JUDGMENT : M.R. Mengdey, J. The present Appeal is preferred by the State under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code challenging the judgment and order dated 7.2.2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panchmahal at Dahod in Sessions Case No. 174 of 1998 whereby the respondents herein have been acquitted of the charge for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201, 34 and 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the present appeal is that, one Vasantbhai Somabhai Amin lodged a complaint with the police authorities on 15.4.1998 that his daughter Naynaben was working as a Mukiya Sevika at Shehra. The daughter of the first informant was earlier married to one person with whom her relations were not cordial. She had, therefore separated and thereafter when his daughter was working at Shehra, she came into contact, with respondent no.1, and respondent no.1, with an intention to marry her, had induced her to stay with him. The first informant had lodged another FIR against the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 of the IPC. 2.1 Pursuant to the said FIR, Criminal Case No. 2056 of 1997 was registered against the respondents. In the said case the first informant had already given a deposition and the deceased Naynaben was also supposed to give her deposition against the present respondents on 17.4.1998. With an intention to see that the deceased Naynaben does not give her deposition against them, on 15.4.1998, the deceased Naynaben was done to death by the respondents. On the basis of the said complaint, the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC with another offences was registered against the respondents. The Investigating agency, after conclusion of the investigation filed charge sheet for the offences in question against the respondents herein. 2.2 Upon filing of the charge sheet, since the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions in view of the provision of Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2.3 Learned Sessions Court framed charge against the present respondents for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with section 114 and 498 (A) and 201 of the IPC. 2.4 Since the respondents pleaded not guilty, they were put to trial. 3. 2.3 Learned Sessions Court framed charge against the present respondents for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with section 114 and 498 (A) and 201 of the IPC. 2.4 Since the respondents pleaded not guilty, they were put to trial. 3. The prosecution adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of its case against the respondents. The learned Sessions Judge, after considering the evidence on record, was pleased to acquit the respondents herein on the charges leveled against them. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same the appellant State has preferred the present Appeal. 5. Heard learned APP Ms. Krina Calla for the Appellant State. She submitted that the prosecution has examined one Mujibhai Ditabhai Damor, Qutubsha Kalusha Diwan, and Harsingbhai Samsuhbhai vide Exh. 23, 24 and 25 respectively. All these witnesses who made depositions before the learned Sessions Judge have stated that they saw the accused persons at the lake where the dead body of the deceased was found on the previous night. She further submitted that the witness Harsingbhai goes on to depose to the effect that respondent no.1, who was working as a Home Guard was on duty on 14.4.1998 at night with his defense. The respondent no.1 came to attend his duty only for five minutes and thereafter he did not turn up. Thus, the respondent no.1, though was supposed to be on duty, had not remained present on duty. This conduct on the part of respondent no.1 is an important circumstance against him for having committed the present offence. She further submitted that the respondent no.1, by coming on duty only for a period of five minutes has tried to create the defense of alibi. She further submitted that the panchnama of the residence of respondent no.1 indicates that the deceased as well as respondent no.1 were staying in the same house, which is also an important circumstance against the respondents herein. She therefore submitted that the prosecution has adduced ample evidence against the respondents, which proves that the offence in question was committed by the respondents only. She, therefore submitted to allow the present appeal and convict the respondents herein for the offences charged against them. 6. Learned advocate Mr. M.A Kharadi appearing for the respondent no.1 has filed sick note. Learned advocate Mr. Sunil Joshi appearing for respondents no. 2 to 5 has opposed the present Appeal. She, therefore submitted to allow the present appeal and convict the respondents herein for the offences charged against them. 6. Learned advocate Mr. M.A Kharadi appearing for the respondent no.1 has filed sick note. Learned advocate Mr. Sunil Joshi appearing for respondents no. 2 to 5 has opposed the present Appeal. He submitted that there is no evidence whatsoever against the present respondents for having committed the offence in question. He also submitted that the motive for which the offence was allegedly committed has not been duly proved by the prosecution. He, therefore, submitted that learned Sessions Judge has committed no error in acquitting the respondents herein of the charge and therefore, submitted to dismiss the present Appeal. 7. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the record. 8. As per the case of the prosecution, the father of the deceased Naynaben had lodged an FIR against the present respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 of the IPC and other allied offences. This FIR was lodged by the father of the deceased in connection with the abduction of his daughter Naynaben by the present respondents. In the case arising of the said FIR, the deceased Naynaben was supposed to depose against the present respondents on 17.4.1998 and the respondents with an intention to see that the deceased does not depose against them on 17.4.1998, had done her to death on the intervening night of 14.4.1998 and 15.4.1998. 