Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt for a murder conviction; lack of eyewitness testimony and credible evidence led to the acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J.

1. As these two appeals arise out of the same judgment rendered in Sessions Case No. 56 of 2011 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amreli dated 22.11.2012, one preferred by the State and another by the de facto complainant, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The respondent herein is the sole accused in Sessions Case No. 56 of 2011 on the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amreli. He was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (herein after referred to as, the IPC). Eventually, he was acquitted of the said charge by the trial Court as he was not found guilty of commission of said offence of murder as alleged by the prosecution.

2.1 Therefore, aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal, both, the State as well as the de facto complainant who is PW-19, have preferred these two appeals assailing the legality and validity of the impugned judgment of acquittal.

3. Briefly stated, it is the case of the prosecution that on 29.04.2011 between 11:30 a.m. and 11.45 a.m. there was a quarrel between a person by name Mayur (herein after referred to as “the deceased”) and the accused opposite to a electrical shop in Hira Moti Chowk market, Amreli relating to a monetary dispute which is pending between both of them. In the said quarrel, it is stated that the accused attacked the deceased with a knife and caused multiple injuries to him on his body. After the deceased who sustained the said multiple injuries at the hands of the accused, fell unconscious driver of one auto-rickshaw took him in his auto-rickshaw to the Government hospital, Amreli. The doctor, who examined him, declared that he was brought dead. So, post mortem examination was held over the dead body of the deceased on the same day at about 3:45 p.m. The doctor found 11 injuries on his body and he opined that he died on account of cardio respiratory arrest due to shock due to severe haemorrhage due to injuries on the vital organs i.e. both lungs, liver and intestine. Inquest was also held over his dead body and the persons, in whose presence the inquest was held, also opined regarding his apparent cause of death that he died due to the injuries found on his body.

3.1 It is stated that the auto-rickshaw driver, who took the deceased to the hospital, informed about the incident to the uncle of the deceased who is examined as PW-14. This PW-14, in turn, informed about the same to the brother of the deceased, who is examined as PW-19. So, PW-19 lodged a report with the police on 29.04.2011 at about 1:30 p.m. The said report was registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC against the accused.

3.2 The case was investigated. During the course of investigation, the accused was arrested on 30.04.2011. It is stated that the accused voluntarily surrendered before the police on that day along with his blood stained clothes and one blood stained knife. It is also stated that he has confessed regarding commission of offence and on the disclosure statement given by him as to where another knife used in commission of offence was hidden, that he led the police to the place where it was hidden and at his instance, another knife was seized by the police in the presence of mediators. The blood stained clothes of the deceased were also seized in the hospital. The said blood stained clothes of both the deceased and the accused and the blood stained knife produced by the accused, were sent for examination by Chemical Analyst, to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). The blood of the accused and the blood of the deceased was also collected and it w