Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 933 (GUJ)

BHARTIBEN MUKESHBHAI JADWANI v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2021-10-12

A.J.DESAI, NIRZAR S.DESAI

body2021
JUDGMENT : A. J. DESAI , J. 1. By way of the present appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 7.2.2013 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhuj @ Kutch (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Sessions Court') in Sessions Case No.77 of 2011 by which the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default thereof, to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month. 2. The appeal came to be admitted on 24.6.2013. The records and proceedings along with Paper-book was called for from the learned Trial Court and the same has been placed before this Court accordingly. 3. The short facts of the case put forward by the prosecution before the learned Trial Court is as under :- 4. That the present appellant, namely, Bhartiben wife of Mukeshbhai Jadwani, resident of Room No.24, Ram-Krishna Colony, Behind G. K. General Hospital, Bhuj appeared before Bhuj City Police Station on 29.8.2011 at around 1.40 a.m. along with the knife used by her while committing the murder of her husband i.e. Mukeshbhai Jadwani (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') in the house where she was residing with the deceased. The appellant appeared before PSO Shri Devjibhai Mansibhai Maheshwari (P.W. 20 - Exh.52). The FIR was lodged by Suresh Shobhrajmal Nathani - son-in-law of appellant and deceased (P.W. 1 - Exh.10). Thereafter, the appellant came to be arrested on 29.8.2011 and Arrest Panchnama Exh.33 was recorded between 14.00 to 15.00 hours. During the course of investigation, statements of several witnesses were recorded by the Investigating Officer and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed against the appellant. 5. Since the offences are triable by learned Sessions Judge, learned Magistrate has committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge having jurisdiction to try the case. 6. The charge was framed at Exh.8 against the appellant - accused which she denied. Hence, the prosecution proceeded with the trial. The prosecution in all examined 22 witnesses, produced several documentary evidence in support of its case. The appellant did not examine any witness to defend her case. 6. The charge was framed at Exh.8 against the appellant - accused which she denied. Hence, the prosecution proceeded with the trial. The prosecution in all examined 22 witnesses, produced several documentary evidence in support of its case. The appellant did not examine any witness to defend her case. Thereafter, further statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Code was recorded. 7. The learned Sessions Judge, after scrutinizing the oral as well as documentary evidence in detail as well as considering the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant and the respondent, held the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and imposed sentence upon the appellant as referred above. 8. Hence the present appeal. 9. Ms. Dipika Bajpai, learned advocate appearing for the appellant has vehemently submitted that the learned Sessions Court has committed grave error in convicting the appellant in absence of any direct or indirect evidence produced and proved by the prosecution. She would further submit that none of the witnesses, including the complainant who happens to be the son-inlaw of the appellant, son, daughters and mother of the deceased have supported the case of the prosecution and the theory put forward by it that the appellant had committed the crime. She would further submit that the case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence and, therefore, the learned Sessions Court is supposed to come to the conclusion that the prosecution is successful in establishing the entire chain and there was no room to hold that the appellant was the only person who has committed the offence. 9.1 She would further submit that it is the case of the prosecution that the present appellant after committing the crime herself came to the Police Station at around 1.40 a.m. on 29.8.2011. However, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish this aspect in absence of production of any documentary evidence, like Station Diary prepared at the instance of the PSO - Shri Devjibhai Mansibhai Maheshwari (P.W. 20 - Exh.52). She would further submit that the case of the prosecution is that PSO Shri Devjibhai Mansibhai Maheshwari who was the Officer in charge of Bhuj City Police Station had called Police Inspector Mr. Jashabhai Karshanbhai Maiyad, who was in night patrolling, about the incident and had asked him to visit the house where the alleged incident had taken place. She would further submit that the case of the prosecution is that PSO Shri Devjibhai Mansibhai Maheshwari who was the Officer in charge of Bhuj City Police Station had called Police Inspector Mr. Jashabhai Karshanbhai Maiyad, who was in night patrolling, about the incident and had asked him to visit the house where the alleged incident had taken place. However, the prosecution has not produced any station diary, required to be maintained about putting notes disclosing of any cognizable offence allegedly having been taken place at the place of crime and that too at the instance of a lady accused who allegedly