JUDGMENT : SANDEEP N. BHATT, J. 1. The present appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for short), has been directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 24.04.2013 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar in Sessions Case No. 60 of 2012, whereby the appellant-accused has been convicted for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. By the impugned judgment, the appellant-accused is ordered to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and fine of 10,000/- and in default Rs. 10,000/- and in default of fine, is ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of three months and is ordered to undergo three years imprisonment for the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and fine of 5,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- and in default in default of fine, is ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of one month. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under: 2.1 On 29.02.2012 at about 12:15 hours, the complainant-Manishben Sandeepbhai Arvindbhai Jaiswal has left her daughter-Dhruvi, aged about six years, in the school. When the complainant along with her neighbour-Pinalben Soni went to the Poornima School at about 15:30 hours to pick up Dhruvi, however, daughter of the complainant-Dhruvi did not come out from the school, though, the class of standard-1st is over. Therefore, the complainant went into the school and searched in the school, but her daughter-Dhruvi was not there and the class teacher of Dhruvi-Manishben met the complainant and said that school bag is lying in the class room and the class teacher has told that one lady has come in the noon and she has taken Dhruvi with her by stating that Dhruvi is suffering from fever and has to go to the hospital. The said class teacher has described about the said lady. Thereafter, search was made in the school as well as in the Dehgam Bazar about Dhruvi but could not found. The said class teacher has described about the said lady. Thereafter, search was made in the school as well as in the Dehgam Bazar about Dhruvi but could not found. 2.2 Thus, the accused has abducted the minor girl Dhruvi from the school, taken her in the Sim of Bhatiya Village on Talod-Majara Road, looted the golden earrings and snatched the school identity card of Dhruvi, beaten her as well as injured her, throttled her and thereby murdered the minor girl-Dhruvi, poured the kerosene on the dead body and thereby tried to destroy the evidence. 2.3 Thus, the complainant lodged the complaint with regard to the incident before the Dehgam Police Station, which was registered as C.R. - I No. 17 of 2012 for the offence under Sections 363, 366, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. In pursuance of the complaint lodged by the complainant, investigating agency recorded statements of the witnesses, collected relevant evidence in form of medical evidence and drawn various Panchnamas and other relevant evidence for the purpose of proving the offence. After having found material against the appellant accused, charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dehgam. As said Court lacks jurisdiction to try the offence, it committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar as provided under section 209 of the Code. 4. Upon committal of the case to the Sessions Court, Gandhinagar, learned Sessions Judge framed charge at Exh.4 against the appellant-accused for the aforesaid offence. The appellant-accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In order to bring home charge, the prosecution has examined 29 witnesses, which is mentioned in Para-5 of the impugned judgment and order and also produced various documentary evidence before the learned trial Court, which is mentioned in Para-6 of the impugned judgment and order. 6. On conclusion of evidence on the part of the prosecution, the trial Court put various incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence to the appellant-accused so as to obtain her explanation/answer as provided u/s 313 of the Code. In the further statement, the appellant-accused denied all incriminating circumstances appearing against her as false and further stated that she is innocent and false case has been filed against her. In the further statement, the appellant-accused denied all incriminating circumstances appearing against her as false and further stated that she is innocent and false case has been filed against her. After hearing both the sides and after analysis of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial Judge convicted the appellant-accused from the offences, for which she was tried, as the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. 7. Heard learned advocate Mr. Haresh Pandya with learned advocate Ms. Akshitaba Solanki for the appellant-accused and learned APP Mr. Soni for the respondent-State. 