Point of law : where the trial court allows itself to be beset with fanciful doubts, rejects creditworthy evidence for slender reasons and takes a view of the evidence which is but barely possible, it is the obvious duty of the High Court to interfere in the interest of justice, lest the administration of justice be brought to ridicule.”

JUDGMENT :

ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI

1. Admit.

2. Present appeal has been filed by the appellant – State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the judgment and order dated 05.03.2019, passed in Sessions Case No. 34 of 2011 by the learned Sessions Judge, Morbi, recording the acquittal.

3. The facts, in brief, are that on 11.02.2011, the original accused, keeping grudge of earlier happenings, called deceased Karshanbhai Bhavanbhai Rankaja, the elder brother of the original complainant, at some abandoned place in the sim of village: Ravapar, in view of their preconcerted conspiracy, and made the deceased drink liquor and thereafter, killed him with big Hammer (Ghan) and Trikam and thereafter, buried the dead body of the deceased, and burnt the clothes and other belongings of the deceased. For the offence in question FIR came to be loaded. Upon this information, investigation started and the Investigating Officer, recorded statements of as many as 54 witnesses and produced certain documentary evidence and after completion of the investigation, the Charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons for the offences punishable under sections 302, 120-B, 201 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Since the case was triable by the Court of Sessions, the same was committed to the Sessions Court at Morbi. The learned Sessions Judge framed the Charge. Since the accused did not plead guilty, the trial was proceeded against the accused. Since, out of two accused one died pending the trial, case against him came to be abated. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 05.03.2019, the learned Sessions Judge, Morbi acquitted the accused person. Being aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred the present appeal.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has mainly contended that the original accused had made extra judicial confession before PW-30 Rugnathbhai Hansrajbhai Ghodasara (Exh. 105) about commission of the alleged offence, however, the same has not been considered by the trial Court in its true and proper perspective. Further, PW-15 Pappubhai Galmabhai Damor, (Exh. 67), who was an independent witness, had identified the accused in the Court. Besides, PW-7 Satishbhai Thavardas Damani (Exh. 54) had clearly deposed that the deceased accused had taken big hammer from him, which was returned by the present appellant (accused No. 1) and last but not the least, evidence of PW-3 Ajaybhai Prabhatbhai Chavda (Exh. 38), who had lastly seen the deceased with the present appellant. Thus, he submitted although cogent and material evidence had been produced by the prosecution and the case was proved beyond reasonable doubt, the trial Court has committed a grave error in acquitting the accused and accordingly, he urged that present appeal may be allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.

5. We have gone through the material placed on record as well as the impugned judgment and order of the trial Court. So far as the submission of the learned APP that the accused had made extra judicial confession is concerned, it is trite that an extra-judicial confession attains greater credibility and evidentiary value, if it is supported by a chain of cogent circumstances and is further corroborated by other prosecution evidence, otherwise it is a weak piece of evidence. In this regard, if the evidence of PW-3 Ajaybhai Prabhatbhai Chavda (Exh. 38) who had lastly seen the deceased with the present appellant, is considered, the same does not inspire confidence inasmuch as, as observed by the learned trial Judge, in earlier two statements before the police, this witness had not made such a claim that he had seen the deceased with the present appellant lastly and it was, for the first time on 16.03.2011, that he had given such a version. Further, so far as the evidence of PW-7 Satishbhai Thavardas Damani, from whom, as per the prosecution case, the accused persons had taken the weapons used in the c