The judgment underscores the principle that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly in cases involving serious charges like murder.

JUDGMENT :

(Umesh A. Trivedi, J.) :

1. This appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed by the first-informant – victim challenging the judgment and order of acquittal recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tharad, District: Banskantha, dated 09.12.2021 in Special Case No. 24 of 2019, whereby respondent – accused came to be acquitted of the charge leveled against him.

2. The private respondent herein would be referred to here, as per his original status in the trial, as an accused in this judgment, whereas appellant would be termed as first- informant.

3. On appeal being taken up for hearing, we ascertained from learned APP whether State intends to prefer any appeal against the impugned judgment and order or not. To which, Mr. Ronak B. Raval, learned APP, produced a communication addressed to the Public Prosecutor, Banskantha, communicated by the Legal Department of the State dated 10.02.2023, whereby Public Prosecutor at Banskantha was informed about State not considering it to be an appealable judgment and order itself, and therefore, no appeal is preferred by the State. The xerox copy of the said communication is ordered to be taken on record.

4. Accused was tried for an offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “the IPC”) as also under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the ”Atrocities Act”).

5. The case of the prosecution in brief is as under:-

5.1 Deceased – Ramilaben and accused, despite both are married, had relationship. However, since both of them belonged to different communities and both were married, finding it to be impossible to stay together, while deceased insisting on accused to stay together. Therefore, to get rid of her, accused called her at night hours on 07.10.2019 near the main canal of river Narmada passing through village Del and there, they tied their hands with Dupatta (long scarf) and jumped together in the canal. However, as per the prosecution case, since accused was knowing swimming, he just untied the knot of Dupatta (long scarf) from his hand and pushed the deceased in a deep water and thereby, caused murder of deceased – Ramila.

5.2 First-informant – Bharatbhai Versibhai Parmar gave FIR before the Police at about 6:30 p.m. on 08.10.2019. Though in para 2 of the judgment, date 07.10.2019 is referred but about night time, it is suggestive of the fact that intervening night of 07.10.2019 and 08.10.2019, at night hours, deceased left her matrimonial house according to the case of prosecution. Thus, it is clear that the alleged incident and deceased leaving house occurred on 08.10.2019.

5.3 On registration of FIR, investigation is carried out by the Police and statements of various witnesses were recorded as also material objects are seized and sealed by way of different panchnamas carried out in presence of independent persons. On conclusion of investigation, Police submitted the charge-sheet before the competent Court. After case being committed to the Court of Sessions, it was numbered as aforesaid and a charge came to be framed vide Exhibit-4 on 03.11.2020. Thereafter, prosecution examined in all 12 witnesses, produced and proved nearly 22 documents in support of its case. On conclusion of trial, after hearing the learned advocates for the parties, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal came to be passed by the learned Judge, which is assailed in this appeal.

5.4 While appeal being heard and going through the judgment and order, this Court thought it fit to call for the Record and Proceedings from the trial Court vide order dated 13.06.2023. Pursuant thereto, Record and Proceedings of the aforesaid Sessions case is before the Court.

6. We have heard Mr. Vicky B. Mehta, learned advocate for the appellant as also Mr. Ronak B. Raval, learned APP for the State.

6.1 Mr. Vicky B. Mehta, learned advocate for the appellant submitted