8.1 Learned advocate Mr. Pandya with learned advocate Ms. Solanki for the appellant-accused have submitted that the learned Judge has recorded the conviction of the appellant considering one of the grounds that the accused was being identified by witnesses namely Manishaben Ketanbhai Shah, class teacher. It is submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish identity of the class teacher of the deceased as the alleged class teacher namely Manishben Ketanbhai Shah was examined as PW-14 vide Exh.50 wherein she has stated that there are two classes of first standard in Dahegam Purnima School and she was not aware about the fact that in which class the deceased used to sit and study. The alleged incident occurred on 29.02.2012 and Smt. Manishaben Shah has been shown as class teacher of the deceased but attendance register of the class produced vide Exh.47 reflects name of Maya I. Pandya as a class teacher. Therefore, it is submitted that such material irregularity vitiates the investigation procedure. 8.2 He has submitted that the trial Court ought to have considered the fact that proper procedure was not complied with regarding test identification parade. It is submitted that complainant, who is mother of the deceased viz. Manishben Jaiswal, examined as PW-10 vide Exh.43, has admitted in her cross-examination that she did not state in the complaint that her daughter wore earring at the time of offence. Moreover, Dr. Yajuvendrasinh Makwana was examined as PW-9 vide Exh.38 who has also admitted the fact in his cross-examination that there were no pierce find out during the postmortem, hence, such remarks were not mentioned in the postmortem report. 8.3 It is submitted that the trial Court has failed to appreciate that there is no credible evidence with regard to establish presence of the appellant at the scene of the offence. 8.3 It is submitted that the trial Court has failed to appreciate that there is no credible evidence with regard to establish presence of the appellant at the scene of the offence. Furthermore, goldsmith namely Hirasant Jashrajji Soni was examined as PW-27 vide Exh.84, who has admitted the fact in his deposition that a college girl came to her shop on 29.02.2012 but he did not recollect her name at that time. He allegedly purchased the earrings and paid Rs. 560/- to the accused but bill was issued on 08.03.2012. It is pertinent to note that the aforesaid witness did not participate in the test identification parade. It is submitted that such vital omission on the part of the prosecution creates reasonable doubt regarding veracity of the allegation made against the appellant. 8.4 The trial Court has committed gross error in convicting the appellant by considering the call details. It is submitted that the alleged mobiles belonged to other persons and thereby accused cannot be held responsible for such mobile calls. 8.5 It is submitted that the Trial Court has committed an error in convicting the appellant on the basis of superstitious spiritual concepts regarding ‘Mataji’. It is submitted that such irrational facts are not supported by any scientific expert opinion. Furthermore, it is submitted that such irrational story was narrated by Arvindbhai Jaiswal but the same was not supported by his son-Sanjaykumar Arvindbhai Jaiswal, who was examined as PW-17 as he has admitted the fact that it came to his knowledge that ‘Mataji’ came into the body of the appellant when his father informed him about the said fact. 8.6 It is submitted that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further, the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence. Moreover, the prosecution has also failed to prove motive behind the offence. 8.7 He has referred to the deposition of PW-1-Balusinh Udaysinh Solanki at Exh.7, who is a panch witness of inquest panchnama. Further, the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence. Moreover, the prosecution has also failed to prove motive behind the offence. 8.7 He has referred to the deposition of PW-1-Balusinh Udaysinh Solanki at Exh.7, who is a panch witness of inquest panchnama. It is submitted that the said witness has deposed that one Naresh Jaiswal has identified the dead-body of the deceased, whereas other prosecution witnesses has stated that dead-body was identified by Sandip Jaiswal, father of the deceased-Dhruvi. Therefore, there are contradiction in the version of the prosecution witnesses. 8.8 Further, he has referred to the deposition of PW-2 Sureshkumar Vadilal Shah at Exh.9, who is a panch witness of the panchnama for collecting evidence from the scene of offence by FSL. He has deposed in his deposition that panchnama was carried out till 01:30 p.m. on 02.03.2012 and the dead-body of the deceased was taken after the panchnama was over, whereas in inquest panchnama and deposition of Sandip Jaiswal (PW-11), it is stated that the body of the deceased was sent to FSL at 10:00 a.m. in the morning on the same day. There are contradiction in the timing. 