The judgment underscores the principle that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, which must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, especially in circumstantial evidence cases.

JUDGMENT :

(Umesh A. Trivedi, J.) :

1. This Appeal is filed by the appellant – first informant challenging the judgment and order of acquittal recorded by the Sessions Judge, Morbi dated 07.07.2018 in Sessions Case No.50 of 2015 whereby the respondent – accused came to be acquitted of the charge levelled against him.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case is as under:

2.1 According to the case of the prosecution, daughter of the first informant – Jeetuben married respondent – accused and they were blessed with two children. However, there were matrimonial disputes between them, and therefore, there was divorce between the parties. Despite that, daughter of the first informant – deceased and the respondent – accused used to frequently meet. As pleaded by the prosecution, deceased was insisting on the respondent – accused to again marry and pressurizing him. With a view to avoid that, the respondent – accused is alleged to take the deceased to a secluded place and strangulated her to death and threw the dead body in a well, and therefore, FIR came to be filed by the first informant.

3. Mr. Niyant Bhimani, learned advocate for the appellant, submitted that the case of the prosecution is corroborated by the deposition of the Medical Officer, First Information Report, Panchnamas drawn, deposition of Scientific Officer who visited the spot and deposition of the Investigating Officer, which clearly reveals that the respondent – accused committed the aforesaid offence, and therefore, the judgment and order of acquittal recorded by the learned Judge is required to be quashed and set aside and he be convicted suitably for the offence committed by him.

4. Initially, Record and Proceedings was called for from the trial Court, which was received by this Court. Since the Appeal was beyond the period of limitation, an application for condonation of delay was filed wherein the respondent – accused was represented through advocate Mr. Yogeshkumar A. Ratanpara. Since he appeared in delay condonation application, his appearance is also shown in this Appeal as well. However, admission of an Appeal is between the appellant and the Court, and therefore, we have not called upon Mr. Ratanpara, learned advocate for respondent – accused.

5. Having heard learned advocate for the appellant and going through the entire Record and Proceedings, including the impugned judgment and order, it appears that there are no eye witnesses to the incident and the case rests on circumstantial evidence. As coming out from the record, on 25.04.2015 deceased rejoined her parental home informing the first informant – father that she has obtained divorce from the respondent – accused. Since then, she was staying with the first informant and doing labour work. On 06.09.2015 at about 9:00 p.m. after finishing dinner, deceased – Jeetuben informed her parents that she wants to go to fair. However, till late midnight, she did not return back. First informant and family members thought that she might have gone to meet Vanita, her daughter, at her matrimonial home. She was having two mobile numbers, which is mentioned in the FIR and on the next day first informant called his granddaughter Vanita to know whereabouts of deceased – Jeetuben but Vanita informed them that neither Jeetuben met her nor she had visited the house, and therefore, first informant dialed the call to deceased - Jeetuben but it was disconnected. As coming out from the First Information Report, since call was disconnected thrice, first informant thought that she might have gone to her cousins house, and therefore, thereafter he did not call her. Though, their family members knew about it, nobody bothered to inquire about her whereabouts. However, on the fourth day after she left home, at about 11:00 a.m., son-in-law of first informant was informed about missing of Jeetuben and he was asked to dial her number. However, phone of Jeetuben was switched off. It is further asserted in the First Information Report that