herself appeared before the Police Station. She would further submit that even in the crossexamination of Shri Devjibhai Mansibhai Maheshwari (P.W. 20 - Exh.52), he has clearly admitted that when the appellant came with the knife, no seizure Panchnama of knife was prepared at his instance. She would further submit that though the said Officer was on duty between 00.00 hours to 8.00 a.m. on 29.8.2011, the so-called Panchnama of the discovery of knife at the instance of the appellant was not drawn in the presence of any Panchas but was prepared by Investigating Officer Mr. J. K. Maiyad. She would further submit that the discovery of weapon allegedly used in the crime, which is part of arrest Panchnama Exh.33, which was produced by the appellant, in the Police Station itself between 14.00 to 15.00 hours i.e. after almost 12 hours from her so-called entry in the Police Station at about 1.40 hours on 29.8.2011. Hence, there is no explanation whatsoever on the part of any of the Police Officers that whether the knife was lying with the appellant - accused or with PSO - Shri Devjibhai Mansibhai Maheshwari (P.W. 20 - Exh.52). 9.2 She would further submit that as per the admission on the part of the Investigating Officer Mr. J. K. Maiyad (P.W. 22 - Exh.55) when he received a call from PSO Shri Devjibhai, he was on night patrolling and, therefore, he directly went to the place of incidence and reached the place at around 3.00 O'clock in the morning. 9.2 She would further submit that as per the admission on the part of the Investigating Officer Mr. J. K. Maiyad (P.W. 22 - Exh.55) when he received a call from PSO Shri Devjibhai, he was on night patrolling and, therefore, he directly went to the place of incidence and reached the place at around 3.00 O'clock in the morning. However, he has done nothing for a long time unless FIR was recorded at the instance of Suresh Shobhrajmal Nathani at around 5.30 a.m. wherein he has disclosed that the appellant herself had informed him about giving knife blows to deceased i.e. her husband pursuant to a quarrel between them. By taking us through the deposition of Investigating Officer Mr. J. M. Maiyad and more particularly, cross-examination, she would submit that near the place of incident, around 1200 people reside in the said area and when he reached at the place of incident at 3.00 a.m., doors of the house were opened and dead body was lying in the house. The said witness had also admitted that he was supposed to lodge an FIR in absence of any complainant, and particularly when a Police Officer comes to know about commission of serious cognizable crime by some person. She would further submit that the Investigating Officer has admitted that PSO Devjibhai had never seized the knife which was allegedly used by the appellant. It is further admitted by him that the knife remained with PSO Devjibhai between 1.40 a.m. to 14.00 hours of 29.8.2011 and, therefore, the credibility of preparing the Panchnama of discovery of knife at the instance of the appellant creates serious doubt. She would further submit that there are serious lapses on the part of the Investigating Agency from the beginning about the genesis of crime, particularly when the Police Officers either in the Police Station or at the scene of offence are aware about a dead body having been found with several injuries on the person and not recording anything in the Police record. She would further submit that when the case is based on circumstantial evidence and there is defective and/or illegal investigation, the accused would be entitled for the benefit of doubt. In support of her submission, she has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gargi v. State of Haryana, (2019) 9 SCC 738 . She would further submit that when the case is based on circumstantial evidence and there is defective and/or illegal investigation, the accused would be entitled for the benefit of doubt. In support of her submission, she has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gargi v. State of Haryana, (2019) 9 SCC 738 . By taking us through paragraphs 19 to 22 of the said decision, she would submit that in the said case also, case was based on circumstantial evidence wherein the husband had allegedly committed murder of his wife in the house where they were residing. However, on the ground of defective and illegal investigation as well as in absence of any other evidence, the benefit of doubt was granted in favour of the accused. 9.3 She would further submit that the author of the FIR - Suresh Nathani who has been examined as P.W. 1 - Exh.10 did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile. She would further submit that son of appellant, namely, Dipak M. Jadwani (P.W. 2 - Exh.12), sister-in-law of the appellant (sister of deceased Mukesh Jadwani), namely, Padmaben Gopichand Makhichand P.W. 4 - Exh.16, mother of deceased, namely, Savitriben Jayramdas Jadwani P.W. 5 - Exh.18, daughter of deceased, namely, Kajal Sureshbhai Nathani P.W. 6 - Exh.19 and close relatives of the deceased have not supported the case of the prosecution. The only witness i.e. sister of deceased, namely, Mohiniben Vishandasbhai Pamuani P.W. 3 - Exh.15 has not been declared hostile. However, she has only disclosed about some past quarrel between the deceased and the appellant (i.e. husband and wife). However, the prosecution has failed to bring anything on record which would establish involvement of the appellant in the crime. She would further submit that the neighbours of the appellant and deceased did not support the case of the prosecution and they were declared hostile. In view of the above facts, the case, therefore, rests only on circumstances. However, the prosecution has failed to bring anything on record which would establish involvement of the appellant in the crime. She would further submit that the neighbours of the appellant and deceased did not support the case of the prosecution and they were declared hostile. In view of the above facts, the case, therefore, rests only on circumstances. 