Circumstantial evidence in murder convictions requires a complete chain of proof beyond reasonable doubt, and absence of direct evidence or crucial witnesses undermines the prosecution's case.

ORDER :

1. Respondent nos.2 to 4 are the accused nos.1 to 3 in Sessions Case No.23 of 2017 on the file of learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot. They were prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 , 201, 34 and 120- B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and Section 135 (1) of the GUJARAT POLICE ACT . Eventually, after full-fledged trial, the trial Court did not find them guilty for the said offences and they were acquitted of the said charges.

2. The appellant, who is the defacto complainant, is the mother of the deceased, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal, preferred present appeal, challenging the legality and validity of the impugned judgment of acquittal. The State did not prefer any appeal against said judgment of acquittal.

3. When the appeal came up for hearing for admission, we have heard Mr.Pratik Jasani, learned counsel for the appellant at length and Ms.Krina Calla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent-State. We have perused the material available, from the paper book that is supplied by learned counsel for the appellant.

4. Briefly stated, it is the case of the prosecution that a person by name Dipesh is the son of accused no.3 (herein after referred as “deceased”). Accused no.3 got doubt whether he is the biological father of the deceased or not. Therefore, he has decided to do away with life of the deceased on account of suspicion that he is not his son. When accused no.3 made an attempt to sell away his house property, both the complainant, who is the wife of accused no.3 and the deceased opposed and resisted him from selling the said property. A Civil Suit to restrain accused no.3 from selling the property was filed against accused no.3 by both of them. So it is stated that accused no.3 has conspired with accused nos.1 and 2 to eliminate the deceased. According to the prosecution case, accused no.1 is the nephew of accused no.3 and accused no.2 is the friend of accused no.1. Accused no.3 has paid money to accused nos.1 and 2 for the purpose of committing murder of the deceased. It is agreed that a sum of Rs.5 Lacs is to be paid by accused no.3 to accused nos.1 and 2 for committing murder of the deceased. So, accused no.3 has withdrawn some money from the ATM and has paid the said money to accused nos.1 and 2. The same was recorded in the CCTV camera at the ATM. Thereafter, accused nos.1 and 2 purchased one iron pipe from one Pramukh Hardware Shop.

5. The deceased had two mobile phones. One phone was stolen. On 21.6.2016 night at about 9 p.m., the deceased received a phone call from the said stolen phone from accused no.1, who informed him that the phone is with him and asked him to come and meet him at a place suggested by him, to take the said phone. Accordingly, deceased went to the said place along with a person by name Ramji. Thereafter, the deceased accompanied accused no.1 and Ramji left the said place. As per the prosecution version, accused no.1 has taken the deceased to a bricks factory in the city, which is at an isolated place. There accused nos.1 and 2 attacked the deceased with iron pipe and gave a blow on his head and the deceased fell down after receiving the said blow. It is stated that accused nos. 1 and 2 have thrusted papers and thermocol pieces in his mouth to prevent him from shouting. Thereafter, they have squeezed the neck of the deceased and subjected him to manual strangulation. The deceased died in the said attack at the hands of accused nos.1 and 2. Thereafter, both accused nos.1 and 2 escaped from the scene of offence and