HITENDRAKUMAR BABULAL NAYAK Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been preferred by the appellant original accused against the judgment and order dated 20. 06. 2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad City in Sessions Case No. 192 of 2001.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties. The prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances which are stated to be proved by the prosecution are last see, death by strangulation and abscondance of the accused.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that there is nothing on record to say that the accused was last seen with the deceased at any point of time. The prosecution case at best is a telephone call that was received at the place of one Shri Garg and after attending the call she stated that she was being called by the accused to go to Chandkheda. That is the best case of the prosecution. The girl had stated to her mother about the call, but there is nothing on the record to show that she had met the accused. After going to Chandkheda the girl is said to have rested and relaxed at the house of PW No. 9 and PW No. 11. Both these witnesses have turned hostile. Thus there is nothing on the record to indicate that after leaving her house, the girl was ever in company of the accused until she was taken to hospital by the accused. The most important aspect of the case is that while the girl was at the residence of PW No. 9 and PW No. 11 a Doctor was called to check her and the Doctor has stated that she was breathing feebly and was alive. This witness has not been declared hostile. What stands out boldly is that before the accused could meet the girl, she was not in fitness of things. Thereafter, the girl was taken to the hospital by the accused. Therefore, circumstances of last seen is not proved against the accused.