The judgment establishes the principle that circumstantial evidence, supported by subsequent conduct and the recovery of incriminating items, can be sufficient to establish guilt in the absence of eyewitnesses.

K.S. Jhaveri, J.

1. Both these appeals arise out of a common judgement and order dated 29.09.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fifth Fast Track Court, Veraval in Sessions Case No. 01 of 2006 whereby original accused Nos. 1 & 2 were convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 r/w 114 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for two years thereunder. The accused were also convicted for the offence punishable under section 397 r/w 114 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for one year thereunder. The accused were further convicted for the offence punishable under section 449 r/w 114 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for two years thereunder. Original accused Nos. 1 & 2 were, however, acquitted of the offence under section 135 of B.P. Act. Being aggrieved by the said conviction, original accused No. 1 has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 2902 of 2008 and original accused No. 2 has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 2890 of 2008.

2. The short facts of the prosecution case as narrated in the complaint lodged with Veraval City Police station is that on 13.10.2005 at around 02.00 pm, the husband of the deceased i.e. Dr. N.D. Gohil had left for Kodinar from his residence for hospital visit and thereafter the complainant went to the residence of the doctor to hand over the keys of the chamber where the deceased person was sitting on sofa and watching tv. Thereafter the complainant left for lunch. At around 05.30 pm when the complainant came back to collect the keys, he found that the main door was open and when he rang the door bell, no one answered and hence the complainant went to the hospital. It is stated in the complaint that after a while one Mr. Bipinbhai came to the hospital and was sent to get the keys from the residence of the doctor but he also returned without the keys as no one came at the main door. Thereafter, around 06.45 pm both the persons went to the residence of doctor and on entering the house they found clothes scattered on the bed and the place appeared to be in a mess. Thereafter they checked the bathroom and found the wife of doctor lying on the floor and saw a black wire entangled around the neck of the deceased and the bathroom floor covered with blood. Thereafter, the complainant informed one Dr. Rathod and the police authorities. Thereafter, the husband of the deceased was informed and the police recorded his statement. The husband of deceased pointed a finger of suspicion on the accused and accordingly they were arrested on 15.10.2005. Necessary panchnamas were drawn and cash alongwith bloodstained handkerchief and a wrist watch was seized from the accused.

2.1 Pursuant to the complaint, investigation was carried out. After investigation, on the basis of material collected against the accused, since the Investigating Officer found a prima facie case against the accused, chargesheet was filed and as the case was triable by the Court of Sessions, it was committed to the Court of Sessions. The trial Court framed charge against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.

2.2 Trial was initiated against the accused and during the course of trial the prosecution examined the following witnesses whose evidences were read before us by learned advocates for both the sides: