The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and circumstantial evidence alone, without a clear motive or corroboration, is insufficient for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV J.THAKER, J.

1. Challenge before us is the impugned judgment dated 13.02.1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Valsad, Camp at Valsad in Sessions Case No.40 of 1997, whereby the Sessions Judge has been pleased to acquit the respondents herein of the charges levelled against them for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 202, 212 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The facts leading to filing of this appeal are as under:

2.1 As per the case of the prosecution, on 10/11.12.1996 between 1715 – 1900 hrs., having doubt of the deceased having illicit relationship with the wife of the respondent no.1 – original accused no.1 viz. Budhiyabhai and the original accused no.2 called the deceased in the field known as Bhandari Ghasiya Field, where the original accused no.2, along with other accused, made the deceased to consume liquor and thereafter killed him by strangulating his neck. It is specific case of the prosecution that though the original accused no.3 witnessed the incident, he did not disclose it to the police. Furthermore, he helped the accused nos.1 and 2 in hiding the dead body of the deceased in the Ghasiya Field and as such committed offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

2.2 On filing of the complaint, an FIR was registered against the accused persons and after completion of investigation, police arrested the accused persons and filed the charge-sheet before the Court of learned Magistrate, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions as per section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2.3 The Sessions Court framed the charges. The accused pleaded not guilty. Evidence of the witnesses came to be recorded. Thereafter statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. All the accused were acquitted of the offences with which they were charged. Hence, the present appeal.

3.1 Learned APP for the appellant submitted that though the learned Judge believed that the death of the deceased was homicide on the basis of postmortem report at Exh.13, so also the evidence of Dr.Pradipkumar Kure at Exh.24, who carried out the postmortem on the body of deceased, though it has been specifically stated that there was presence of alcohol in the body of the deceased, the case of the prosecution has not been believed as a whole. He, in his postmortem report, has shown the cause of death is asphyxia due to strangulation and he also reported that there were injury marks on the body of deceased.

3.2 It has also been argued that though there were corroborative evidences against the accused, the learned Judge discarded the theory of ‘last seen together’ and the case of the prosecution on the basis of loopholes in establishing circumstantial evidence. Furthermore, learned Sessions Judge also rejected the circumstantial evidence on the ground that there were contradictions in the evidence of witnesses and documentary evidence. However, the learned Sessions Judge did not take into consideration the aspect that the complainant is a rustic villager and due to his minor contradiction in evidence, the learned judge ought not to have discarded the whole prosecution case.

3.3 In support of his submissions, the learned APP has relied upon the depositions of brother of deceased viz. Ganeshbhai (Exh.17), wife of the deceased Niruben (Exh.19), Chanchalben Radakbhai (Exh.22).

3.4 In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Balvir Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1261

4.1 Per contra, learned advocate for the respondents submitted that though the prosecution emphasized on the point of circumstantial evidence as the deceased Budhiyabhai was last seen together with original accused no.2, it could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused respondents have committed murder of the deceased Budhiyabhai.

4.2 He submits that the prosecution could n