The learned Sessions Judge, Panchmahals at Godhra in his well reasoned judgment, after appreciating the evidence on record, acquitted both the respondents for the offence punishable under Section 302, 120(B) in the alternative under Section 34 of the IPC, which is challenged in the present Appeal by the State. Mr.K.P. Raval, learned APP after having taken us to the evidence on record, submitted that there is no reason to reject the evidence of Bhuriben, wife of deceased, who saw accused No.2, who has taken the deceased from his wadi and thereafter on the next day, the deceased was found dead. Merely because the deceased had gone with accused No.2, that fact by itself will not connect the involvement of the accused especially when no other circumstances, which are absolutely necessary to complete the chain of circumstances, involving the accused in the crime in question are established. As per say of Bhuriben, accused No.2 has taken deceased from his wadi, in that event, she could have told this fact to other prosecution witnesses when they were trying to trace the deceased. The learned trial judge has not believed the evidence of Bhuriben, considering this conduct of Bhuriben. Apart from that the wrist watch as well as the money have not been recovered from accused No.1. It is the prosecution case that accused No.2 met the deceased in the morning of the day in question and assured him that he would get the wrist watch of the deceased from accused No.1, and under that pretext, he took the deceased with him. Apart from that, there is no evidence of any enimity between the deceased as well as the accused. Thus, in absence of any motive and other circumstances, in our opinion, the accused cannot be convicted and, therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Judge. Hence, we dismiss the appeal summarily.
(K.R. Vyas, J.)(J.R. Vora, J.) p.n.nair