Holding

The conviction under Section 302 IPC is upheld.

Summary

The appellant Sandeepkumar Patel was convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC for stabbing Mazharkhan Pathan in a hotel room. The prosecution presented a chain of circumstantial evidence, including the hotel register, eyewitness testimony, and detailed medical findings of multiple fatal injuries. The defence argued that the trial court erred by relying on alleged false statements, lack of a formal identification parade, and failure to put the accused under Section 313 CrPC. The High Court examined the credibility of witnesses, the relevance of the hotel register entries, and the medical officer’s opinion, concluding that the evidence formed a complete, unbroken chain pointing to the accused’s guilt. It held that the absence of a test identification parade and the alleged procedural lapses did not defeat the prosecution’s case. Consequently, the conviction and life sentence were affirmed.

Issues considered

Whether the circumstantial evidence establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the lack of a test identification parade invalidates the eyewitness identification.
Whether failure to put the accused under Section 313 CrPC renders the incriminating statements inadmissible.
Whether the false name and mobile number in the hotel register demonstrate mens rea.
Whether the medical evidence sufficiently proves homicide under Section 302 IPC.
Whether the defence's claim of a third person present is credible.
Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC should be upheld.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 209, s. 313
Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 106, s. 22A, s. 25
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302

Subjects

murderSection 302 IPCcircumstantial evidenceidentification paradeSection 313 CrPCmedical evidencefalse identityhotel registerchain of evidenceconviction upheld

Judgment

R/CR.A/1371/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST CONVICTION) NO. 1371 of 2014

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No

==========================================================
SANDIPKUMAR SURESHBHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SMIT P VAGHELA(10653) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR VAIBHAV A VYAS(2896) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR BHARGAV PANDYA, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Date : 09/03/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI)
1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated
31.08.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana in
Sessions Case No.67 of 2012, whereby the appellant-accused came to be
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code and sentenced accordingly, the present appeal is preferred by
the appellant – accused.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are as
under:

Page 1 of 30
R/CR.A/1371/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

2.1. The complainant, Govindbhai Manilal Vaghela, lodged a complaint
in respect of the death of one Mazharkhan Saidkhan Pathan, which led to
registration of Lanchanj Police Station First C.R. No.13/2012 for the
offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against
the accused Patel Sandeepkumar Suresh bhai.

2.2. According to the prosecution case, on 30.01.2012 the accused hired
an Innova car bearing registration No.GJ-18-AB-7886 belonging to the
deceased Mazharkhan Saidkhan Pathan for travel from Ahmedabad to
Rajasthan. After proceeding to Ahmedabad Airport and finding that the
intended party had not arrived, the accused informed the deceased driver
that the journey to Rajasthan would have to be undertaken. On
31.01.2012 at about 11:00 a.m., on the Ahmedabad-Mehsana Highway,
the accused booked Room No.110 at Hotel Janpath & Guest House by
paying Rs.1,500/- as rent. While the deceased driver was asleep inside the
said Innova car, the accused, with intent to cause death, inflicted multiple
fatal stab wounds with a knife on the upper portion of the body of the
deceased, thereby causing grievous injuries which resulted in his death.

2.3. Pursuant to the complaint, the aforesaid offence was registered at
Lanchanj Police Station. The Investigating Officer recorded statements of
relevant witnesses, prepared the panchnama of the scene of offence in
presence of panch witnesses, effected the arrest of the accused, and upon
collecting sufficient evidence, filed the charge-sheet before the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mehsana, which was registered as Criminal
Case No.2028 of 2012. As the offence was exclusively triable by the
Court of Session, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate committed the
case to the Sessions Court under Section 209 of the Code, whereupon it
was registered as Sessions Case No.67 of 2012. After ensuring supply of
copies of documents to the accused and engagement of an advocate,

Page 2 of 30
R/CR.A/1371/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

charge was framed against the accused on 20.08.2012. The accused
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

2.4. Upon full appreciation of the evidence led by the prosecution, the
learned Sessions Court, by the impugned judgment and order dated
31.08.2013, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer
imprisonment for life together with fine of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen
Thousand only), in default whereof to undergo further simple
imprisonment for 6 months.

3. We have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and
carefully examined the oral and documentary evidence adduced before
the learned Sessions Court. During the course of the trials, the
prosecution examined witnesses and produced documents as detailed
below:
~:: Oral Evidence ::~
P.W. Exh.
Particular (Witness)
No. No.
1. Dr. Girishkumar Danabhai Zala (Medical Officer) 8
2. Govindbhai Manilal Vaghela (Complainant) 15
3. Sureshbhai Ranchhodbhai Prajapati (Witness) 19
4. Cheharsang alias Lalaji Chenaji Thakor (Witness) 29
5. Avtarsing Pritamsing Saini (Witness) 33
6. Chhanaji alias Shaileshji Jenaji Thakor (Witness) 34
7. Ratanji Kunwarji Thakor (Witness) 35
8. Bhagaji Takhaji Thakor (Panch Witness) 36
9. Sureshbhai Mohanlal Rana (Panch Witness) 41
10. Saidkhan Hamidkhan Pathan (Witness) 42
11. Lailatuninasha Saidkhan Pathan (Witness) 43
12. Suhanabajnu Ajgarali Shaikh (Witness) 44

Page 3 of 30
R/CR.A/1371/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

P.W. Exh.
Particular (Witness)
No. No.
Mohammadmuslim Mohammadshabbir Ansari
13. 45
(Witness)
Kailashbhai alias Rahul Natthubhai Vaghela
14. 47
(Witness)
15. Dipikaben Rameshbhai Modi (Witness) 48
16. Vikrambhai Punambhai Patel (Witness) 50
17. Prahladji Sadaji Thakor (PSO) 56
18. Dhanjibhai Kanjibhai Solanki (ASI) 63
19. Bharatkumar Lakshmanbhai Vadukar (PSI) 64
20. Kantubha Lalubha Jadeja (PSI) 78