8.9 Learned advocate for the appellant has referred to the deposition of PW-5 Dave Atulkumar Hariprasad at Exh.21, who is a panch witnesses of the panchnama of class room. The said witnesses has stated in his cross-examination that there are two classes of standard - 1st in the school and that it is true that Manishaben Ketanbhai Shah (PW-14) has not mentioned that Dhruvi was sitting in which class of standard-1st. By referring the said deposition, it is submitted that it is not clarified that the deceased-Dhruvi was sitting in which class of standard-1st in the Poornima School. 8.10 PW-8 Shah Pankajkumar Rasiklal, who is a witness of the panchnama at the shop of the goldsmith. His deposition is at Exh.32. He has stated that the bill issue by the goldsmith is dated 08.03.2012. It is submitted that the incident in question has happened on 29.02.2012 and the date mentioned in the bill of the muddamal gold earrings is dated 08.03.2012. Therefore, he has submitted that the appellant has not visited the shop of the goldsmith on the day of incident. 8.11 Learned advocate for the appellant-accused has referred to the deposition of PW-9 Dr. Therefore, he has submitted that the appellant has not visited the shop of the goldsmith on the day of incident. 8.11 Learned advocate for the appellant-accused has referred to the deposition of PW-9 Dr. Yajuvendrasinh Keshavlal Makwana, at Exh.38, who has performed the postmortem of the deceased. He has admitted in his cross-examination that he has not stated the fact regarding the sex of the dead-body. Further, he has clearly admitted during the cross-examination that he has not seen the hole in the ears for earrings on the dead-body of the deceased. Further, the said witness has stated that he has not shown the cause of death in the postmortem report (Exh.42) that due to throttling, the deceased has died. It is submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 8.12 Learned advocate for the appellant-accused has submitted that looking to the deposition of PW-10 Manishaben Sandipkumar Jaiswal at Exh.43, who is a mother of the deceased-Dhruvi, there is a contradiction in her version. On one hand in the complaint at Exh.44, she has stated that she met the class teacher of the deceased-Dhruvi Ms. Manishaben Ketanbhai Shah and on the other hand, she has deposed (Exh.43) that class teacher of the deceased-Dhruvi was absent and she met Manishaben Ketanbhai Shah, who is a class teacher of Standard 1st (A) and (B), both. Further, she has not disclosed in the complaint that at the time of dropping the deceased-Dhruvi in the school, whether any teacher was presence there at that time or not. She has not stated the exact time of dropping the deceased-Dhruvi in the school. It is submitted that looking to the deposition of the complainant vis-a-vis the complaint, there are major contradictions in the version of the complainant regarding timings, informant, kidnapper, dress of the kidnapper, etc. 8.13 He has referred to the deposition of PW-11 Sandipbhai Arvindbhai Jaiswal at Exh.11. It is submitted that the said witness has clearly stated in his cross-examination that it is true that my wife-Manishaben Jaiswal (PW-10) did not make the deceased-Dhruvi worn the Star Shoes of Reliance Product-9 and sent to the school. Whereas, in his deposition he has deposed that he has identified the dead-body of the deceased-Dhruvi upon the shoes worn by her. Whereas, in his deposition he has deposed that he has identified the dead-body of the deceased-Dhruvi upon the shoes worn by her. It is submitted that looking to the inspection report of the place of offence (Exh.86), the Officer from the FSL has collected the samples, wherein they have collected the shoes i.e. ‘Star Shoes Reliance product’. Therefore, it is submitted that the version of this witness cannot be believable. 8.14 Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the Test Identification Parade is a weak piece of evidence. He has relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case Md. Sajjad alias Raju alias Salim vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 2017 SC 642 and has submitted that in the present case also, Test Identification Parade was not done properly. 8.15 Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that deposition of PW-16 Arvindbhai Chandubhai Jaiswal at Exh.56 is very relevant. He is a relative of both the families i.e. appellant and complainant. He is a grand-father of the deceased-Dhruvi. He has deposed that the brother of the appellant-accused has expired before eight months from the date of offence in question by committing suicide in the Narmada canal. From that date, the appellant-accused suffered from superstitious spiritual concept regarding ‘Mataji’. He has stated that five months ago from the date of incident, all the relatives met at his house. At that time, son of this witness viz. Sanjaybhai-who is a father of the deceased-Dhruvi, did not give respect to such so-called ‘Mataji’ - the appellant-accused and therefore, the appellant-accused got angry on Sanjaybhai and told to Sanjaybhai that ‘Mataji’ will take his daughter. It is submitted that keeping these facts in mind, the present witness (PW-16) and others have gone to the Talod Girls’ Hostel where the appellant-accused was residing as she was studying in Science