The judgment underscores the principle that in criminal law, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly when relying on circumstantial evidence.

ORDER :

(Umesh A. Trivedi, J.) :

1. This is an appeal filed by victim-original first informant under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Code”) challenging the judgment and order of acquittal recorded by the Sessions Judge, Morbi dated 16.01.2023 in Sessions Case No.47 of 2019, whereby respondent-accused nos.2 and 3 came to be acquitted of the charge levelled against them.

2. As per the case of the prosecution, two years prior to the date of incident while deceased-Navghan taking the tractor in a reverse gear, dashed with the parents of accused no.1 causing simple injuries as also on a promise made to accused no.1 to get job for him on payment of Rs.15,000/- at Himmatnagar by the deceased and he did not fulfill the same, incident occurred. As per the case of the prosecution, on 22.12.2018 at the house of respondent no.2 a conspiracy was hatched between the accused. In furtherance of their common intention calling the deceased over the phone and called him at river Koyba, accused no.2 in the trial caught hold of him and accused no.1 gave knife blow on head near the ear causing fatal injury. Thereby, accused are said to have committed an offence of murder as also committed breach of notification published by the District Magistrate holding them liable for an offence of Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act (for short “the GP Act”).

3. Pursuant to the incident, father of the deceased registered one FIR pursuant to which the case was registered and investigated by the PSI of the concerned police station and on conclusion of investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against both the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as also under Section 135 of the “GP Act”. Since case against the accused was exclusively triable by the court of sessions, learned Magistrate, in whose court it came to be filed, committed the same to the court of sessions.

4. Therefore, a charge vide Exh.12 came to be framed against the accused on 11.11.2019. To prove the case against the accused, prosecution examined in all 22 witnesses, produced and proved approximately 37 documents. On conclusion of trial, arguments of the prosecution as also defense came to be heard. After appreciation of evidence led before the court of learned Sessions Judge, Morbi, he acquitted the accused of all the charges levelled against them, as aforesaid.

5. Heard Mr.Keval G. Brahmbhatt, learned advocate for the appellant. According to his submission, though the case rests on circumstantial evidence, there appears clinching material against the accused and circumstances are complete in nature so as to point at the guilt of the accused and therefore, the order of acquittal recorded by the learned judge is erroneous. According to his submission, the injury found on the person of deceased-Navghan, as deposed to before the court by the doctor is possible by muddamal knife, which is discovered at the instance of accused no.1. At the same time, according to his submission, the pant of the accused no.1 was blood stained having human blood of ‘A’ group, which is of the deceased as opined by the FSL in a serological report, which is produced at Exh.90. He has further submitted that even muddamal weapon knife also contains human blood, that too, of ‘A’ group, which is of the deceased. Since the accused no.1 over whose clothes human blood of ‘A’ group belonging to the deceased found has failed to explain the same, it is important circumstance, which is going against the accused. He has further submitted that over and above, the evidence of discovery of muddamal weapon knife used in commission of offence at the instance of accused no.1, it contained human blood, that too, of ‘A’ group belonging to the deceased, which is further connecting link against the accused and therefore, accused could not have been acquitted of the charges levelled against them.

6. He has further submitted that as coming out fro