~:: Documentary Evidence ::~
Exh.
Sr. No. Particular (Document)
No.
1. Postmortem Note of the deceased 9
Certificate regarding postmortem conducted on the
2. 10
deceased
3. Certificate of treatment given to the accused 11
4. Complaint of the complainant 16
5. Copy of the driving license of the deceased 17
6. Copy of the entry in the register of Hotel Janpal 18
Panchnama (scene of crime / spot panchnama) of
7. 20
the crime scene
Inquest Panchnama of the dead body of the
8. 30
deceased
Panchnama regarding seizure of clothes of the
9. 31
deceased in the presence of panchas
Panchnama regarding seizure of mobile phone from
10. 32
the accused
Panchnama of the physical condition / bodily status
11. 37
of the accused
12. BSNL bill 39
13. Bill of Municipal Corporation from the landlord of 51

Page 4 of 30
R/CR.A/1371/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

Exh.
Sr. No. Particular (Document)
No.
the accused's house
14. Receipt for rent payment 52
Sample of the note sent by the landlord to the Police
15. Inspector, Ahmedabad regarding the accused 53
residing as a tenant
Form providing information by the landlord
16. 54
regarding renting out the house
17. Rent agreement / tenancy agreement 55
List prepared for obtaining special report in the
18. 57
crime case
Report prepared for registering the crime and
19. 59
proceeding with further investigation
Report prepared for admitting the deceased to Civil
20. 60
Hospital and taking further action
21. Special report sent regarding the crime 61
Yadi prepared for sending the accused to Mehsana
22. 62
Civil Hospital
23. Report sent to the Civil Surgeon 65
Report prepared for conducting postmortem on the
24. 66
dead body
Request letter prepared for filling the inquest form
25. 67
regarding the dead body
26. Receipt given for taking custody of the dead body 68
Letter written to obtain information regarding the
27. 69
cellphone related to the crime
Copies of driving license, election card, and RC
28. 70, 71
book of Nuruleyan Ansari
29. Copy of driving license of Mohammad Ansari 72
Preliminary report regarding the crime given by the
30. 73
Scientific Officer, Mehsana
31. Dispatch note regarding muddamal articles 74
32. Letter written to obtain the postmortem note 79
33. FSL receipt regarding receipt of muddamal 80
34. Letter written to provide medical certificate of the 81

Page 5 of 30
R/CR.A/1371/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

Exh.
Sr. No. Particular (Document)
No.
accused
Report prepared for giving NOC to obtain
35. 82
postmortem note
36. Letter written to retrieve muddamal for examination 83
37. Report sent regarding examination of muddamal 84
38. FSL Ahmedabad examination report 85
39. FSL Ahmedabad analysis report 86
Yadi sent by FSL Ahmedabad regarding serological
40. 87
analysis results

4. Learned advocates for the appellant, jointly submitted as under:

4.1. It is submitted that the learned Sessions Court gravely erred in
relying on the circumstance that the accused falsely gave his name
as Mahendrabhai while hiring the vehicle, as drawn from the
deposition of Kailashbhai alias Rahul Natthubhai Vaghela (PW-14,
Exh.-47). It was contended that Kailashbhai alias Rahul Natthubhai
Vaghela (PW-14, Exh.-47) did not state that the persons making
phone calls from landline and mobile were the same. Further,
Kailashbhai alias Rahul Natthubhai Vaghela (PW-14, Exh.-47)
admitted in cross-examination to knowing the appellant for 2½
years, yet did not mention in chief examination that the appellant
called himself Mahendrabhai. Without prejudice, it is argued that
this circumstance was not put to the appellant under Section 313
Cr.P.C. for explanation, rendering it inadmissible against him.

4.2. It is further submitted that the circumstance of the accused falsely
stating to be a Muslim party after hiring the vehicle for Rajasthan
was based on hearsay evidence from Saidkhan Hamidkhan Pathan

Page 6 of 30
R/CR.A/1371/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

(PW-10, Exh.-42) and Lailatuninasha Saidkhan Pathan (PW-11,
Exh.-43), and no explanation was sought under Section 313
Cr.P.C. Regarding the statement of Ratanji Kunwarji Thakor (PW-
7, Exh.-35) that he saw the accused while making the register
entry, it is contended that the deposition must be read holistically,
not in bits, and no identification parade was held. In any case, the
appellant does not dispute his presence there.

4.3. Assailing the circumstance of false mobile number and name in the
hotel register (Exh.-18), it is pointed out that no signature or
handwriting of the accused appears in the register, with
unexplained erasures and alterations rendering it unreliable and
suspicious. No investigation verified if the mobile number existed
or its owner, which could have linked to Mayurraj Nihat Pathan. It
is argued that the learned Sessions Court misconstrued the
appellant jumping from the gallery as fleeing hotel staff, whereas it
was to save himself from the assailant, and while accepting the leg
injury and the appellant’s admission that he jumped, this does not
prove guilt.

4.4. It is contended that the medical opinion on hand injuries being
possibly self-inflicted ignores the context, the appellant jumped on
seeing the witness, the weapon was in the room not with him,
leaving no time for self-infliction. The same medical officer noted
injuries could be from self-defense, and when two probabilities
exist, the one favoring the accused must prevail. The alleged
confession before the medical officer is stated to be unbelievable,
falling under Section 25 of the Evidence Act since police were
present at the hospital, a call to Kailashbhai alias Rahul Natthubhai
Vaghela (PW-14, Exh.-47) around 12:00 identifying as PSI

Page 7 of 30
R/CR.A/1371/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

confirms police presence, suppressed by prosecution. No mention
in FIR or statements of Ratanji Kunwarji Thakor (PW-7, Exh.-35)
or Avtarsing Pritamsing Saini (PW-5, Exh.-33), and as extra-
judicial confession, it is weak, moreover, the history was obtained
belatedly on 28.3.2012, suggesting concoction.