College at Talod. It is submitted that the above facts were not supported by the deposition of PW-17 Sanjaybhai Arvindbhai Jaiswal. The said witness-Sanjaybhai has admitted that it came to his knowledge that ‘Mataji’ came into the body of the appellant when his father informed him about the said fact. He has never met such so-called ‘Mataji’ i.e. the appellant-accused in such situation. Therefore, there is no question about the anger by the appellant-accused in the form of so-called ‘Mataji’ upon Sanjaybhai. He has never met such so-called ‘Mataji’ i.e. the appellant-accused in such situation. Therefore, there is no question about the anger by the appellant-accused in the form of so-called ‘Mataji’ upon Sanjaybhai. It is submitted that the said witness has further stated in his deposition that he has seen cut on both the ears on the dead-body of the deceased. He has also stated that he has seen the shoes which were of the school. It is submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellant-accused beyond reasonable doubt. 8.16 Learned advocate for the appellant has referred to the deposition of PW-17 Sanjaybhai Arvindbhai Jaiswal at Exh.59. He has stated in his examination-in-chief that he has identified the dead-body from the shoes, whereas the said witness has denied the fact that he has shown shoes near the dead-body made of Reliance. It is submitted that there is contradiction in the version of the said witness who is a father of the deceased-Dhruvi. 8.17 He has referred to the deposition of PW-27 Hirasant Jashrajji Soni at Exh.84. It is submitted that the said witness has specifically admitted in the cross-examination that there was no T.I. parade by him of the appellant-accused who has come to sell the golden earrings to him. It is submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. 8.18 Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the investigation carried out by the Investigating Officer is defective. At this stage, he has referred to the deposition of PW-28 Bipinchand Chandulal Thakkar, PSI, Chiloda Police Station, at Exh.85 and has submitted that this witness (PW-28) has specifically stated that as per inquest panchnama (Exh.8), ears of the deceased were not found to be pierced. It is further submitted that the said witness has stated in his deposition that no T.I. parade was carried out in his presence. It is also submitted that the said witness has clearly stated that he has not collected any evidence during the investigation regarding superstitious spiritual concept of ‘Mataji’ from the appellant-accused and/or from the place of the appellant-accused. It is further submitted that the said witness has stated in his deposition that no T.I. parade was carried out in his presence. It is also submitted that the said witness has clearly stated that he has not collected any evidence during the investigation regarding superstitious spiritual concept of ‘Mataji’ from the appellant-accused and/or from the place of the appellant-accused. 8.19 It is submitted by the learned advocate for the appellant that proximity of time which have been stated by the prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-13 and PW-14) do not disclose unbroken chain of evidence and in addition to that, there are contradiction with respect to the time on which the appellant-accused has been alleged to take the deceased from the school and the time at which PW-13 Trivedi Jayeshbhai Arvindbhai saw the appellant with the deceased at the auto-stand. 8.20 It is further submitted that PW-14 Manishaben Ketanbhai Shah neither asks the name of the lady nor inquires from deceased-Dhruvi about her health. In addition to that, as per the rules of the school, name of any person who comes to meet the children or pick them from school their names are taken by the security or peon as per the deposition of the Principal of the school-Binduben Pandya (PW-12-Exh.46). 8.21 It is further submitted that PW-1 Balusinh Solanki has deposed that one Naresh Jaiswal had identified the body of the deceased, whereas other prosecution witness deposed that body was identified by Sandipbhai Jaiswal-father of the deceased Dhruvi. 8.22 Learned advocate for the appellant-accused has submitted that looking to the discrepancies in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses regarding timings, lacking of investigation, not done T.I. parade of the goldsmith, changes in the version of the complainant-mother of the deceased-Dhruvi and father of the deceased-Dhruvi, the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the trial Court has committed gross error by convicting the appellant-accused for the offences as noted above. Therefore, the present appeal may be allowed and the appellant-accused be acquitted. 9.1 Learned APP Mr. Hardik Soni for the respondent-State has submitted that the trial Court has not committed error in passing the impugned judgment and order of conviction. The trial Court has rightly considered the oral as well as documentary evidence on record and passed the impugned judgment and order. 