9. The present case is based upon the circumstantial evidence. As per the settled law, in the case of circumstantial evidence, the motive for commission of an offence attains significance. In the present case, the motive sought, to be attributed, is that since the deceased was going to depose against the respondents in another case on 17.4.1998, she was done to death prior thereto by the respondents. Upon perusal of the entire record, it appears that the first informant has been examined vide Exh. 26 as prosecution witness no. 8. In his deposition he has stated that the deceased was supposed to depose in the said case on 17.4.1998. Upon perusal of the entire record, it appears that the first informant has been examined vide Exh. 26 as prosecution witness no. 8. In his deposition he has stated that the deceased was supposed to depose in the said case on 17.4.1998. However, except the bare assertion made by the first informant in his deposition, there is no other material to indicate that the matter wherein the deceased was supposed to depose on 17.4.1998 was slated to be on Board on the said date and there is nothing on record to indicate that any summon was issued to the deceased for the said date, to depose before the Court. In the absence of any such material it is hard to believe that the deceased was supposed to depose on 17.4.1998 in the said case. 10. It is also required to be noted that there is no material, on record to indicate that the relations between the deceased and respondent no.1 had gone sour which would make the deceased to depose against respondent no.1, with whom she had married. Thus, the motive, which is sought to be attributed for the present offence is not proved by the evidence adduced on record by the prosecution. 11. The prosecution has heavily relied upon the deposition of witness Qutubsha Kalusha Diwan. He in his deposition, has stated that on 14.4.1998 when he was on his duty as a watchman, he went to his house for drinking water. At that time he had seen one person coming on Motor Cycle. After some time he again saw the said man on the Motor Cycle along with another person. After sometime he saw a dead body of a lady lying on the bank of the lake. On the next date he saw the person with the Motor Cylce sitting along side the dead body of the lady. This witness has been cross-examined thoroughly on behalf of the respondents. It emerges from the cross-examination that he had given the statement to the police twice. He admits in his cross-examination that the statement given by him to the police on the first point of time was not correct and the statement given by him subsequently to the police was correct. It emerges from the cross-examination that he had given the statement to the police twice. He admits in his cross-examination that the statement given by him to the police on the first point of time was not correct and the statement given by him subsequently to the police was correct. He also states in his cross-examination that the first informant i.e the father of the deceased had taken him to Mamlatdar office for affirming an affidavit against the present respondents. This indicates that this witness was under the influence of the first informant. He also admits in his cross-examination that he had not informed the fact that he had seen the persons on the Motor Cycle coming to the lake on the previous night and also that he had seen a dead body, to any other person in the village. The record also indicates that the statement of the witness was recorded by the police for the first time on 22.4.1998. Till then the witness does not inform as regards what was seen by him either to the police or anybody else. It is also required to be noted that none of the respondents had been subjected to test identification parade at the hands of the witness, and, therefore, it cannot be said that the persons, whom this witness had seen on Motor Cycle on the fateful night were the present respondents. 12. The prosecution thereafter relied upon the deposition of Harsingbhai Samsubhai Vaisaya. He, in his deposition has stated that on 14.4.1998, respondent no.1 was on duty with him and respondent no.1 has come to his duty only for a period of five minutes and thereafter he did not turn up for duty. It comes on record in cross-examination of this witness that Police Sub Inspector had come in the night round, when this witness was present on his duty. He admits that when the PSI came for a round he did not inform the PSI about the respondent no.1 not having come to duty. Except this, there is nothing in the deposition of this witness, which could help the case of the prosecution. 13. Merely because certain witnesses have stated in their deposition that they had seen some persons loitering around the place, where the dead body of the deceased was found, does not mean that the persons who were loitering, had committed the offence in question. 13. Merely because certain witnesses have stated in their deposition that they had seen some persons loitering around the place, where the dead body of the deceased was found, does not mean that the persons who were loitering, had committed the offence in question. There is also nothing on record to indicate that the persons whom the witnesses had seen loitering around, were the present respondents. 14. It is required to be noted that on 26.12.1996 the deceased Naynaben had written a letter to the District Development Officer, Panchmahal at Godhra, where she had stated that earlier she was married to one person, however, her married life after marrying that person was in doldrums, and therefore, she was living separately from her husband and she apprehended that she would be killed by her estranged husband. The said letter is produced on record vide Exh. 29. On 6.5.1997, the deceased Naynaben had written another letter to District Development Officer, Godhra wherein she had stated that she had married in her community against the wish of her parents and therefore, her parents were opposing her marriage. It is pertinent to note that the deceased had married the present respondent no.1 and the said marriage was opposed by the first informant, who happened to be the father of the deceased. In the letter, it is further stated that as her marriage with respondent no.1 was not liked by her parents, they may kill her as well as her husband. The said letter is produced on record vide Exh. 13. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the learned Sessions court does not appear to have committed any error in passing the impugned judgment and order dated 7.2.2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panchmahal at Dahod in Sessions Case No. 174 of 1998. 16. In view of the same, the present Appeal being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.