4.5. Further, it is submitted that Ratanji Kunwarji Thakor (PW-7, Exh.-
35)’s deposition that only two persons entered Room No. 110 is
belied by contradictions and inconsistencies in hotel staff evidence,
rendering it unworthy of credence. While the witness identified the
accused as entering the room, the appellant does not dispute
presence. On the appellant’s explanation of three persons in the
room, uncorroborated by the witness or register, it is argued that
the accused’s version must be investigated thoroughly,
Bharatkumar Lakshmanbhai Vadukar (PW-19, Exh.-64) admitted
no probe into Mayurraj Nihat Pathan, whose name appears in Exh.-
18 alongside the deceased Mazarkhan, leading to miscarriage of
justice by non-investigation of this crucial aspect.

4.6. It is further contended that inferring mens rea from inception is
based on mere assumption and presumption, impermissible in
criminal jurisprudence. It is accepted that the injuries on the
deceased amounting to culpable homicide but offered no comment.
Assailing the false explanation of three persons as circumstantial
evidence, it is submitted that the Investigating Officer admitted no
efforts to trace Mayurraj Pathan, and without investigation, his
absence cannot be presumed, especially with his name in Exh.-18.
On the seizure panchnama proving calls for hiring vehicle and
false number in register showing mens rea, it is argued absence of
electronic evidence precludes proof by oral evidence under Section
22A of the Evidence Act.

Page 8 of 30
R/CR.A/1371/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

4.7. It is further submitted that suppression of identity and false entry in
Exh.-18 is unproved, as Ratanji Kunwarji Thakor (PW-7, Exh.-
35)’s deposition shows he made the entry with contradictions, and
no evidence that the accused did so. The mention of two persons in
the register does not disprove three, as Bharatkumar Lakshmanbhai
Vadukar (PW-19, Exh.-64)’s deposition and names in Exh.-18
support the appellant’s case. The denial by Ratanji Kunwarji
Thakor (PW-7, Exh.-35) that only one name is written implies all
names should be, which bolsters the appellant’s version of two
others staying, uninvestigated.

4.8. Relying on judgments such as Devilal Vs. State of Rajasthan
reported in [2019 (19) SCC 447], Pradeep Kumar Vs. State of
Chhatisgarh reported in [2023(5) SCC 350], Indrakunwar Vs.
State of Chhatisgarh reported in [AIR 2023 SC 5221: 2023(0)
AIJEL SC 72661], and Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of
Maharashtra reported in [1984 (4) SCC 116], it is urged that the
chain of circumstances is broken, evidence unreliable, and
conviction perverse, praying for acquittal to prevent miscarriage of
justice.

5. Per contra, learned APP for the respondent-State, defended the
impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the Court of
the Additional Sessions Judge, Mahesana, submitting as under:

5.1. The learned Sessions Court rightly convicted the appellant based
on a complete chain of circumstantial evidence proving guilt
beyond reasonable doubt. He argued that the circumstance of the
accused giving false name Mahendrabhai while hiring the vehicle

Page 9 of 30
R/CR.A/1371/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

is well-established by the deposition of Kailashbhai alias Rahul
Natthubhai Vaghela (PW-14, Exh.-47), the appellant's prior
acquaintance with Kailashbhai alias Rahul Natthubhai Vaghela
(PW-14, Exh.-47) strengthens identification, and non-putting under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. is not fatal where the appellant had full
opportunity to defend.

5.2. On the false statement of being a Muslim party, he contended that
the evidence of Saidkhan Hamidkhan Pathan (PW-10, Exh.-42)
and Lailatuninasha Saidkhan Pathan (PW-11, Exh.-43), though
hearsay in part, is corroborated by overall circumstances, and
explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was adequately covered in
general questioning. The holistic reading of the deposition of
Ratanji Kunwarji Thakor (PW-7, Exh.-35) supports seeing the
accused at entry, and absence of identification parade is immaterial
given direct recognition and undisputed presence.

5.3. Defending the false mobile number and name in hotel register
(Exh.-18), the learned APP submitted that erasures do not render it
unreliable absent proof of tampering, and investigation into the
number was unnecessary as the false entry evinces mens rea,
linkage to Mayurraj Nihat Pathan is speculative, unproved by
defense. The jump from gallery upon hue and cry, injuring the leg,
and admission that he jumped, cumulatively prove consciousness
of guilt, not self-preservation from an assailant.

5.4. He argued that the medical opinion stating that the hand injuries
were self-inflicted fits the surrounding circumstances, because the
appellant could have caused those injuries to himself after jumping
and before he was apprehended, and the possibility of self-defense

Page 10 of 30
R/CR.A/1371/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

is weaker in comparison to the available evidence, while the
principle of two views applies in favour of the prosecution when
the chain of circumstances is complete. The history given to the
medical officer voluntarily by the accused while explaining the
injuries suffered by him is admissible in evidence as a voluntary
statement and is not barred by Section 25 of the Evidence Act,
because the mere presence of police does not mean that the
accused was in custody, the call made to Kailashbhai alias Rahul
Natthubhai Vaghela (PW-14, Exh.-47) in his capacity as PSI is not
relevant, was not suppressed, and the FIR or witness statements are
not required to mention it in detail, and as an extra-judicial
circumstance it stands corroborated, while the fact that it was
recorded later does not mean that it was fabricated.

5.5. On only two persons entering Room No. 110 per Ratanji Kunwarji
Thakor (PW-7, Exh.-35), he submitted that hotel staff evidence is
consistent and credible despite minor contradictions, warranting
reliance. Identification of the accused as entrant aligns with
presence. The appellant's claim of three persons is uncorroborated
by witness or register, and Bharatkumar Lakshmanbhai Vadukar
(PW-19, Exh.-64) (Investigating Officer)'s non-probe into
Mayurraj Nihat Pathan is not fatal as his name in Exh.-18 appears
contextual, not proving presence, failure to investigate accused's
version does not vitiate prosecution case where circumstances
point unerringly to guilt.