9.1 Learned APP Mr. Hardik Soni for the respondent-State has submitted that the trial Court has not committed error in passing the impugned judgment and order of conviction. The trial Court has rightly considered the oral as well as documentary evidence on record and passed the impugned judgment and order. 9.2 Learned APP has referred to the deposition of PW-6 Arunbhai Manjibhai, who is a witness of the memorandum panchnama. It is submitted that the said witness has stated in his deposition at Exh.24 that the appellant-accused has explained the entire episode in his presence and that the accused has admitted that she has committed the crime in question in his presence. 9.3 Learned APP has referred to the deposition of PW-7 Dilipbhai Haribhai Chaudhari, who is a witness of the panchnama of the Talod Girls’ Hostel, where the appellant-accused was residing. During the panchnama, the prosecution has collected the dress from the room of the appellant-accused which was worn by the appellant at the time of commission of offence. The said dress, consists of Top, Pajamas and Scares, is of mixed coloured of black, saffron, white, maroon, green, etc. (‘Kabarchitaro’). The prosecution has collected tin of kerosene from the hostel at the instance of the appellant-accused. 9.4 Learned APP has submitted that a chance witness - PW-13 Trivedi Jayesh Arvindbhai, who is a rickshaw driver, has deposed at Exh.48 that he has seen the appellant-accused along with the deceased-Dhruvi on the day of incident. He has further stated that the appellant-accused has inquired with him for Chiloda. He has stated that at that time, the appellant-accused seem very confused. He has specifically stated that at that time, the deceased-Dhruvi was crying and telling the appellant-accused to go to her mother. It is submitted that the said witness has identified the appellant-accused in the Court. He has also identified the deceased from the photographs and confirmed the story of the prosecution. It is submitted that this is an independent witness who have seen the appellant-accused with the deceased on the day of incident at about 01:00 p.m. Therefore, the theory of the prosecution of last seen together can be believable. It is further submitted that during the T.I. parade, this witness (PW-11) has identified the appellant-accused before the Mamlatdar on 05.03.2012. It is submitted that this is an independent witness who have seen the appellant-accused with the deceased on the day of incident at about 01:00 p.m. Therefore, the theory of the prosecution of last seen together can be believable. It is further submitted that during the T.I. parade, this witness (PW-11) has identified the appellant-accused before the Mamlatdar on 05.03.2012. 9.5 Learned APP has submitted that PW-14 Manishaben Ketanbhai Shah has deposed at Exh.50 that there are two classes of 1st Standard - 1st (A) & 1st (B). She is a class teacher of standard-1st (B). On the day of incident, one class teacher viz. Mayaben Pandya was on leave. Therefore, she is taking the class of both the classes together. She has stated that at about 12:45 hours, one girl aged about 20-22 years old came to her and stated that she wants to take Dhruvi (deceased) with her as she was suffering from fever. She has stated that when the school time is over, all the students have left the class. At that time, one school bag was left in the class and some of the students have said that it is a school bag of Dhruvi. Therefore, she has put the school bag of Dhruvi in the cupboard. Soon after leaving all the students, the mother of the deceased-Dhruvi came in the class and inquired about her. The witness has told her that one girl has come and taken Dhruvi with her by saying to go to hospital. It is submitted that this witness has also identified the appellant-accused during the T.I. parade before the Mamlatdar. It is further submitted that this witness has also identified the appellant-accused in the Court. 9.6 Learned APP has submitted that the complainant and her husband has time and again given written complaints to the Court as well as to the Authorities concerned regarding the threatening given by the relatives of the appellant-accused to the complainant as well as to the other chance and important witnesses. Exh.51, 57 and 58 are the evidence of the same. Exh.51, 57 and 58 are the evidence of the same. 9.7 Learned APP has submitted that with regard to the T.I. parade made by the Mamlatdar (PW-22) qua the identification of the appellant-accused by the prosecution witness i.e. PW-13 Trivedi Jayeshbhai Arvindbhai (Rickshaw driver) and PW-14 Manishaben Ketanbhai Shah is concerned, the said witness has stated in his cross-examination at Exh.73 that he has followed the procedure for T.I. parade and the witnesses - PW-13 and PW-14 have identified the appellant-accused. 9.8 Learned APP has referred to the deposition of PW-28 Bipinchand Chandulal Thakkar, PSI, Chiloda Police Station, at Exh.85. It is submitted that the said witness has deposed that according to the call details and location of the appellant-accused on the day and time of incident, it was shown at Dehgam. 