The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion or lack of evidence leads to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

A.S. SUPEHIA, J.

1. The captioned matters emanates from the judgment and order passed by the trial Court dated 18.09.1995 in Sessions Case No. 52 of 1995, wherein and whereby, the trial Court has acquitted all three accused, who are charged with the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 118 and 120B read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC).

2. Before we proceed to decide the captioned matters, it would be apposite to refer that vide order dated 31.01.2020 passed by the Coordinate Bench, the trail Court was directed to examine seven witnesses under the provisions of Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Cr.P.C.). Thereafter, it was found that three witnesses have been passed away and rest of the four witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution.

THE CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:

3. The respondent No. 1 (original accused No. 1), namely Vishnubhai Chaturbhai Patel, was married to the deceased, namely Sumitra. According to the case of the prosecution the marital life of the accused No. 1 with Sumitra was sorrowful. The accused No. 1 wanted divorce. However, the deceased was not ready to give divorce to the accused No. 1. In such circumstances, the accused No. 1, in collusion with the accused Nos.2 and 3, hatched a conspiracy to eliminate the deceased.

4. It is the case of the prosecution that on 9th November 1994 the accused No. 1 left with the deceased on a scooter bearing registration No. GAG-4060 for the village Dasaj to drop the deceased at her parental home. After travelling at a particular distance the accused No. 1 pretended that the scooter was not running well and the engine was picking up heat. In such circumstances, the accused No. 1 took a halt at the agricultural farm of one Munirmiya Anwarmiya. When Munirmiya Anwarmiya/PW-7 (Exh.36) inquired with the accused No. 1 as to what was the problem and where he was heading towards, the accused No. 1 is said to have informed Munirmiya that he was travelling with his wife to drop her at her parental home and his scooter had failed.

5. According to the case of the prosecution, after staying at the agricultural farm of Munirmiya for some time, the accused No. 1 informed Munirmiya that he would go to a nearby place and get the scooter repaired. The accused No. 1 left behind the deceased, i.e. his wife, at the agricultural farm of Munirmiya. After some time in the night, the accused No. 1 once again returned to the agricultural farm of Munirbhai and informed that the scooter had been repaired at the garage of one of his friends. While the accused No. 1 and the deceased were still at the farm of Munirbhai, a Jeep came over there and honked. Upon such honking, the accused No. 1 left the agricultural farm along with his wife on the scooter.

6. It is the case of the prosecution that thereafter the accused No. 1 along with other two co-accused, as a part of the conspiracy, committed murder of the deceased on the road in the night hours by hitting blows on her head with an Axe. Thereafter, the accused No. 1 staged a show as if the scooter on which he was travelling with his wife met with an accident, and in the said accident, his wife, i.e. the deceased, died. The accused No. 1 also staged a show as if he was injured and wanted help. As alleged by the prosecution, the accused No. 1 pretended to have hurt himself severely and was unable to walk and reach upto the hospital or seek any help. Next day in the morning somehow the police came to know about the incident and brought the dead body of the deceased to the Civil Hospital.

7. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused No. 1 lodged a false FIR of vehicular accident. Later, a ‘B’ Summary report was filed in the said FIR. According to the case of the prosecution, the father of the deceased was not ready to believe that his daughter died because of a vehicular accident. The father of the deceased had a doubt that the accused No. 1, i.e. the son-in-law, had committed murder