The prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence required for a conviction in a murder case, rendering the conviction legally unsound.

JUDGMENT :

ILESH J. VORA, J.

1. This criminal appeal preferred by the sole accused Ramsingh Samjibhai Bhabhor, under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’, in short) is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.06.2012 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dahod in Sessions Case No.16 of 2009 by which the appellant accused has been convicted under Sections 302 , 316 and 201 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and sentenced as tabulated hereinunder:

2. The case of the prosecution leading to conviction of the appellant accused is as follows:

2.1 Accused Ramsingh despite of his marital status as married, he had illicit relationship with deceased Urmila, as a result, she got pregnant. She insisted on staying with the accused after she became pregnant. The accused was being married person and having a child, refused to keep the deceased as his wife. On account of continuous pressure of the deceased, the accused made a plan to kill her. The deceased at the time of incident, was residing with her maternal uncle at Dahod and then she had joined knitting classes. In relation, the appellant-accused was cousin brother-in- law of the deceased. On 22.09.2008, the deceased was taken to forest area by the accused on his bike. While reaching at the Amba Road, Village Dagariya, the accused took out cotton string and strangulated the deceased. The dead body of the deceased was thrown nearby ditch. The family members had made extensive search of the deceased. The dead body of the deceased found on 25.09.2008, which was identified by the witnesses, complainant and family members. The Limbdi Police, Dahod, registered an FIR allegedly lodged by the sister of the deceased against the unknown person inter alia alleging that unidentified person killed her sister. The body of the deceased sent for post-mortem. At the time of incident, she carried five months pregnancy. The present appellant was detained on suspicion by the police. During the interrogation, it revealed that since last 10 months from the date of the incident, the deceased was in relationship with the accused, as a result, she got pregnant. The said relationship was not known to anyone. On 21.09.2008, the deceased stayed at house of her classmate Sakuntala and from the house of Sakuntala on 22.09.2008, she was in touch with the appellant accused on mobile. The DNA report confirmed that the accused was the biological father of foetus. In such circumstances, on 17.10.2008, police arrested the accused. The family members went to the police station where the accused made an extrajudicial confession before them, admitting the facts that after the pregnancy, the deceased was pressuring him to keep her as wife which could not be possible for him, as a result, he has no option, but to kill the deceased. During the course of investigation, the accused voluntarily saw the place of the incident, and upon his disclosure statement, the police had seized and recovered the mobile, two sim cards, and one motorbike allegedly used in commission of the offence. The I.O. during the investigation, recorded the statement of the witnesses, drew the various panchnama in the presence of witnesses, sent the seized articles to FSL for chemical analysis, obtained the necessary papers from the hospital and finally, found sufficient material for the charge of murder and causing death unborn child. The chargesheet in this regard under Sections 302 , 316 and 201 of the IPC came to be filed before the Magisterial Court who had committed the case to the Se