9.9 Learned APP has submitted that the concept of circumstantial evidence arises because in each case, the direct evidence could not be found, so the Court has to rely on the circumstantial evidence for deciding the matter. The last seen theory is also based on the same lines as in some criminal cases, when there is no direct or tangible evidence regarding how the offence has been committed or who committed the offence, then the last resort for deciding the case is this theory based on circumstances of the case. It is submitted that according to this theory, if a person is the last seen with the deceased just before her death or within a reasonable period of her death, that no other person could have intervened in between them, then the presumption can be taken that she (the person who was last seen) is the author of the crime. Thus, the burden of proof shifts on the accused to negate this fact and if the accused is not able to given a lucid and sufficient explanation about the innocence, then the presumption becomes even stronger against the accused. In support of his submissions, learned APP has relied upon the following decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of: (i) Sudama Pandey vs. State of Bihar, 2002 Cri. In support of his submissions, learned APP has relied upon the following decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of: (i) Sudama Pandey vs. State of Bihar, 2002 Cri. L.J. 582 (ii) State of Rajasthan vs. Kashi Ram, AIR 2007 SC 144 (iii) Madho Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, 2003 (2) Crimes 111 (SC) (iv) Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik vs. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 4 SCC 37 9.10 Learned APP has submitted that when the prosecution forms a chain of events, the evidences so produced of such events should form a part of same transaction. He has submitted that this concept in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has been described as ‘res Gestae’ under Section 6. He has submitted that if we consider the theory of ‘last seen together’ the dead-body found at the instance of the appellant-accused, recovery of articles also found from the appellant-accused, identified the appellant-accused by the chance witnesses i.e. PW-13 and PW-14, it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant-accused has committed an offence in question and the trial Court has rightly passed the impugned judgment and order of conviction. 9.11 Learned APP Mr. Hardik Soni has submitted that looking to the entire chain of circumstances/events, the motive of the appellant-accused to commit the offence in question is established and the prosecution has rightly proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. He has submitted that this appeal of the appellant-accused may be dismissed. 10. We have heard learned advocate Mr. Haresh Pandya with learned advocate Ms. Akshitaba Solanki appearing for the appellant-accused and learned Additional Public Prosecution Mr. Hardik Soni appearing for the respondent-State at length. We have perused the record and proceedings of the trial Court. We have minutely gone through the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial Court. We have re-appreciated all the evidence on record. 11.1 There is no eye-witness to the incident. Therefore, the case rests on circumstantial evidence. 11.2 One minor girl viz. Dhruvi, aged about 6 years, has been murdered brutally and burnt by the accused and thereby tried to destroy the evidence by pouring kerosene, which was carried out by the accused in the bag since beginning. 11.1 There is no eye-witness to the incident. Therefore, the case rests on circumstantial evidence. 11.2 One minor girl viz. Dhruvi, aged about 6 years, has been murdered brutally and burnt by the accused and thereby tried to destroy the evidence by pouring kerosene, which was carried out by the accused in the bag since beginning. 11.3 Deceased-Dhruvi was picked up from the school by the accused, taken to the unknown place, throttled her, snatched the earrings worn by the deceased, poured the kerosene and got fire and returned back to the place where the accused was residing. Further, the accused did not disclose about the death/murder of the said minor girl to anyone. 11.4 Looking to the nature of offence, the picture which has emerged in our mind is as under: 11.4.1 On 29.02.2012, the complainant has dropped the deceased-Dhruvi at the school gate at about 12:15 hours. The deceased-Dhruvi was studied in Standard 1st (as per complaint (Exh.44) of the complainant-Manishaben Sanjaybhai Jaiswal - PW-10, who is a mother of the deceased). 11.4.2 There are two class rooms of Standard 1st. It appears from the record that, on that day, regular class teacher was absent and another class teacher viz. Manishaben Ketanbhai Shah was the in-charge of both class rooms (as per deposition of the Principal-Binduben Rameshbhai Pandya PW-12). 