The appellate court emphasized the need for compelling evidence, asserting the principle of double presumption of innocence in cases of acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK)

1. The appellant - State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under Section 378 (1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order dated 22.04.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar (hereinafter be referred to as “the trial Court”) in Sessions Case No.166 of 1996, whereby the trial Court has acquitted the accused from the offences punishable under Sections 302 , 201 r/w. Section 34 etc of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter be referred to as “the IPC ”).

2. Brief facts of the present case are that on 03.09.1996 in the morning, one security guard posted at Vijarkhi Dam, who found some unknown deadbody floating in the water and informed his colleague and in turn, they have informed the concerned jurisdictional police about the deadbody which was floating in the water. The police personnel reached to the sport and deadbody was brought out from the water and, thereafter, preliminary panchnama was drawn and then the deadbody was sent for autopsy. Upon information of the security guard, the Accidental Death Entry being No.26 of 1996 came to be registered and, thereafter, the investigation was handed over to one head constable and in turn, the same was handed over to the Police Sub Inspector and then the investigation was carried out. The concerned employee of the irrigation department has opined the concerned police officer that on causing fatal injury on the body of the deceased – Bhikha Natha and thereafter thrown in Vijarkhi Dam. The deadbody was kept for identification and during the identification, the brother of the deceased namely Virambhai has identified the deadbody that the same was of his brother. Accordingly, the FIR being C.R.No.134/1996 was registered before the Panchkoshi Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302 , 201 r/w. Section 34 etc of the IPC.

2.1 Pursuant to the aforesaid FIR, the police started investigation and prepared inquest panchnama, deadbody was sent for autopsy, prepared panchnama of the scene of offence, recorded the statements of various witnesses, seized the muddamal weapons and arrested the accused and after completion of investigation, as the sufficient evidence was found, the police has filed the charge-sheet against the accused before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class. As the offence was triable by the Court of Sessions, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class has committed the case under Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the Court of Sessions wherein it has been registered as Sessions Case No.166 of 1996.

2.2 The charge against the accused came to be framed by the trial Court vide Exhibit 3 for the aforesaid offences against the accused. On being explained it to them, the accused have denied having committed any offence. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and pleaded for trial and hence, the case was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Jamnagar.

3. It appears from the records that to prove the case, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses:-