5.6. The learned APP contended that mens rea from inception is
legitimately inferred from cumulative falsehoods, not assumption.
It is further submitted that the false explanation tendered by the
appellant-accused herein can be said to be accompanying with the

Page 11 of 30
R/CR.A/1371/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

deceased in the room and, therefore, the story described by the
accused can be said to be a fact, as it is best within the knowledge
of the accused. Hence, the provisions of Indian Evidence Act,
1872, particularly Section 106, at this juncture can aptly be drawn,
as the entire burden lies on the appellant-accused and not on the
prosecution, which in the case on hand seems to have not been
proved, nor does any such adverse material or substance appear to
have been shown or brought up by the appellant-accused so as to
concede the stance taken by the appellant-accused herein.
Moreover, the stance which has been raised by the accused as to
the implications, rather the involvement of a third person, and
suggestions to that extent have been put to the investigating officer,
who, while admitting the prevailing facts of the case on hand,
denied having inquired about the absence of such person, who is
otherwise not in the picture at the relevant time. Injuries on
deceased prove culpable homicide amounting to murder. Seizure
panchnama and calls prove mens rea, as oral evidence suffices
without electronic under facts. Suppression of identity via false
entry is established by the deposition of Ratanji Kunwarji Thakor
(PW-7, Exh.-35). The entry in the Register showing 2 persons
contradicts the claim that 3 persons were present, and the denial by
Ratanji Kunwarji Thakor (PW-7, Exh.-35) supports the position
that the names of all persons present were written in the Register,
which rules out the presence of any additional person. On this
basis, is is prayed that the appeal be dismissed.

6. Having heard the learned advocates for both sides and perused the
depositions of the witnesses, documentary evidence, and the judgment of
the Additional Sessions Court, Mehsana, it appears that the testimony of
the complainant, who is the key eye-witness, is credible regarding the

Page 12 of 30
R/CR.A/1371/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

direct act of stabbing by the convicted accused but insufficient to
establish conspiracy against the acquitted accused.

7. The evidence of PW-1, Dr. Girishbhai Danabhai Zala, at Exh.8
who is the medical officer who conducted the postmortem examination of
the deceased Mazharharkan Saidkhan Pathan, is a very important part of
the prosecution case regarding the cause of death and the nature of the
injuries. In his deposition given on oath, Dr. Zala stated that on
31.01.2012 at about 12:05 p.m., while he was on duty, 2 persons were
brought to the hospital on stretchers. Out of them, 1 person was heavily
bleeding and had multiple injuries, and after examination he was declared
dead. The second person had only minor injuries. When inquiry was
made from the persons who had brought them to the hospital, it was
stated that the deceased was found in a bleeding condition in Room No.
110 of Janpath Hotel and that the person who had assaulted him had been
caught while trying to run away. The police investigating the matter came
to the hospital at about 17:55 hours and a panel of doctors consisting of
Dr. Zala and Dr. Shri D.K. Thakkar conducted the postmortem
examination. During the external examination of the body, different
injuries caused by a sharp-edged weapon were found on different parts of
the body such as the chest, abdomen, left arm, left leg, right shoulder, and
right arm. Out of these injuries, Injury Nos. 3, 5, and 6 were found to be
grievous injuries as they were deep incised wounds reaching the muscles
or internal cavities, while the remaining injuries were simple in nature.
Injury No. 6 on the abdomen was a stab wound through which the
intestines were visible and gas was also present in the intestines. During
internal examination, no fracture of the head bones or brain hemorrhage
was found.

8. However, fractures of ribs corresponding to Injury Nos. 3, 7, and 8

Page 13 of 30
R/CR.A/1371/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

were noticed. A lacerated injury measuring 3x1.5x3 cm was found on the
right lobe of the liver which contained clotted dark red blood. Rupture of
the bowel corresponding to Injury No. 5 was also found. About 200 ml of
clotted red blood was present in the stomach corresponding to Injury No.
6. Blood samples of the deceased were preserved for the purpose of
examination. After completing the examination, the doctor gave the
opinion that the cause of death was excessive bleeding due to multiple
injuries to vital organs and that such injuries were sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death. The doctor also stated that all
the injuries were possible by a single sharp-edged weapon. The injuries
found on the hands were defensive in nature and the injuries on the legs
suggested that the deceased had tried to defend himself and possibly fell
to the ground while the assault was taking place.

9. During cross-examination some suggestions were made that some
minor injuries on the appellant could be self-inflicted or that the deceased
had defensive injuries, but the Court held that these circumstances did not
weaken the prosecution case and instead supported the prosecution
version that the deceased tried to resist the attack but could not
successfully defend himself.

10. The learned Sessions Court relied upon this medical evidence and
held that it was reliable and fully supported the statements of the
eyewitnesses. The Court observed that the large number and serious
nature of the injuries, including 3 grievous injuries affecting vital parts of
the body such as the chest, liver and abdomen, clearly showed that the
deceased had been subjected to a brutal attack by a sharp weapon. The
Court found that this medical evidence fully matched with the statements
of the prosecution witnesses who had stated that the appellant repeatedly
attacked the deceased with a knife which is a sharp-edged weapon. The

Page 14 of 30
R/CR.A/1371/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

Court relied upon the clear opinion of the doctor that all the injuries could
be caused by a single weapon and that the difference in the size and depth
of the wounds could occur because of the force used, the angle of the
weapon, and the movement of the body during the assault. The Court
ultimately treated the medical evidence as decisive proof which clearly
established that the death was homicidal in nature and that the offence
under Section 302 IPC was proved beyond reasonable doubt.

11. We find no error or weakness in the analysis made by the learned
Sessions Court and the same deserves to be fully confirmed. The
deposition of PW-1 is detailed and precise and gives complete medical
details of all the injuries including their measurements, location, and
depth, such as the incised wound measuring 5x2 cm on the right chest,
the stab wound on the abdomen through which the intestines were visible,
and the laceration on the liver. The 3 grievous injuries being Injury Nos.
3, 5, and 6 affected the chest and abdominal cavities and caused rib
fractures, rupture of organs, and a total blood loss of about 200 ml of
clotted blood. These findings strongly support the doctor's opinion that
the death occurred due to the injuries. This supports the conclusion that
the injuries were caused by one sharp weapon such as the recovered
knife. In conclusion, the medical evidence strongly supports the
prosecution case and clearly proves that the appellant intentionally caused
fatal injuries to the deceased.

