The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; mere conjecture or assumption is insufficient for conviction.

CAV JUDGMENT

1. As facts and issue involved in both the appeals are identical and both the appeals are directed against the common impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, both these appeals are heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. By way of preferring Criminal Appeal No.973 of 2007 under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , the appellants have assailed the judgment and order of conviction dated 17.07.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhidham - Kachchh in Sessions Case No.36 of 2002, whereby, the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 304 Part-II , 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. So far as offence under 304 Part-II IPC is concerned, the appellants are ordered to undergo 5 years' Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.30,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, the appellants have to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment. So far as offence under Section 337 IPC is concerned, the appellants are ordered to undergo three months simple imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine, the appellants have to suffer 10 days' SI. So far as offence under Section 338 IPC is concerned, the appellants are ordered to undergo one year simple imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine, the appellants have to suffer 10 days SI'.

3. By way of preferring Criminal Appeal No.1007 OF 2007 under Section 341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , the appellant has assailed the same judgment and order dated 17.07.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhidham - Kachchh in Sessions Case No.36 of 2002, whereby, the learned Judge has, in exercise of powers under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C., directed an officer of the learned Trial Court to file a complaint for the offence punishable under Sections 191, 193, 199, 200 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code against the present appellant.

4. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution can be summarized as under:

4.1 It is the specific case of the prosecution that at around 8:45 a.m. on 26.01.2001, due to the incident of devastating earthquake, total 89 persons including kids, have been died in Keval, Kinnar and Kinjal complexes. The said buildings were constructed by the appellants of Criminal Appeal No.973 of 2007. The construction of said complexes was not up to the mark and the material used for construction of said complexes was of inferior quality and therefore in the earthquake the said complexes were collapsed, due to which, number of innocent persons have lost their valuable lives. Therefore, FIR is registered against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 304, 337, 338, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(2)(c)B, 7(1)(i)(2) and 42 of the Gujarat Flat Ownership Act. Pursuant to the registration of the FIR, the investigation has started and investigating officer has collected ample evidences against the accused persons. Therefore, they were arrested and subsequently charge-sheeted. As the offences are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Judge concerned has committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The accused persons have not pleaded guilty and therefore trial has been commenced. To prove the charges against the accused persons, the prosecution has examined total 20 witnesses and many other documentary evidences were also adduced. The cumulative effect of all those evidences clearly shows the hypothesis of guilt on the part of the accused persons. Therefore, impugned judgment and order of conviction has been