IMPORTANT POINT
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of evidence that conclusively points to the guilt of the accused, leaving no reasonable doubt regarding their innocence.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

ABHAY S.WAGHWASE, J. - Father of deceased has preferred instant appeal, getting dissatisfied by the judgment and order of acquittal dtd. 4/10/2021 passed by Sessions Judge, Parbhani in Session Case No. 8 of 2017. Similarly, even State is taking exception to the same judgment and is hereby seeking leave to file appeal. We have heard it at the stage of admission.

PROSECUTION CASE IN BRIEF

2. Crime was registered bearing no. 210 of 2016 by police official contending that, when he and his colleague had been to investigate crime no. 209 of 2016, at that time around 1.30 p.m. one Pandurang Babarao Kale, an electrician, met them and informed about a motorcycle bearing registration no. MH - 26 - AW - 3605 lying near the field of one Bhimrao Kale and there was blood near the motorcycle. On receipt of such information, he and his colleague both rushed to the said spot. There they saw dead body of a person between age group of 20 to 25 years lying there. Inquiry was undertaken and it revealed from the vehicle particulars, that the dead body was of Gopinath Tukaram Sable, resident of Nijampurwadi, Taluka Ardhapur, District Nanded. There were several injuries on the person of deceased and therefore, on behalf of State, this police official registered crime bearing no. 210 of 2016 for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of IPC.

Investigation was undertaken by PW11 PI Ramrao Gadekar. According to the Investigating Officer, complicity of present respondent was revealed and therefore, he was duly chargesheeted. The case was conducted by learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani, who after framing charge, permitted prosecution to adduce evidence and on appreciating the evidence, by its judgment and order dtd. 4/10/2021, reached to a finding that prosecution failed to bring home the charges.

The above order of acquittal is now questioned by both, father of deceased as well as the State.

RIVAL CONTENTIONS

3. Learned counsel for the appellant, who is father of deceased, would point out that prosecution had successfully shown that death of Gopinath, son of the appellant, was homicidal. Even learned Sessions Judge has answered this point in affirmative. It is further submitted that investigation revealed that present respondent was in the company of deceased. That, there are CCTV footages which were gathered by investigating machinery which clearly reveal present respondent to be with deceased. It is further pointed out that, that apart, even investigating machinery had collected and gathered hair of respondent from the very hands of deceased. On DNA analysis of the said hair, the same were proved to be hair of respondent. Therefore, there was overwhelming and clinching evidence of involvement of respondent.

4. Learned counsel further submitted that respondent was upset as he was nurturing grudge against deceased Gopinath on the allegation of keeping an evil eye on his sister. Therefore, it is submitted that even motive was strongly established by prosecution. Thus, according to learned counsel, there are strong, cogent and reliable circumstances and evidence which unerringly point to the involvement of respondent. However, learned trial court has utterly failed to consider and appreciate such quality of evidence.

5. It is further pointed out that apart from above clinching evidence, even there was recovery of blood stained clothes. Weapon is also seized at the instance of respondent and therefore, in the light of recovery of such incriminating material, it is submitted that, learned trial Judge ought to have recorded guilt and ought to have convicted the respondent, but it having failed to do so, it is submitted that appeal deserves to be allowed.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant took us through the testimony of all 12 witnesses and prayed for granting relief of quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment.

7. Likewise, even learned APP for the State would submit that prosecution had established the case against respondent by adducing eviden