12. The prosecution examined PW-2, Govindbhai Manilal Vaghela, at
Exh.-15 whose testimony forms an important link in proving the presence
of the accused at the place of the incident. In his deposition on oath, he
stated that he lives at Linch and has been working as the manager of the
guesthouse at Janpath Hotel. On 31.01.2012, he reported for duty at about
8:00 a.m. and checked the occupancy details of the rooms. On that day, 2

Page 15 of 30
R/CR.A/1371/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

persons arrived in an Innova car and asked for a room. PW-2 asked them
to produce identification proof, after which they showed driving licenses
in the names of Majharkhan (full name: Pathan Majharkhan Saidekhan)
and Mayurraj Nehat Pathan. He collected room rent of Rs. 1,550/-,
allotted them Room No. 110, and made the necessary entry in the hotel
register. Around 10:00 to 10:30 a.m., while he was sitting at the counter,
PW-2 heard a sound coming from upstairs. He immediately went to the
upper lobby and found that the sound was coming from Room No. 110.
When he knocked on the door, the stopper opened and 1 person came out
of the room, pushed PW-2, went back inside, and then jumped from the
gallery. PW-2 immediately informed, Avtarsingh, owner of the hotel, by
telephone, who arrived shortly thereafter. Both of them entered Room
No. 110 and saw 1 person lying near the bed and bleeding heavily, while
the other person was found below the rear side of the building and was
brought back to the room. Both of them were then taken in Avtarsingh’s
vehicle to Civil Hospital, Mehsana. During treatment at the hospital, the
person who was bleeding died due to his injuries, while the other person
received medical treatment. PW-2 thereafter lodged a complaint with the
police, which is exhibited at Exh. 16. He also handed over to the police a
photocopy of the driving license of the accused (Pathan Majharkhan
Saidekhan) bearing his signature, along with details of the room and
General Register No. 310, which is exhibited at Exh. 17, and a copy of
the hotel register which is exhibited at Exh. 18. Later, the police came to
the hotel to conduct the panchnama, during which PW-2 showed them the
place of the incident and also gave an additional statement. He further
stated that out of the 2 persons who had taken the room, 1 person had
died and he could identify the other person, and he confirmed that the
accused present in the court was the same person.

13. In cross-examination, PW-2 clarified certain points, but these did

Page 16 of 30
R/CR.A/1371/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

not materially affect the main part of his evidence. He admitted that the
signature on Entry No. 310 in the register (Exh. 18) was not his but that
of his reliever, Ratanji Thakor, because Ratanji was present at the counter
when the guests arrived, while PW-2 had come late for duty as he was at
home. Therefore, he had not personally seen the 2 persons when they
checked into the hotel and he did not know them earlier. It is also stated
that he did not know who had written the words “deceased” and
“Sandeep” in the last column of Exh. 18. PW-2 further stated that he did
not know whether 2 or 3 persons had come to the hotel, but he confirmed
that the name “Mayurraj Nehat Pathan” was written in the register entry.
He also agreed that Avtarsingh was not present in the hotel at the time of
the incident, that no identification parade was conducted before a
magistrate, and that the person who was caught had been apprehended
from the rear part of gallery below Room No. 110. He again stated that he
had not personally caught anyone from the room, but he emphasized that
the register entry of Majharkhan showed that at least 1 person had
checked into the room, although he was not sure about the exact number
of persons. He confirmed that the incident had taken place between 10:00
and 10:30 a.m. on 31.01.2012.

14. The learned Sessions Court, after considering the testimony of PW-
2, rightly relied upon his evidence as a natural and truthful account of
what happened in the guesthouse, which clearly showed that the accused
had occupied Room No. 110 on the day of the incident. The court
observed that since the witness was the manager of the guesthouse, he
was familiar with the check-in process and therefore his knowledge about
the entry of the guests and the disturbance that followed was reliable. The
documents produced by him, particularly the hotel register entries and the
photocopy of the driving license, supported the prosecution case
regarding the presence of the accused at the place of the incident. The

Page 17 of 30
R/CR.A/1371/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

court also held that the minor inconsistencies pointed out in cross-
examination, such as the fact that the reliever had made the initial entry in
the register, were not important and did not affect the main facts
regarding the accused taking the room and escaping from the place. The
court held that PW-2’s identification of the accused in court, together
with the records prepared at that time, sufficiently removed any minor
doubts.

15. We have carefully examined the evidence of PW-2 along with the
record and we find no error in the manner in which the learned Sessions
Court appreciated his testimony. Being the manager on duty, the evidence
of PW-2 gives a clear and continuous account of the arrival of the
accused, the allotment of the room, and the events that followed
immediately after the disturbance, which matches with the time of the
offence. Hearing the sound, his immediate action in going upstairs to
check, the partial opening of the door, the push given to him by 1 of the
persons inside the room, and the discovery of the injured victim inside the
room are details which clearly appear to be part of a direct and natural
account of what he saw, without exaggeration and consistent with normal
human conduct in such circumstances. The cross-examination only shows
that he had not personally seen the check-in because he had arrived late
for duty, but this does not affect the reliability of what he saw afterward
or the documentary support provided through Exhs. 17 and 18, which
independently prove the identity of the accused through the driving
license and the entry in the register. The entry mentioning “Mayurraj
Nehat Pathan” along with the details of Majharkhan further supports that
both persons had taken the room together, and the identification of the
accused by PW-2 in court as the surviving person removes any doubt,
even though no formal identification parade was held. The absence of
such test identification parade is not fatal to the prosecution case when

Page 18 of 30
R/CR.A/1371/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

the witness had an opportunity to see the person during the incident and
when the documentary records support his statement. The cross-
examination, actually strengthens his credibility because it shows that he
was stating only the facts known to him. Considering the entire
prosecution evidence, the testimony of PW-2 stands as strong and reliable
evidence, which is not weakened by the suggestions made by the defence.
We therefore agree with the view taken by the learned Sessions Court in
relying on his evidence to establish the presence and involvement of the
accused at the place of the incident. No reason is made out to interfere
with this finding, as it is fully supported by the evidence on record.