11.4.3 The accused has gone to the school to pick the deceased-Dhruvi at about 12:45 hours. The accused has told to Manishaben, who was the in-charge class teacher of Standard 1st, the reason for picking up the deceased and picked up the deceased-Dhruvi from the school. The accused has worn multi-coloured dress (‘Kabarchitaro’) on that day (as per deposition of PW-13). 11.4.4 The accused has taken the deceased-Dhruvi from the school and firstly went to the auto-rickshaw stand, there the accused has inquired about village Mota Chiloda. At that time, deceased-Dhruvi was with the accused (as per deposition of PW-13). Thereafter, the accused went to bus station with the deceased and has taken the deceased in the bus to Chiloda. Thereafter, the accused has taken the deceased in the truck going from Chiloda to Talod. The accused was getting down from the truck with the deceased at Bhatiya Patiya Temple. Thereafter, the accused has taken the deceased to the hilly area situated at the northern side of Bhatiya Patiya. Thereafter, the accused has taken the deceased in the truck going from Chiloda to Talod. The accused was getting down from the truck with the deceased at Bhatiya Patiya Temple. Thereafter, the accused has taken the deceased to the hilly area situated at the northern side of Bhatiya Patiya. There are acacia and shrubbery in that place (as per panchnama of scene of offence-Exh.27). 11.4.5 The accused has taken the deceased to such a lonely place. The accused has throttled the deceased-Dhruvi, killed her brutally, taken the identity card of the school, snatched her golden earrings from the ears of the deceased, poured kerosene (which the accused has carried with along with match sticks) on the deceased and thereby tried to vanish the evidence. Thus, the accused has committed heinous crime in question and that too with cold blood. 11.4.6 After commission of offence, the accused had returned back to the place where the accused was residing. It is noted that the SIM cards recovered from the accused and call details of that time period also support the case of the prosecution for establishing the presence of the accused at the time of incident and thereafter. 11.4.7 On the other side, the complainant-mother of the deceased went to the school, inquired about the deceased-Dhruvi, got information from Manishaben (PW-14), only school bag was found, thereafter she has searched in the school and nearby vicinity of the village, but could not be able to find the deceased. Ultimately, she has lodged the complaint before the Dehgam Police Station (Exh.44). 11.4.8 The dead-body of the deceased-Dhruvi was found on the next day i.e. 01.03.2012 at about 5:00 p.m. the accused has shown the dead-body of the deceased in the pretext of superstitious spiritual concept of ‘Mataji’ from the place of offence. It is noted that the panch witness has also supported the case of the prosecution about the same and also about the recovery of some articles from the place of offence i.e. one bag, kerosene bottle, match-box, identity card of the appellant-accused, fees receipt issued by the college in the name of the appellant-accused, etc. 11.5 Now, since this is a case of circumstantial evidence, this Court has taken into considered and re-appreciated the entire evidence on record. 11.5 Now, since this is a case of circumstantial evidence, this Court has taken into considered and re-appreciated the entire evidence on record. 11.6 Looking to the deposition of one of the important witnesses i.e. PW-14 Manishaben Ketanbhai Shah, who was the in-charge class teacher on the day of incident, she has stated in her deposition at Exh.50 that one lady aged about 20/22 years, wearing multi-coloured dress (‘Kabarchitaro’) has come and picked up the deceased-Dhruvi along with her. The said witness had an occasion to talk to the said lady. During the T.I. parade arranged by the Mamlatdar (panchnama of T.I. parade - Exh.76), this prosecution witness has identified the accused. Further, this prosecution witness has also identified the accused in the Court while giving deposition. Further, from the panchnama of the hostel room of the accused at Exh. 30, the investigating Officer has recovered the very same dress i.e. multi-coloured (‘Kabarchitaro’) and kerosene also. The said witness has also identified the muddamal article - Dress i.e. multicoloured (‘Kabarchitaro’) which was worn by the accused on the day of commission of offence. Therefore, this prosecution witness has supported the case of the prosecution. The said accused is the appellant herein. 