The court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must be compelling to establish guilt; mere suspicion or inadequate proof does not suffice for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16/10/2012 passed in Sessions Case No.147 of 2012 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad City whereby respondent nos.1 and 2 herein were acquitted of the charges punishable under Sections 302, 394 and 398 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Facts of the prosecution case lie in a narrow compass and may be sated as follows:

2.1. On 13/11/2006, the mother of the de-facto complainant by name Vinaben (hereinafter called as the deceased) was in the kitchen room of her house at about 12:00 noon. At that time, some unknown persons gained entrance into the house and entered the kitchen room of the house and they all caught hold of her and one person among them has cut the throat of the deceased with a knife while others caught hold of her and thereafter all of them have taken away her Gold Bangles and Gold Chain and left the house. The deceased has fallen on the ground in the kitchen and she was lying in a pool of blood. Her husband and her son went out on some work and she was alone in the house at that time. After her husband and her son who is the de-facto complainant returned home, they found the deceased in a pool of blood in the kitchen room of their house. They found one knife with blood stains by the side of the dead body. The son of the deceased who is examined as PW-3 lodged a report with the police stating that some unknown persons entered their house while her mother was alone in the house and they killed her by cutting her throat with a knife and stolen her Gold Bangles and Gold Chain. The said report was registered as a crime for the aforesaid offences. The case was investigated. The knife at the scene of offence was seized by the police in presence of the mediators. It was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). They opined that human blood was found on the knife which is of “B” group which matches with the blood group of the deceased.

2.2. Thereafter, inspite of efforts made by the Investigating Officer, the identity of the culprits could not be traced. Long time thereafter i.e. in the year 2010 after four years, on 15/08/2010, A-1 was arrested in connection with other similar crimes. During the course of interrogation, he confessed that he committed the present crime also in the year 2006. His custody was obtained by way of obtaining the PT warrant against him. It is stated that he has led the police along with another set of mediators to the scene of offence in the present case and has shown the house of the de-facto complainant saying that they have committed the present crime in the said house. It is further stated that A-1 also disclosed the name of A-2 for the co-accused who perpetrated the said crime along with him. So, they arrested A-2 also on 28/08/2010.

3. Thereafter the police laid charge sheet against A-1 and A-2 for the aforesaid offences.

4. In the trial court, after the accused made their appearance, charges under Sections 302, 394 and 398 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against them. They denied the said charges and claimed to be tried.

5. In the trial that took place, the prosecution got examined PW-1 to PW-11 witnesses and got marked fifteen documents to prove its case against the accused.

6. At the conclusion of the trial, after considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the trial court found the accused not guilty for any of the charges levelled against them and acquitted them of the said charges by the impugned judgment.

7. Therefore, aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred the present appeal assailing the legality and va