16. The prosecution examined PW-4, Chehrsang alias Lalaji Chenaji
Thakor, at Exh. 29. In his deposition, he stated that on 31.01.2012, while
he was on duty at the counter, though he could not remember the exact
time, he suddenly heard sound coming from the upper floor, due to which
all persons present there immediately went upstairs to see what had
happened. The sound was coming from Room No. 110, therefore the
manager, Govindbhai, first went near that room and knocked on the door.
When the door opened, one person who was inside the room immediately
ran towards the back side, jumped down from the rear side, and tried to
escape. The witness, along with Govindbhai and other staff members,
caught that person. After some time, their boss Avtarsingh also came
there, and he took both the person who was caught while running away
and the person who was found inside the room to the hospital for medical
treatment. The witness further stated that the person whom they had
caught was present in the court and he identified the accused in the court
as the same person who had tried to run away and whom they had
apprehended.

17. During cross-examination, the witness admitted that several

Page 19 of 30
R/CR.A/1371/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

persons were present at the scene, that no formal identification parade
was conducted, and that he could not identify the persons staying in the
neighbouring Room No. 111. However, these aspects do not weaken the
main part of his testimony. Instead, they reflect the practical situation of a
sudden and confusing incident where several persons reacted together,
and the attention of everyone was mainly on the person who ran away
from the concerned room. The witness clearly denied the suggestion that
the police had previously shown the accused to him or that he was
identifying the accused in court only because he was sitting in the dock.
This denial strengthens his credibility and shows that his identification
was based on his own memory of the incident and was not influenced by
any suggestion. It is also important that the witness stated that he did not
see any other person escaping from the room, but this does not contradict
or weaken the fact that the accused was caught while trying to run away,
because the witness has only spoken about the events that he personally
saw and experienced.

18. The learned Sessions Court, while considering this deposition,
gave proper importance to the statement of this witness as it described the
events that had happened immediately at the guesthouse and clearly
connected the accused with the room from where the disturbance had
come. The court observed that the sequence of events stated by the
witness, starting from hearing the sound, going upstairs, knocking on the
door, the person running away, and then being caught by the staff
members, appeared to be natural and consistent with the overall timeline
of the incident. On that basis, the court found that this testimony
supported the involvement of the accused in the incident and strengthened
the case of the prosecution, without the need for further discussion on
minor or unrelated details.

Page 20 of 30
R/CR.A/1371/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

19. We find that the testimony of this witness is clear, natural, and
reliable, and it forms an important supporting part in establishing the
chain of events at the place of the offence. As the witness was a staff
member who was present at the counter at the time of the incident, his
reaction to the sound and his participation in catching the person who
tried to run away show that his statement arose from the immediate
circumstances of the incident, and it also fits well with the version earlier
given by the manager. The identification of the accused in court by this
witness, along with his description that the person ran through the rear
gallery and jumped towards the garden below, creates a direct eyewitness
connection showing that the accused was present in Room No. 110 and
attempted to escape from there, which was the main place where the
offence occurred. Therefore, the reliance placed by the learned Sessions
Court on this testimony is fully justified, as the evidence remains firm
even after cross-examination by the defence, and we find no reason to
interfere with this appreciation of evidence, which supports the
conclusion regarding the involvement of the accused on the basis of clear
and reliable facts on record.

20. At this juncture, it is apt to place reliance on the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raja vs. State by the Inspector of
Police in Criminal Appeal No. 740 of 2018, in which it has clearly held
that it is neither possible nor advisable to fix any fixed rule about the time
within which a test identification parade must be conducted, nor can it be
said that not conducting such a parade is always fatal to the prosecution
case. The main and real evidence is the identification of the accused made
by the witness before the Court. A prior test identification parade is only
meant to support and strengthen that evidence by testing its reliability. If
no test identification parade is conducted, the identification made in
Court does not become inadmissible, and the value to be given to such

Page 21 of 30
R/CR.A/1371/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

identification is always to be decided by the Court based on the facts and
circumstances of each case. If the Court finds that the identifying witness
is truthful, reliable, and had sufficient opportunity to see and observe the
accused, then the absence of a test identification parade does not weaken
the prosecution case.

21. The prosecution examined PW-7, Ratanji Kunvarji Thakor, at
Exh.-35, whose evidence supports the details of the check-in at the
guesthouse. In his deposition, PW-7 stated that he works as a manager at
the guesthouse of Janpath Hotel and his duty hours are from 8:00 p.m. to
8:00 a.m. On 31.01.2012, when his shift was about to end, Govindbhai,
who was supposed to take over duty, arrived late. During that time, 2
customers arrived in an Innova car and asked for a room. PW-7 therefore
made an entry in the register and allotted them Room No. 110. After his
duty ended, he left for his home at around 8:45 a.m. Later in the
afternoon, he came to know that a fight had taken place inside Room No.
110 between the 2 persons who had taken the room and that both of them
had been taken to Civil Hospital. PW-7 identified Exh. 18, which is the
register of the guesthouse, and stated that Entry No. 310 in the register
bears the thumb impressions and signatures of the persons who came to
stay. He further stated that the entry was made by those persons
themselves. The vehicle number mentioned in the register was written by
Govindbhai, whereas details such as G.R. No. 310, Room No.110, and
the date were written by PW-7 in his own handwriting. PW-7 also
identified one of the persons who had checked in as the accused who was
present in the court. In his cross-examination, PW-7 admitted that after he
went home he was resting when Govindbhai called him on the phone and
informed him about the incident. He denied that he had written the words
“deceased Sandeep” in Exh. 18 and stated that he had no knowledge
about it. He also stated that he had seen the accused only at the time of

Page 22 of 30
R/CR.A/1371/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

check-in and again in the court on that day. He denied that he knew the
deceased. He also admitted that there was no entry in the register in the
name of Sandeep.

