JUDGMENT :

Sandeep N. Bhatt, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction dated 19.06.2013 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Kheda at Nadiad in Sessions Case No.47 of 2011 for the offence under sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the appellant - accused has preferred this appeal under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code" for short), whereby the appellant - accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and is ordered to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, and in default of fine, is ordered to undergo further six months rigorous imprisonment.

2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 07.12.2010 at about 22:30 hours, when the complainant was watering the wheat crop in the field of Jayantibhai Bhathibhai Zala, at that time, one Suresh, who happens to be the nephew of Vebaben Fatesinh Zala, came and told that there was a phone call from home and therefore, the complainant returned towards his house from there. On the way, the people, who gathered at Hanuman Temple, informed that one dead body of male is lying near the field of Budhaji Fateji, which is situated towards Ghodali Road. Therefore, the complainant, along with the village persons viz., Motibhai Desaibhai Chauhan, Bhaijibhai Bababhai Chauhan, Ravjibhai Chandubhai Chauhan and Rajubhai Laxmanbhai Zala, went to the police station for informing the police. Thus, the complainant - Prabhatbhai Khodabhai Zala lodged the complaint with regard to the incident before the Mahemdabad Police Station, which was registered as C.R.- I No.252 of 2010 for the offences under sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. In pursuance of the complaint lodged by the complainant, investigating agency recorded statements of the witnesses, collected relevant evidence in form of medical evidence and drawn various Panchnamas and other relevant evidence for the purpose of proving the offence. After having found material against the appellant accused, charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mahemdabad. As said Court lacks jurisdiction to try the offence, it committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Kheda at Nadiad as provided under section 209 of the Code.

4. Upon committal of the case to the Sessions Court, Kheda at Nadiad, learned Sessions Judge framed charge at Exh.4 against the appellant - accused for the aforesaid offence. The appellant - accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to bring home charge, the prosecution has examined 35 witnesses, as mentioned in Para 4 of the impugned judgment and order and also produced various documentary evidence before the learned trial Court, more particularly described in para 5 of the impugned judgment and order.

6. On conclusion of evidence on the part of the prosecution, the trial Court put various incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence to the appellant - accused so as to obtain his explanation/answer as provided u/s 313 of the Code. In the further statement, the appellant - accused denied all incriminating circumstances appearing against him as false and further stated that he is innocent and false case has been filed against him. After hearing both the sides and after analysis of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial Judge convicted the appellant - accused from the offences, for which he was tried, as the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.

7. Heard learned advocates.

8.1 Learned advocate Mr. Dave for the appellant - accused has submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish the complete chain of circumstances and to exclude every hypothesis other than guilt of appellant. He has submitted that links in chain of circumstances not established material contradictions like evidence of panchas present in case of prosecution. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for benef