The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion or unreliable identification is insufficient for a conviction.

JUDGMENT :

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY)

1. Respondents no.1 and 2 are accused nos.1 and 2 in Sessions Case No.43 of 2012 on the file of Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar. They were prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 , 394, 201, 114 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short “the IPC”) and under Section 135 of the GUJARAT POLICE ACT . Eventually, after trial, they were acquitted of the said offences as per the judgment rendered by the trial court on 27.02.2013 to that effect.

2. Aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred the instant appeal challenging the legality and validity of the impugned judgment of acquittal.

3. Concise statement of facts relating to the prosecution case may be stated as follows:-

3.1 Accused No.3-Mohsin Babubhai Mansuri is a juvenile and accused no.2 is a driver by profession and he was living by running an auto rickshaw bearing registration number GJ-18-AT-7919. The respondents herein, who are the accused nos.1 and 2 are associated with accused no.3. On 21.08.2011 at about 8:00 p.m. in the night, the said auto rickshaw was stationed at Happy Valleyside, City Pulse of Gandhinagar. Accused no.3 was sitting in a driver seat in the auto rickshaw and accused nos.1 and 2 were sitting on the back side of the said auto rickshaw. At that time PW- 14 and his brother by name Mukesh (here in after referred to as “the deceased”) came out from their house for the purpose of purchasing Atta. They boarded the said auto rickshaw to go to Dholakuva. They sat on the backside seat of the auto rickshaw. When they boarded the auto rickshaw, they found accused no.3 in the driver seat of the auto rickshaw and accused nos.1 and 2 sitting on the back seat of the auto rickshaw. When the auto rickshaw started, accused no.3 has taken the said auto rickshaw towards Sargasan. Then PW-14 and the deceased questioned them as to why the driver is taking the Auto Rickshaw towards Sargasan. The driver replied that he has to first drop the other passengers, who are accused nos.1 and 2 and then reach to Dholakuva.

3.2 Accused no.3 has taken the auto rickshaw near to the lake Sargasan, which is an isolated place. After reaching the scene of offence, accused nos. 1 to 3 robbed Rs.1,000/- from the deceased and his cell phone by force. When they both PW-14 and the deceased questioned them, they attacked them and it is stated that the accused have pushed the deceased into a lake, which is available there in the said quarrel. PW-14 escaped and ran away from the scene of offence.

3.3 Thereafter, PW-14 after running to some distance from the scene of offence, he informed about the incident to his friend PW-15 and he in turn informed the same to PW-16 and both PW-15 and PW-16 met PW- 14 and all three of them reached the scene of offence. They did not find the deceased at the scene of offence. Therefore, information was given to police and also the fire brigade. The fire station personnel reached the scene of offence and with the help of the fire brigade, they searched in the lake and they found the dead body of the deceased drowned in the said lake and they have taken the said body from the lake.

3.4 On the report lodged by PW-14, a crime was registered by the police under Section 302 , 394, 201 and 114 of the IPC and under Section 135 GUJARAT POLICE ACT against unknown persons. The dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination after completion of the inquest. The Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, opined that cause of death is due to suffocation after he was submerged in the water.

3.5 During the course of investigatio