- (1.) Present appeal is preferred by the original accused no. 2 present appellant against the judgement and order of conviction and sentence dated 13.01.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Amreli in Sessions Case No. 87 of 2004. The original accused was ordered to undergo imprisonment for life for offence under sections 394 & 302 of Indian Penal Code.
(2.) It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant had lodged a complaint interalia stating that the younger brother of the priest of Rokadia Hanuman temple was killed the previous day night and that the whereabouts of the killer were not known. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant had stated that two persons disguised as Sadhus had come to the temple the previous night and had stayed at the temple. 2.1 Thereafter, panchnama of the scene of offence was done and post mortem was carried out. After completing the inquest panchnama, investigation was carried on and the offence was registered against the original accused. After his arrest and necessary investigation, chargesheet was submitted against the accused. Ultimately, as the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the same was committed to the Sessions Court. 2.2 The trial Court framed charge against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the prosecution produced the following witnesses as oral evidence whose evidence have been read out before us : JUDGEMENT_314_LAWS(GJH)1_2016.html 2.3 The prosecution also relied upon the following documents as documentary evidences which have been perused by us such as complaint at Ex. 11, panchnama of scene of offence at Ex. 14, arrest panchnama at Ex. 16, inquest panchnama at Ex. 28, yadi at Ex. 52, Form showing offence by Ahmedabad Rural Police Station at Ex. 58 etc. 2.4 At the end of the trial and after recording the further statement of the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C., and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the trial court convicted the accused as aforesaid. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgement and order passed by the Sessions Court the accused has preferred the present appeal.
(3.) Mr. Mrudul Barot, learned advocate appearing for the appellant original accused no. 2 has drawn the attention of this Court to the evidence of P.W. 10 & 11 and submitted that there is nothing on record to establish that the present appellant is involved in this case except the complaint and the evidence of P.Ws. 10 & 11. He submitted that in absence of any eye witness in the present case, the trial court has erred in convicting the appellant on the basis of circumstantial evidence when the chain has not been completed by the prosecution. He submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and that there is no corroborative piece of evidence against the accused and therefore the accused deserves to be acquitted. Mr. Barot has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Pohalya Motya Valvi vs. State of Maharashtra, 1980 1 SCC 530 and submitted that each circumstance relied upon by the prosecution must be established by cogent, succinct and reliable evidence and that the circumstance must be of an incriminating character.;