In criminal appeals, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt through a complete chain of circumstantial evidence, especially where direct evidence is absent, reinforcing a presumption of innocence.

JUDGMENT :

R. T. VACHHANI, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 03.05.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana in Sessions Case No.160/1999, whereby the respondent- accused came to be acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120(B) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant – State has preferred the present appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for short). Feeling aggrieved by the order of acquittal dated 03.05.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana in Sessions Case No.160/1999, the original complainant has also preferred the captioned revision application under Sections 397(1) and 401 of the Code.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are as under:

2.1. The complainant, resident of Gheda, Taluka Kadi, District Mehsana, lodged a complaint alleging that on 28.09.1995 at about 18:00 hours, his two sons (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) left home on a bicycle to Zalasar (Karshanpura) to collect land documents from accused no.3, and did not return. On inquiry, accused no.3 denied their visit. On 01.10.1995, bodies of the deceased were found in a well near Zalasar village talaav. The complainant suspected foul play and believed the accused conspired to murder the deceased due to a dispute involving accused no.6 and one of the deceased. The bodies were found out and taken for post-mortem, and after rituals, the complaint was filed.

2.2. The FIR was lodged at Balol Police Station under Sections 302, 201, 120(B) r/w 34 IPC. The accused were arrested and remanded. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kadi.

2.3. As the Judicial Magistrate First Class lacked jurisdiction to try the offence under Section 302 IPC, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Mehsana and registered as Sessions Case No.160/1999 for trial. Upon conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the trial court put various incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence to the respondent- accused for their explanation under Section 313 of the Code. In their further statements, the respondent-accused denied all the incriminating circumstances as false and stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated. After examining the oral and documentary evidence and the submissions from both sides, the learned trial court recorded a finding in favour of the respondent-accused and acquitted them of all charges.

3. We have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and carefully examined the oral and documentary evidence adduced before the learned Sessions Court. During the course of the trial, the prosecution examined a total of 17 witnesses. The details of the oral and documentary evidence are as under: ~

:: Oral Evidence ::~

~:: Documentary Evidence ::~