IMPORTANT POINT
An appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and can only overturn an acquittal if the trial court's reasoning is perverse or unsupported by the evidence.

JUDGMENT :

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV)

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant-State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Himmatnagar, in Sessions Case No.165 of 2000 on 31.05.2003. By the aforesaid judgement, the Trial Court has acquitted the respondent-accused of the offenses punishable under Sections 302, 201, 506(2) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The brief case of the prosecution is that on 18.04.1997 at around 16:30, on Vijaynagar-Rani road, the deceased son of the complainant i.e. Maganbhai Ravjibhai and her other son named Babubhai Ravjibhai came home in a jeep. They stepped down from the jeep. At that time, the above named accused along with Dinesh Ratnaji Modia, Prabhu Khimji Modia and Shantilal Punaji Modia, all residents of Rani, Khervada, having doubt on the deceased that he had illicit relationship with one Kantaben, had beaten up the deceased, more particularly on his private part with a wooden log and strangulated him and committed the offence punishable as mentioned herein above. It is also alleged that thereafter, the dead body was removed from the road and hanged with the branch of a tree to create an impression of suicide. The accused had also threatened to kill the eyewitness i.e. brother of the deceased Babubhai Ravji. Therefore, with a common intention and to destroy the evidence, the above-mentioned offence has been committed.

3. In pursuance of the above allegation, the Investigating Agency during the course of investigation recorded statements of the witnesses, drew various panchnamas including panchnama of scene of offence, panchnama of clothes, dead body and the PM was carried out etc. for the purpose of proving of the offence. Appropriate medical and expert evidence is also recorded as required.

4. Upon committal of the case, the Trial Court framed charges vide Exh.13 against the Respondents-Accused for the aforesaid offences. The Respondent-Accused pleaded not guilty and was tried. The prosecution has examined 10 prosecution witnesses and also produced various documentary evidence before the Trial Court. The details of the evidence led by the prosecution are reproduced in a tabular form hereunder:

Documentary Evidences