The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in circumstantial evidence cases, including establishing motive and a complete chain of evidence.

JUDGMENT :

(Umesh A. Trivedi, J.) :

1. This Appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed by the State challenging the judgment and order of acquittal passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur dated 31.01.1995 rendered in Sessions Case No. 115 of 1993, whereby respondent – accused came to be acquitted of the charges leveled against him.

2. As per the case of the prosecution, first-informant – Leenaben married one Vipulbhai Gordhandas Kothari and out of the wedlock, she had a baby girl named Shweta, who is the deceased in the present case. At the relevant time, deceased – Shweta was aged about 8 years. After the birth of deceased – Shweta, husband of Leenaben i.e. father of Shweta, suffered Parkinson Disease. Despite prolonged treatment, his condition did not improve. Therefore, first-informant – Leenaben undertook the work earlier undertaken by her husband as he was removed from where he was working because of his ailment.

2.1 In or around May, 1993, as the house where they were staying was to be repaired, they shifted to some other place and there accused, in the present case, developed some relationship with first-informant – Leenaben. Accused assured the family to provide all monetary as also other help needed to sustain their lives. By that, the accused took into confidence the husband of first-informant and he started taking disadvantage of the situation developing relationship with first- informant.

2.2 Again, on insistence of the accused in and around June, 1993, they all went to Palitana along with her husband to get their daughter admitted in “Shravik Ashram”. However, she was not given admission there and because of which, accused took quarrel with the husband of the first-informant and he beat him. From there, they went to Killa-Pardi, District: Valsad but there also they failed to get admission of their daughter. Therefore, all returned back to Mumbai. On returning to Mumbai, accused was driven out from the house by the husband of the first informant. On that very day i.e. on 18.06.1993, as per the case of prosecution, elder brother of the first-informant telephoned and asked her to meet him at Malad. On the next day, she along with her daughter – Shweta, at about 5 a.m., went to Vasai station and from there, they reached Borivali, where accused met them. There, accused promised to make her happy and persuaded her not to move to her brother’s house as he will not permit her to move out of the house. On continued persuasion, they came at Virar station, where accused informed first-informant to leave her daughter Shweta there and asked her to reach the house, to such proposal she refused. Therefore, they all sat in a truck and came to Ankleshwar, and from Ankleshwar, they reached Unava on 20.06.1993.

2.3 The accused tried to get an affidavit from the first- informant that she voluntarily stays with him through one Ashok Barot at Unjha. To that proposal also, first-informant refused, and therefore, he beat her up also. However, as coming out from the First Information Report, on 23.06.1993, such affidavit came to be affirmed by the first-informant at Mehsana through one Yogesh Bhavsar, Advocate.

2.4 Thereafter, two gold bangles, approximately of 30 Grams were sold to Choksi Navneetrai Joitaram Patel. Thereafter, they went to Charup Jain Dharamshala and stayed there for two days and came back to Mehsana.

2.5 After staying at different places, on 03.07.1993, at about 9:30 p.m., they stayed at Jain Bhojan Shala, Atithi Gruh, Palanpur, where accused – Sanjaykumar showed his surname to be ‘Shah’ and stayed with first-informant and his daughter. There, they stayed on 13.07.1993 up to 4:30 a.m.. During that time, accused beat the first-informant as also her daughter.

2.6 As per the allegation in the First Information Report, while beating deceased – Shweta, accused used to taunt her that she is bad blood of her handicapped father and to go there. He had also disowned her to brin