9.4 She would further submit that the prosecution has heavily relied upon discovery of clothes allegedly wore by the appellant at the time of crime which are having blood stains of the blood group of the deceased, but it has also come on record that the appellant is also having similar blood group like her husband and when she was arrested, some injuries were found on her finger. She would further submit that Panch witnesses have not supported the discovery of clothes as well as knife in their depositions. Apart from the fact that Panchas have not supported the case of the prosecution, the learned Trial Court has not properly recorded statement under Section 313 of the Code at the end of deposition of witnesses, particularly, no specific questions were asked to the appellant about the blood stains having been found on the clothes or knife and, therefore, there was no sufficient opportunity for the appellant - accused to explain the blood stains found on her clothes since blood group of the appellant and the bloodstains found on the clothes is similar as the appellant had also sustained injuries on her finger. In support of her submissions, she has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand, (2020) 10 SCC 108 . She would further submit that when the witnesses of discovery Panchnama did not support the case of the prosecution, it is the duty of the prosecution to establish by putting specific questions to the Investigating Officer attributed to the accused and required to brought on record which has not been done in the present case. She would further submit that the Investigating Officer has cursorily stated that he has prepared the Panchnama. However, no exact words have been stated by him in his deposition. In support of her submission, she has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Rameshbhai Hajabhai Chachiya v. State of Gujarat, 2012 (3) GLR 2250 . She would further submit that the Investigating Officer has cursorily stated that he has prepared the Panchnama. However, no exact words have been stated by him in his deposition. In support of her submission, she has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Rameshbhai Hajabhai Chachiya v. State of Gujarat, 2012 (3) GLR 2250 . 9.5 She would further submit that the learned Sessions Court has committed a grave error in not appreciating provisions of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. She would further submit that it is true that the appellant and the deceased who happen to be wife and husband were residing at the place where the dead body was found and is also an admitted fact and emerges from the record that when Investigating Officer reached at the place of incident, the appellant was not present, but that itself is not sufficient to come to the conclusion that the appellant is supposed to prove the fact that she was not present at the time of occurrence of the crime and had gone to the Police Station. The duty of the prosecution of discharging its primary burden of proving the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. In support of her submission, she has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shivaji Chintappa Patil v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1249 . She would further submit that in the present case, the prosecution has failed to establish the entire chain of the circumstances involving the appellant who happens to be wife of the deceased. She has also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vikramjit Singh Alias Vicky v. State of Punjab, (2006) 12 SCC 306 . 9.6 She would further submit that apart from that, even if it is believed that the blood stains of the deceased have been found on the knife which is allegedly discovered in a suspicious manner having blood stains of deceased, itself would not lead to the conclusion that the appellant was the only culprit, without any other circumstances. She, therefore, would submit that the present appeal may be allowed and the impugned judgment and order of conviction may be set aside. 10. On the other hand, Mr. She, therefore, would submit that the present appeal may be allowed and the impugned judgment and order of conviction may be set aside. 10. On the other hand, Mr. J. K. Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent has supported the reasoning recorded by the learned Sessions Court in convicting the appellant. He would submit that it is an undisputed fact that in a room where the incident has taken place in the night hours, the appellant was residing with her husband - deceased since number of years. It has come on record that their children have married and residing at different places. He would further submit that one of the sister of the deceased, namely, Mohiniben Vishandasbhai Pamuani P.W. 3 - Exh.15 had categorically stated that there were some disputes between her brother and his wife - present appellant which resulted into offence of murder of deceased, where deceased had given 32 knife blows by the appellant. He would further submit that after committing the crime, the appellant herself had appeared in the Police Station at around 1.40 a.m. on 29.8.2011 and the PSO Devjibhai has immediately informed his higher officer, namely, Mr. J. K. Maiyad to visit the scene of offence and simultaneously, he called lady Police Constable, namely, Bhagwatiben Vitthaldas Limbachiya (P.W. 21 - Exh.53) at the Police Station and the appellant was under her constant watch. He would further submit that as per the deposition of Bhagwatiben, she was keeping watch at Bhuj City Police Station, itself till the appellant was arrested by the Investigating Officer. He would further submit that it is true that the appellant had disclosed about serious crime having been committed by herself, on confirmation and verification, he immediately called his higher Officer i.e. Mr. J. K. Maiyad - Police Inspector who was on patrolling and directly reached at the place of incident where nobody was present and dead body of the deceased was lying. When the relatives of the appellant reached at the scene of offence where the appellant was residing with her husband and their son-in-law who had travelled from at a distance place, recorded the FIR immediately and started investigation. When the relatives of the appellant reached at the scene of offence where the appellant was residing with her husband and their son-in-law who had travelled from at a distance place, recorded the FIR immediately and started investigation. He would further submit that the appellant was under constant watch of lady Constable Bhagwatiben and at the same time, investigation was going on at the place of incident, like preparing Panchnama of scene of offence, statements of the relatives and neighbours were recorded and the appellant might be arrested at belated stage, but that would not fatal the case of the prosecution. 10.1 He would further submit that the prosecution was successful in establishing the fact that the bloodstains having blood group of the deceased were found on the clothes of the appellant wore by the appellant at the time of commission of offence. This has been proved through Serological report from the Forensic Science Laboratory. Even the knife which was discovered at the instance of the appellant is also having blood stains of blood group of the deceased. By taking us through the deposition of Investigating Officer Mr. J. K. Maiyad (P.W. 22 - Exh.55), he would submit that when he was investigating the case, the family members reached at the place of offence and, therefore, immediately FIR was recorded. He would further submit that nothing turns on the admission on behalf of the Investigating Officer that the knife was with PSO Devshibhai since the appellant herself was in the Police Station under the watch of Bhagwatiben - lady Police Constable. 10.2 He would further submit that it is an admitted fact that the appellant along with the deceased husband were residing under one roof and the dead body is found from the same roof and, therefore, if it is the say of the appellant that she is not the person who committed the crime, the burden lies on the appellant - accused - wife that some third person committed the crime. In absence of such proof, there would be strong presumption against the present appellant who happens to be the wife of deceased. He would further submit that the learned Sessions Court has rightly appreciated Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act and held the appellant having been committed the offence of murder of her husband. In absence of such proof, there would be strong presumption against the present appellant who happens to be the wife of deceased. He would further submit that the learned Sessions Court has rightly appreciated Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act and held the appellant having been committed the offence of murder of her husband. In support of this submission, he has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Thakur Singh, (2014) 12 SCC 211 . 10.3 By relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C. Muniappan and others v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2010 (9) SCC 567 , Mr. Shah would submit that there may be highly defective investigation in a particular case, however, it is required to be examined as to whether there is any lapse by Investigating Officer or whether due to such lapse, any benefit should be given to the accused or not. He would further submit that PSO Devjibhai may not have maintained any Station Diary or recorded in writing about disclosure of cognizable offence, itself would not fatal the case of the prosecution. 10.4 By relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Himanshu alias Chintu v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2011) 2 SCC 36 , he would submit that the evidence of hostile witnesses remains admissible to the extent if corroborated by other reliable evidence. Similar is the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mallikarjun and others v. State of Karnataka, (2019) 8 SCC 359 . He, therefore, would submit that the appeal may be dismissed. 