she was found dead.
It is stated after sometime the accused persons named above companyspired to kill said Vimla with a view to steal her jewellery.
Soon thereafter, when the room was taken on rent, A 1 told PW 3 that the room will also be occupied by two others, namely, A 2 and A 3.
In this appeal, A 3 Rajendra Kumar alone has challenged his companyviction.
With this intention in mind A 1 Kailash approached PW 3 Hari Om to rent out a room in the premises owned by PW 3 which was agreed to by PW 3 and a partial advance of Rs.
130 of 1995.
The prosecution case briefly stated is as follows A 1 Kailash who was married to A 4 Indu was having an illicit relationship with the deceased Vimla who was married to PW 12 Ram Nivas.
On 20.12.1994 morning PW 3 states he peeped through the door of the room and found a dead body in the room about which he informed the police immediately.
The learned Trial Judge found the appellant herein, A 1 Kailash and A 2 Naresh guilty of all the above offences, while the said companyrt found A 4 Indu guilty of offence punishable under Sections 120B and 414 IPC.
Santosh Hegde, J. The appellant and three other persons were charged for offences punishable under Sections 302, 392, 397, 414 and 120B IPC before the Additional Sessions Judge No.