22. The learned Sessions Court, after examining the evidence of PW-7
together with Exh. 18, concluded that this evidence supports the
prosecution case that 2 persons, namely Majharkhan (the accused) and
Mayurraj Nehat Pathan, had checked into Room No. 110. This fact is
reflected in Entry No. 310 in the register. The entry contains the complete
address of Majharkhan, while the details of the other person are
comparatively less specific. The entry also clearly records that 2 persons
had checked in and shows the check-in time as around 8:30 a.m. On this
basis, the court held that the chain of circumstances clearly connects the
accused with the incident, even though the vehicle witnesses could not
personally identify him, because the entire booking was done through
phone calls.

23. We have carefully examined the deposition of PW-7 and the
related evidence discussed by the learned Sessions Court and we find no
reason to interfere with the conclusions reached by the court. PW-7 was
the manager on duty and personally handled the check-in of the persons
who took the room. His evidence clearly shows that exactly 2 persons
checked into Room No. 110. This fact is supported by the register entry at
Exh. 18, which records their names, the vehicle details, and the number of
persons as 2. PW-7 also confirmed that important parts of the entry were
written in his own handwriting. The statements made by PW-7 during
cross-examination do not weaken his evidence. On the contrary, they
support the timeline because he stated that after completing the check-in
he left for home and later received a phone call informing him about the
incident. His clear denial that he wrote the words “deceased Sandeep” in

Page 23 of 30
R/CR.A/1371/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

the register also shows that the register only records the details of the 2
persons who checked in, and there is no reliable material to support the
defence claim that a third person had entered the room and later escaped.
The findings recorded by the learned Sessions Court are therefore based
on clear and consistent evidence and we see no reason to disturb them.
Accordingly, the involvement of the accused in bringing the deceased to
the place of occurrence stands proved.

24. The learned Sessions Court observed that although the case is
based on circumstantial evidence, the proved circumstances form a
complete and consistent chain, and therefore the absence of motive does
not weaken the prosecution case. It is further observed that the absence of
motive only requires the court to examine the evidence more carefully to
ensure that suspicion or guesswork does not replace proof, but it does not
automatically entitle the accused to acquittal under Section 302 IPC. The
court further held that the conduct of the accused, supported by
eyewitness evidence and documentary evidence and not merely by
confession, shows that he caused the fatal injuries to the deceased
Majharkhan inside Room No. 110 of Janpath Hotel, which resulted in his
death. The testimony of the medical officer was relied upon to confirm
that Injuries Nos. 3, 5, and 6 on the body of the deceased were ante-
mortem in nature and were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to
cause death. On this basis, the court that the essential ingredients of the
offence under Section 302 IPC are clearly proved beyond doubt.

25. In conclusion, the learned Sessions Court carefully identified and
examined a total of 19 important circumstances which together formed a
complete chain of evidence against the appellant. These circumstances
included the fact that the appellant had hired the vehicle by using the
false name “Mahendrabhai” and by falsely presenting himself as a

Page 24 of 30
R/CR.A/1371/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

Muslim person, thereby misleading others at the time of arranging the
vehicle. The hotel register (Exh.-18) contained entries showing incorrect
details such as a false mobile number and name. The register clearly
showed that only 2 persons had checked into the room, which removed
the defence suggestion that a third person was present. Evidence also
showed that when the hotel staff came to the room after hearing noise, the
appellant jumped from the rear gallery in an attempt to escape, as stated
by Ratanji Kunwarji Thakor (PW-7, Exh.-35), and during this act he
sustained an injury to his ankle. Medical evidence also showed injuries
on the appellant’s hands which were consistent with defensive injuries
during the incident. The history given by the appellant to the doctor after
his arrest was also consistent with the incident that had occurred. Ratanji
Kunwarji Thakor correctly identified the appellant-accused in court as
one of the persons who had checked into the room. Medical evidence
clearly established that the fatal injuries, especially Injury Nos. 3, 5, and
6, were serious and were sufficient to cause death. The further statement
of the appellant suggesting that 3 persons were present was found to be
false and unsupported by any evidence. On the other hand, the hotel
register clearly recorded the presence of only “two persons”, which
directly contradicted the appellant’s version.

26. Thus, any information given by the appellant-accused, who
sustained injuries, either in the form of history or information given to the
doctor while undergoing necessary treatment, cannot be termed as a
confessional statement. Such information cannot be discarded at the
threshold while overlooking the mitigating circumstances, which
otherwise speak volumes about the demeanor of the appellant-accused. It
transpires that the accused attempted to shift the blame onto a third
person - a stranger, i.e., an invisible person - whose presence is otherwise
not supported by any of the prosecution witnesses, except for the vague

Page 25 of 30
R/CR.A/1371/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

story narrated by the appellant-accused. It is also important to note that
the alleged presence of such a person has been claimed only by the
appellant-accused. Therefore, the burden lies upon him to establish such
presence, either by providing the address or identity of such person to the
investigating officers or by producing any material for consideration that
could affect the case. In the present case, no such effort has been made.
On the contrary, the conduct of the appellant-accused indicates that he
attempted to play hot and cold simultaneously by narrating a false story.
On one hand, he tried to show the presence of three persons whose
presence has not been substantiated, and on the other hand, he claimed
that he sustained injuries while saving the deceased or during the
inception of the incident. Furthermore, the stance taken by the appellant-
accused that he sustained injuries and, in order to avoid further injuries
from the other persons, jumped from the gallery of the room, also falsifies
his version. Rather, this circumstance indicates the presence of the
accused at the time of the occurrence of the incident. It is also apt to note
that the history given by the appellant-accused on his own volition while
explaining the injuries sustained by him cannot be said to be hit by
Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. This remains so irrespective of the
fact that the same may have been recorded in the presence of the police.
In the present case, the history was disclosed before the doctor without
any force or coercion being applied upon the appellant-accused.
Therefore, its relevancy is required to be assessed on the touchstone of
the evidence placed on record for consideration. Hence, this version given
by the appellant-accused does not inspire confidence.

