JUDGMENT :

VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed by the State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’ for short) challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.03.1997 rendered by the Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No.431 of 1995, whereby the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent - accused for the offences under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short).

2. The brief case of the prosecution is as under,

2.1 It is the case of the prosecution that the respondent - accused himself disclosed the fact that he has killed his wife and her dead body is lying in Avkar Guest House, Nr. ST Bus Stand and, therefore on the basis of the said information given by the respondent - accused, FIR came to be registered.

2.2 On registration of the aforesaid FIR, the Investigating Officer carried out investigation and on conclusion of it, the chargesheet came to be filed against the respondent - accused before the concerned Magistrate Court.

2.5 As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the concerned Magistrate committed the case under Section 209 of the Code to the concerned Sessions Court, where it has been registered as Sessions Case No.431/1995.

2.6 During the course of the trial, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses and also produced documentary evidence.

2.5 After the prosecution evidence was over, further statement of the accused came to be recorded under Section 313 of the Code and thereafter the learned Trial Court passed the impugned judgment and order whereby the respondent – accused was acquitted from the charges levelled against him. Therefore, the State has preferred present appeal.

3. Heard learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the appellant – State and learned advocate Mr. S.V. Borisa for the respondent – accused.

4. Learned APP Ms. Jhaveri has at the outset referred to the deposition given by PW No.1, Dr. Vinayakrao Vasudevrao Patel, Exh.11, who had performed the postmortem of the deceased as well as postmortem note and contended that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt before the trial court that the death of the deceased was homicidal death.

5. Learned APP, thereafter, referred to the deposition given by PW No.5, Vidyaben Manharlal, Exh.37 and submitted that the said witness was the neighbour of the maternal uncle of the deceased and the said witness has lastly seen the respondent - accused in company of the deceased when both of them came to the house of maternal uncle of the deceased, however as the maternal uncle of the deceased was not available, both of them have left the place. Thus, it is submitted that the prosecution has established before the trial court that the deceased was lastly found in company of the respondent - accused.

6. At this stage, learned APP has referred to the deposition given by PW No.2, Laxman Bhurabhai Vaghela (Manager of the Avkar Guest House), Exh.13, PW No.3, Rajesh Keshavlal Vaghela (Waiter of Avkar Guest House), Exh.34 and PW No.4, Dhanjibhai Mulabhai Vaghela (Waiter of the Guest House), Exh.35. It is submitted that the Manager of the Guest House has deposed before the Court that in the register of the guest house, entry was made in the name of the respondent - accused and initially Room No.29 was allotted, thereafter, they were shifted to Room No.8 and the dead body of the deceased was found from Room No.8. However, learned APP has fairly submitted that thereafter, the Manager and Waiters have not supported the case of the prosecution and PW Nos.3 and 4 were declared hostile. Learned APP, thereafter, referred to the deposition given by PW No.10, Ravindrakumar Patel (IO), Exh.47, who has carried out the investigation and filed chargesheet against the respondent - accused. Learned APP submits that though it is a case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has proved the case against the respondent - accused beyond reasonabl