11. We have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. Perused the records and proceedings and scrutinized the deposition of witnesses and other evidences and have also considered the reasons assigned by the learned Sessions Court while accepting the case of the prosecution and accordingly convicting the present appellant. 12. The case put forward by the prosecution from the beginning is that the present appellant on her own went to Bhuj City Police Station at around 1.40 a.m. on 29.8.2011 along with a knife, where PSO Shri Devjibhai Mansibhai Maheshwari (P.W. 20 - Exh.52) was on duty. 12. The case put forward by the prosecution from the beginning is that the present appellant on her own went to Bhuj City Police Station at around 1.40 a.m. on 29.8.2011 along with a knife, where PSO Shri Devjibhai Mansibhai Maheshwari (P.W. 20 - Exh.52) was on duty. As deposed by the said PSO Shri Devjibhai, in his examination-in-chief, the present appellant declared before him that since her husband was continuously harassing her and physically torturing, being fed up with such conduct, she had used knife and had killed her husband. However, in the crossexamination, the said PSO Devjibhai has admitted that before his statement was recorded under Section 161 of the Code by the Investigating Officer, he has not disclosed anywhere by putting the same in writing like Station Diary that the appellant had committed the murder of her husband due to continuous harassment and physical assault. He has further deposed that the disclosure made by the appellant was recorded in Station diary but it is an admitted position that no such diary has been produced on record at his instance or at the instance of Investigating Officer. The said PSO Shri Devjibhai has also admitted that after disclosure of any cognizable offence and if entry is made in station diary, there would be reference of such police entry in the FIR lodged subsequently. However, there is no reference of any such police station diary entry, in the FIR Exh.11. The said witness has further admitted that the knife which was allegedly used by the appellant was handed over to the Investigating Officer - Shri J. K. Maiyad - Police Inspector at about 5.30 a.m. whereas in his crossexamination, he has admitted that he had never seized any knife from the appellant. He has further stated in his cross-examination that the muddamal knife remained in his possession between 1.40 a.m. to 14.00 hours on 29.8.2011 i.e. when the appellant came to be arrested between 14.00 to 15.00 hours on 29.8.2011 by preparing arrest as well as discovery of knife Panchnama though the FIR was registered at around 5.30 a.m. on 29.8.2011. Thus, it emerges from the record that the contradictory statements have been made by the Police Officers creates doubt about muddamal article which is allegedly used in the crime remained with the appellant, though she might be in the Police Station during the aforesaid hours. Thus, it emerges from the record that the contradictory statements have been made by the Police Officers creates doubt about muddamal article which is allegedly used in the crime remained with the appellant, though she might be in the Police Station during the aforesaid hours. As per the say of the Investigating Officer Mr. J. K. Maiyad (P.W. 22 - Exh.55), when he was on patrolling on 29.8.2011, he received a phone call from PSO Devjibhai at around 2.45 hours, informing him about the so-called declaration by the appellant about the murder of her husband at the place of incident and accordingly, he reached the place within no time where he found the house open and dead body lying having sustained various injuries. Though he found that a serious crime and cognizable offence has taken place, he did not care to note down anything in the Police diary which, he is supposed to maintain and record the events which have taken place during his duty hours. He deposed that he had reached at the place at around 3.15 a.m. which is a thickly populated area, but as per his own admission in the crossexamination, in absence of any person at the scene of offence, though being a Police Officer, he did not lodge any FIR against anybody. He waited and waited until the relatives of the appellant as well as deceased reached at the place of incident and finally, the FIR was lodged at the instance of Suresh Shobhrajmal Nathani - son-in-law of appellant and deceased (P.W. 1 - Exh.10). This witness i.e. Suresh Nathani has also not supported the case of the prosecution. On the contrary, he stated that his brother-in-law i.e. son of the appellant and deceased informed him that her mother has gone to Police Station. Similarly, son of appellant as well as deceased, namely, Dipak M. Jadwani (P.W. 2 - Exh.12) has also not supported the case of the prosecution and deposed that the appellant had gone to Police Station to record FIR against four to five persons who have killed his father. Similarly, son of appellant as well as deceased, namely, Dipak M. Jadwani (P.W. 2 - Exh.12) has also not supported the case of the prosecution and deposed that the appellant had gone to Police Station to record FIR against four to five persons who have killed his father. Similarly, other relatives of the deceased, namely, sister-in-law of the appellant (sister of deceased Mukesh Jadwani), namely, Padmaben Gopichand Makhichand P.W. 4 - Exh.16, mother of deceased, namely, Savitriben Jayramdas Jadwani P.W. 5 - Exh.18, daughter of deceased, namely, Kajal Sureshbhai Nathani P.W. 6 - Exh.19 and close relatives of the deceased have not supported the theory put forward by the prosecution. In such circumstances, this Court finds that there are serious lapses on the part of the prosecution in reaching to the genesis of the crime. 