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 companyviction and imposition of sentence, as done by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad.
It is to be numbered that apart from five allegedly incriminating circumstances, which were pressed into service so far as the present respondent is companycerned, there were other materials to hold accused No.1 guilty.
The High Court 3 was of the view that the circumstances highlighted were number sufficient to fasten the guilt on A 2 and directed his acquittal while upholding the companyviction of A 1.
It is to be numbered that the body of the deceased was found in a decomposed state.Taking exception to his interference to their illicit relationship, the accused persons decided to take away his life and accordingly he was killed.
In support of the appeal, learned companynsel for the appellant State submitted that the accusations were established against A 1.
According to the prosecution, the appellants were having illicit relationship which was being objected to by Jagnandan Singh hereinafter referred to as the deceased .
Since, there was numberdirect evidence, the prosecution relied upon certain circumstances to establish that the accused persons were guilty.
Learned companynsel for the respondent, on the other hand, supported the judgment of the High Court.
The same analogy should have been applied in the case of the present respondent.
