Back
2019 Supreme(Guj) 1059
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
S.R. BRAHMBHATT, A. P. THAKER, JJ.
State of Gujarat -Appellant
Versus
Aravindbhai Bhailalbhai Khant & Other -Respondents
R/Criminal Appeal No. 669 of 2011
Decided On : 21-06-2019
For the Appellant : Mr. K.p. Raval Addl. Public Prosecutor
Headnote:
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 378(1)(3) – Appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal of the respondents-accused, passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anand, in Sessions Case – Held, It clearly transpires that the prosecution has heavily relied on the circumstantial evidence and now, it is well settled principle of law that the standard of proof required to convict a person on circumstantial evidence must be fully established and the chain of evidence furnished by those circumstances must be so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and further it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused and if, two views are possible on such evidence, the view pointing towards the innocence of the accused is to be adopted. It is also well settled that it is the cumulative result of all the circumstances which must unerringly point to the guilt of the accused and not one circumstances by itself. Now, considering the entire evidence on record, it clearly transpires that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the chain of circumstantial evidence and the alleged extra judicial confession of the accused before the witness. Considering the factual aspect and circumstances of the case, the alleged demonstration panchnama cannot be based for convicting the accused – Appeal dismissed
Facts of the Case:
Deceased was married with the respondent-accused No.3, however, she eloped with one Dinesh Chunibhai Parmar and delivered one child, which was disliked by the accused. It is the case of the prosecution that, therefore, keeping grudge about the said fact and to save the prestige of the family, the accused hatched conspiracy and killed the deceased by strangulating her neck and disposed of her body and caused disappearance of the evidence thereof. It is the case of the prosecution that the child, born out of this relationship of the deceased with Dinesh Chunibhai Parmar, was also killed.
Finding of the Court:
It clearly transpires that the prosecution has heavily relied on the circumstantial evidence and now, it is well settled principle of law that the standard of proof required to convict a person on circumstantial evidence must be fully established and the chain of evidence furnished by those circumstances must be so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and further it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused and if, two views are possible on such evidence, the view pointing towards the innocence of the accused is to be adopted. It is also well settled that it is the cumulative result of all the circumstances which must unerringly point to the guilt of the accused and not one circumstances by itself. Now, considering the entire evidence on record, it clearly transpires that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the chain of circumstantial evidence and the alleged extra judicial confession of the accused before the witness. Considering the factual aspect and circumstances of the case, the alleged demonstration panchnama cannot be based for convicting the accused.
Result: Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT :
A. P. THAKER, J.
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal of the respondents-accused, passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anand, in Sessions Case No.45/2009 on 28.02.2011.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that:
2.1. The deceased was married with the respondent-accused No.3, however, she eloped with one Dinesh Chunibhai Parmar and delivered one child, which was disliked by the accused. It is the case of the prosecution that, therefore, keeping grudge about the said fact and to save the prestige of the family, the accused hatched conspiracy and killed the deceased by strangulating her neck and disposed of her body and caused disappearance of the evidence thereof. It is the case of the prosecution that the child, born out of this relationship of the deceased with Dinesh Chunibhai Parmar, was also killed.
2.2. On the basis of the complaint lodged before Khambholaj Police Station, the Investigating Officer, after relying upon certain evidence, arrested the accused and filed charge-sheet before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anand for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code, which came to be registered as Criminal Case No.1418/2009.
2.3. Since the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anand has committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Anand under Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which came to be registered as Sessions Case No.45/2009.
2.4. Thereafter, the case was transferred to the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anand who had framed the charge against the accused and explained the same to them. The accused pleaded not guilty and pleaded for trial.
2.5. The prosecution has examined 18 witnesses and has produced 46 documentary evidences. Thereafter, on the basis of the evidences on record, the further statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded, wherein, they have denied commission of any offence by them and stated that false case has been inflicted upon them. The defense side has not examined any witnesses nor produced any documentary evidence.
2.6. After perusal of the evidence and after hearing both the sides, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide his order dated 28.02.2011 has, by giving benefit of doubt, acquitted the accused.
3. Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied by the order of acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal, inter-alia, contending that there is clear cut evidence of the Doctor, that the deceased has died homicidal death and the witnesses have clearly supported the case of the prosecution. It is also contended that the witnesses Jitendrabhai Bachubhai Gohel at Exh.83, Dhanjibhai Thakarsibhai Vadaliya at Exh.85, Dinesh Chunilal Parmar at Exh.87 and Chandrakant Vitthaldas Gajjar - Exh.93 have clearly supported the case of the prosecution and yet the trial Court has not properly appreciated it in its true perspective. It is also contended that though the case is based on the circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has been able to establish the entire chain of circumstances regarding the cause of crime and commission of offence by the accused and there is no missing of any link in the chain. On all these grounds, it is prayed to allow the appeal and convict the accused-respondents.
4. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. K.P. Raval, for the State. None appeared on behalf of the other side. Perused the impugned judgment as well as the oral and documentary evidence produced in the matter.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. K.P. Raval, for the State has vehemently submitted that the trial Court has materially erred in acquitting the accused from the charges leveled against them. He has invited the attention of the Court regarding the evide