11.7 Further, looking to the deposition of another chance witness - PW-13 Trivedi Jayeshbhai Arvindbhai at Exh.48, who was the auto-rickshaw driver, it is revealed that the accused has come to him along with the deceased-Dhruvi and inquired about Chiloda. It is further revealed that he has observed the demeanor of the accused at that time. He has stated that the accused seem to be very nervous at that time. He has also stated that there was a girl aged about 5/6 years with the accused and that girl was crying and telling to the accused that she wants to go to her mother. This witness has shown the accused lastly along with the deceased-Dhruvi. The said witness had also an occasion to talk to the said lady - accused. During the T.I. parade arranged by the Mamlatdar (panchnama of T.I. parade - Exh.76), this prosecution witness has identified the accused. Further, this prosecution witness has also identified the accused in the Court while giving deposition. Therefore, it can be said that this prosecution witness has supported the case of the prosecution. The said accused is the appellant herein. During the T.I. parade arranged by the Mamlatdar (panchnama of T.I. parade - Exh.76), this prosecution witness has identified the accused. Further, this prosecution witness has also identified the accused in the Court while giving deposition. Therefore, it can be said that this prosecution witness has supported the case of the prosecution. The said accused is the appellant herein. 11.8 Since there was no eye-witness to the incident, the above are the circumstances/evidence which connect the accused with the crime in question. At this stage, it is necessary to take into consideration the theory of last seen together, which is proved by an independent chance witnesses as noted above. 11.9 In the present case, looking to the entire evidence on record, motive of the appellant-accused is more important and is also established. The appellant-accused has kept grudge against the parents of the deceased-Dhruvi as her brother got suicide before five months ago. The appellant-accused has premeditated the entire crime in question. She has already taken kerosene and match-box with her when she went to pick up the deceased-Dhruvi in the school. She has murdered Dhruvi brutally with cold blood and burnt the dead-body with an intention to vanish the evidence and thereafter, returned to the Talod Girls’ Hostel. At this stage, it would be required to refer to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, which is as under: “300. Murder: Except in the case hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death. xxx xxx xxx” From above, it shows that the appellant-accused has committed an offence of murder with cold blood and premeditation. Such type of offence should not be permitted and/or expected from the accused, more particularly from the lady accused, further more particularly by one of the near relatives of the deceased. No leniency can be shown to the appellant-accused for such a heinous crime. 11.10 If the facts and evidence of the present case, as discussed hereinabove, are carefully examined keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the aforesaid decision, we are of the view that the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has completed the chain of evidence. The entire evidence produced by the prosecution corroborates sufficiently. The entire evidence produced by the prosecution corroborates sufficiently. The prosecution has also proved the motive on the part of the appellant-accused to commit the alleged offence. All the conditions stipulated in the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sharda (supra) are fulfilled. We have also gone through the reasoning given by the trial Court while convicting the appellant-accused. Upon re-appreciation of all the documentary as well as oral evidence on record minutely, we do not agree with the submissions made by learned advocate Mr. Pandya appearing for the appellant-accused. The appeal therefore needs to be dismissed. The trial Court has rightly evaluated the entire evidence and convicted the appellant-accused, which need not be interfered with by this Court. The impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial Court against the appellant-accused therefore need to be confirmed and accordingly confirmed. 12. With great pain it is noted that it can hardly been imagined that what torture and brutality the minor child, who still had to see that world, must have faced during the course of commission of this crime. This Court has to examine the conduct of the accused during and after the commission of the offence in question. The accused has committed cold blooded murder of a minor girl who is aged about 6 years only. Further, the minor child was helpless in the cruel hands of the accused, that too one of the near relatives. The accused was holding the child in a relationship of ‘trust-belief’ and ‘confidence’ in which capacity she took the child from the school. The accused, by his conduct, has belied the human relationship of trust and worthiness. The accused left the half-burnt dead-body of the deceased in the open hilly area. This reflects the most unfortunate and abusive facet of human conduct, for which the accused has to blame no one else than his own self. 13. We are of the view that the prosecution has proved the case of the appellant-accused beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the trial Court has given proper findings and has not committed any error while passing the impugned judgment and order of conviction against the appellant-accused. 14. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.