13. In the case of Gargi v. State of Haryana (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with such faulty or illegal investigation and while dealing with some loopholes in the investigation, refused to accept the case put forward by the Investigating Agency being a fair and impartial one. In the present case, the genesis of the crime and all actions and procedure which were required to be undertaken by the Police Officers, have not at all been followed, creates serious doubt about the fairness on the part of the Investigating Agency. Therefore, it cannot be said that it was an impartial investigation. It is true that faulty investigation automatically would lead to acquittal and would fatal to the case of prosecution as held by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of C. Muniappan and others v. State of Tamil Nadu (Supra), but in absence of other circumstantial evidence, the Court can come to the conclusion that faulty and improper investigation has created doubt about the involvement of a person when the case is totally based on circumstantial evidence. 14. As far as the submissions made by learned advocate appearing for the appellant about the bloodstains having been found on the knife and clothes of the appellant and no specific questions have been asked while recording further statement under Section 313 of the Code. We have gone through the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 of the Code. As far as the submissions made by learned advocate appearing for the appellant about the bloodstains having been found on the knife and clothes of the appellant and no specific questions have been asked while recording further statement under Section 313 of the Code. We have gone through the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 of the Code. It appears that no specific question has been asked or any explanation has been sought about the bloodstains allegedly belonged to the deceased having been found on the clothes of the appellant. As stated herein above, there was some injury on her finger and coincidentally, her blood group and the blood group of her husband (the deceased) are same and, therefore, the learned Sessions Court was supposed to ask specific question and, therefore, the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand (Supra) would come into play. Similar is the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rameshbhai Hajabhai Chachiya v. State of Gujarat (Supra). 15. As far as the reasons assigned by the learned Sessions Court with regard to provisions of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act is concerned, it is true that the dead body was found in the house where the appellant as well as deceased were residing under the same roof. Therefore, it was her duty to prove that she had not committed the offence. But as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shivaji Chintappa Patil v. State of Maharashtra (Supra), the same would not absolve the prosecution of discharging its primary burden of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt. The chain of circumstances is required to be established by the prosecution, which in our opinion, is missing in the present case. Similar is the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vikramjit Singh Alias Vicky v. State of Punjab (Supra). 16. As far as the so-called discovery of clothes and knife at the instance of appellant is concerned, the Panch witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. Even the Investigating Officer has not described the Panchnama in the words stated in the Panchnama itself. 17. 16. As far as the so-called discovery of clothes and knife at the instance of appellant is concerned, the Panch witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. Even the Investigating Officer has not described the Panchnama in the words stated in the Panchnama itself. 17. Hence, we are of the opinion that apart from number of infirmities, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the chain of all circumstances which led to the conclusion that the appellant was the only person who had committed the crime. There are serious doubts raised in the case on hand and, therefore, the impugned judgment and order of conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Court is required to be quashed and set aside on the ground that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case beyond suspicion and the benefit of doubt is required to be given to the appellant. 18. In the result, the present appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 7.2.2013 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhuj @ Kutch in Sessions Case No.77 of 2011 by which the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and ordered the appellant to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, ordered to undergo further simple imprisonment of one month is quashed and set aside. The appellant be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. Registry is hereby directed to send back the Records and Proceedings to the concerned learned Sessions Court forthwith.