In an appeal against acquittal, the presumption of innocence remains until the prosecution proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in cases reliant on circumstantial evidence.

JUDGMENT :

GITA GOPI, J.

1. The appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”) challenges the judgment and order of acquittal dated 5.3.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha Camp at Modasa in Sessions Case no.84 of 1996.

2. The State has primarily raised a ground that the acquittal is contrary to the law and evidence on record. The learned Trial Court Judge has failed to appreciate the direct and indirect evidence to connect the accused for the crime and that the learned Judge has not appropriately appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record. It is also stated in the grounds of appeal memo that the learned Trial Court Judge has not appropriately appreciated the fact that there is no eye-witness in the present case and the entire case is depended on the circumstantial evidence. That the son of the complainant – Vinod was having love affair with the daughter of Thakor Gabhaji Varsangji, named, Sajjanben and due to the love affair, they had ran away and the persons from Patel and Thakore group had gone in search of those persons and therefore, it becomes apparent that the persons who had gone to search them must have caused murder of the deceased – Vinod.

3. Heard Mr. Tirthraj Pandya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, who has referred to the observations of the learned Trial Court Judge and has submitted that the said fact of love affair is prima facie clear on record and the evidence to that effect is the Matador, which is a corroborating piece of evidence, where the deposition would show that Visaji and Budhaji had pushed the deceased – Vinod, while they were drinking tea and that circumstance would become suspicious drawing the guilt towards the accused. Learned APP has further stated that the evidence is on record that the accused were beating the deceased – Vinod and thereafter, had ran away. The corroborating evidence is of Shanabhai who was having a Tea Stall, inspite of that, though there was evidence to show that both, the deceased and Sajjanben had ran away and because of the fact that the accused were not liking the relationship, the evidence on record show that the accused have murdered deceased–Vinod.

4. The incident is of 5.4.1996, where it is alleged that all had gathered at about 05:00 a.m. and had taken the deceased – Vinod in Matador no. GJ-1 V-1239 and had given kick and fist blows and had caused injury with Dismis (screw driver), which had led to murder and therefore, the charge under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC was framed.

5. The prosecution has examined about thirteen witnesses. The glaring fact on record is that there is no eye-witness to the incident. The circumstantial evidence, which has been drawn before the learned Trial Court was that on 15.3.1996, Vinod had left for his job and had not returned back. It was the case that Vinod was having illicit relations with Sajjanben and therefore, they had eloped. Thakore and Patel communities of the village were searching both Vinod and Sajjanben, who are at present the accused. The phone call had come to Dhansura Police Station that they have received dead body of one boy and in a yellow colour Metador, Vinod and Sajjanben had left together. Vinod was in love relation with Sajjanben who belonged to Thakore community and therefore, all the people of Thakore community got excited and thus, the allegation is that they have done him to death. The learned Trial C