ORDER This is an application for grant of a certificates that the decision sought to be appealed is a fit case to appeal to the Supreme Court, under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution. The applicant was tried for the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. by the District and Sessions Judge, Panaji. He was convicted for murder and sentenced to the lesser penalty of imprisonment for life on 16-9-1972. The appeal preferred to this Court was, after being heard on merits, dismissed, and the conviction and sentence maintained by my order dated 30-8-73. 2. In this application for leave to appeal the points raised by the appellant/applicant are all points of fact. According to the applicant the real culprit in the case was the witness Ravi (P.W. 8); the applicant further states that the anxiety on the part of Ravi to search for the deceased and his behaviour at the time of the occurrence are suspicious and go clearly to show that he was the culprit. This case of the petitioner has been considered by the trial Court as well as by this Court at length and both the courts have found that there was no substance in the defence case. This being a point of fact and there being concurrent finding no it, it can in no even be a ground for the grant of a certificate that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court. 3. The Supreme Court has laid down certain guidelines to the followed by the High Court in granting certificates. The decisions of the High Courts also provide such guidelines. It has been observed by the Supreme Court that a certificate should be granted only where there has been an infringement of the essential principles of justice or there is a matter of grate public or private importance (Kali Prasad v. State, AIR 1952 All 1952 All 630. The decisions of the High Courts also provide such guidelines. It has been observed by the Supreme Court that a certificate should be granted only where there has been an infringement of the essential principles of justice or there is a matter of grate public or private importance (Kali Prasad v. State, AIR 1952 All 1952 All 630. In Sunder Singh v. State of U.P. AIR 1956 SC 411 = (1956 Cri LJ 801), the Supreme Court laid down that the grant of a certificate under Art. 134(1)(c) is not a matter of course but that the power has to be exercised after considering what difficult questions of law or principles were involved in the case which would require the further consideration of the Supreme Court and that therefore ordinarily in a case which does not involve a substantial question of law or principle in the affirming judgment, the High Court will not be justified in granting a certificate under this clause. 4. In the present case we find that although the case was decided purely on circumstantial evidence, this being a question of fact, it cannot be a ground for granting of a certificate. In this connection if may be mentioned what the Supreme Court observed in the above said case in AIR 1956 SC 411 = (1956 Cri LJ 801) that if there is any doubt in the minds of the Judges of the facts their duty is to acquit; that they cannot convict and then issue a certificate because they cannot make up their minds about the facts. 5. In the present case no infringement of the essential principles of justices of any point of law as such has been brought to may notice, neither do I find any. Under such circumstances this case cannot be certified as a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court. 6. The application is according dismissed. Application dismissed.