PRAJAPATI RAJESHKUMAR AMRUTLAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been filed by the appellants original accused Nos. 2 and 3 challenging judgment and order dated 4th June 2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana in Sessions Case No. 138 of 2000.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties. This is a case of circumstantial evidence. There is no direct evidence. The circumstances which have been put forward are so weak that they do not make out a chain of circumstances. So much so, the most important circumstance of last seen has not been believed by the trial Court. With the disbelieving of the evidence on the question of last seen, the prosecution has been hit with the last nail in the coffin. The other circumstances are only recovery of alleged weapon, which could have otherwise been used only for corroborative purposes. There is no circumstance which falls in the category of incriminating circumstance. There has been no incriminating circumstance except that accused No. 1 and 2 had travelled to Mount Abu, there they stayed at a guest house. Thereafter, they went to Mumbai. There they met a travelling company since they did not have money to come back to Unjha. All those circumstances are innocuous circumstances. There is no stain of incrimination in these circumstances.

(3.) IT is important to note that original accused No. 1 has been acquitted by the trail Court, against which State has filed no appeal. It is also important to note that recovery of weapon can only be used for corroboration purposes. Otherwise also the prosecution case is not believable since the weapon is recovered from open place and recovery from open place which is accessible to all and sundry is hardly given any consideration.