27. When all these facts and circumstances are considered together,
they form a consistent and reliable chain of evidence which clearly
establishes the intention and involvement of the appellant from the
beginning of the incident. This chain of circumstances also removes any

Page 26 of 30
R/CR.A/1371/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

possibility of a false defence, alibi, or the involvement of any other
person. The careful manner in which the Sessions Court analysed and
connected these circumstances shows that the court thoroughly examined
every relevant fact before reaching its conclusion. Each circumstance was
tested during cross-examination and remained consistent with the other
evidence on record. When these circumstances are read together, they
leave no reasonable doubt about the guilt of the appellant-accused.
Therefore, the conclusion reached by the Sessions Court that the
appellant committed the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC is
correct and fully supported by the evidence on record, and we find no
reason to interfere with the judgment.

28. Thus, the entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial
evidence, and the prosecution has clearly presented and proved several
circumstances which together form a complete and continuous chain that
directly connects the appellant with the commission of the offence in
question. It is necessary to repeat that even if no clear motive is shown in
the prosecution case, such absence does not weaken or destroy the case;
rather, when the proved circumstances join together to form a consistent
and complete chain which, according to normal human conduct and
probability, clearly points to the appellant-accused and no one else as the
person who committed the offence, the absence of motive only requires
the Court to examine the evidence with greater care, but it does not turn
suspicion into proof, in cases based on circumstantial evidence, motive
may be useful, but it is not an essential requirement for conviction under
Section 302 IPC.

29. Now, reverting back to the facts of the present case, nothing sort of
any such material seems to be placed on record to indicate as to motive
behind the commission of the offence in question and therefore,

Page 27 of 30
R/CR.A/1371/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

admittedly the whole case rests on the circumstantial evidence and
considering the way in which the entire incident have been described,
followed by the investigation carried out by the IO and to convict the
accused in absence of any direct evidence though dealing with the case
based on circumstantial evidence, the important aspect which requires to
be considered are such as (i) whether circumstances relied by prosecution
have been proved beyond reasonable doubt, (ii) whether those
circumstances are of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt
of accused, (iii) whether those circumstances taken cumulatively form a
chain so far complete that there is no escape from conclusion that within
all human probability crime was committed by accused, (iv) whether they
are consistent only with hypothesis of accused being guilty, and lastly (v)
whether they exclude every possible hypothesis except one to be proved.

30. Learned advocate for the appellant has placed reliance upon
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 1984
(4) SCC 116 laying down the for conviction based on circumstantial
evidence. Further reliance is placed on the decisions in Devilal Vs. State
of Rajasthan reported in 2019 (19) SCC 447 and Pradeep Kumar Vs.
State of Chhattisgarh reported in 2023(5) SCC 350 that suspicion cannot
take the place of proof and that the chain of evidence must be complete.
In both the above cases the prosecution failed to prove motive, recoveries
lacked independent corroboration, and the chain was found incomplete
and incoherent. In the present case, however, the chain is complete and
unbroken, motive is evident from the premeditated use of false name and
false travel story to isolate the deceased, the hotel register and staff
testimony conclusively prove only two persons entered room No.110, the
accused’s immediate jump and admission before the medical officer
provide direct incriminating links, medical evidence corroborates the
injuries and escape attempt, and no gap or alternative hypothesis remains.

Page 28 of 30
R/CR.A/1371/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

These judgments are therefore inapplicable to the facts of our case.

31. Learned advocate for the appellant has also placed reliance upon
Indrakunwar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in 2023(0) AIJEL SC
72661 which enumerates the principles governing statements under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. and holds that non-compliance may cause prejudice.
In the cited case the conviction rested on mere presumption without
establishing any relationship between the accused and the deceased child
and without proper opportunity to explain incriminating circumstances. In
the instant matter, every incriminating circumstance was specifically put
to the accused, he gave a false explanation of three persons being present,
and no prejudice whatsoever has been caused. The said judgment has no
application to the facts of this case.

32. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the chain is required to be
completed as mandated under the law so as to indicate the guilt of the
accused while discarding any other theory of the crime. If one of the link
goes missing and not proved, in view of the settled law on the point, the
conviction is required to be interfered with. At this stage, with profit, we
may refer to the decision in case of Laxman Prasad Alias Laxman
(supra) where the Hon’ble Apex Court after referring to Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116] and
Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan vs. State of Gujarat [(2020) 14 SCC 750] has
quashed the conviction by making observations in paragraph 2 to 4 as
under:

“2. The present one is a case of circumstantial evidence. The
prosecution led evidence to establish three links of the chain: (i) motive,
(ii) last seen, and (iii) recovery of weapon of assault, at the pointing out of
the appellant. The High Court, while dealing with the evidence on record,
agreed with the finding of motive and the last seen, however, insofar as the

Page 29 of 30
R/CR.A/1371/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

recovery of the weapon of assault and bloodstained clothes were
concerned, the High Court in para 18 of the judgment held the same to be
invalid and also goes to the extent to say that the recovery which has been
made does not indicate that the appellant has committed the offence. Still,
it observed that looking to the entire gamut and other clinching evidence
against the appellant of last seen and motive, affirmed the conviction.

3. We do not find such conclusion of the High Court to be strictly in
accordance with law. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the chain has to
be complete in all respects so as to indicate the guilt of the accused and
also exclude any other theory of the crime. The law is well settled on the
above point. Reference may be had to the following cases:

(1) Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra,
(ii) Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan v. State of Gujarat.

4. Thus, if the High Court found one of the links to be missing and not
proved in view of the settled law on the point, the conviction ought to have
been interfered with.”

33. For the aforesaid reasons, the conviction under Section 302 IPC
passed by learned Sessions Court is upheld. The present appeal being
Criminal Appeal No. 1371 of 2014 is dismissed. Records be transmitted
to learned Sessions Court forthwith.

(ILESH J. VORA,J)

(R. T. VACHHANI, J)
MVP
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
Digitally signed by: MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE TWO CLASS TWO, at High Court of Gujarat on 09/03/2026 16:50:40

Page 30 of 30