( 1 ) THIS appeal represents the rather familiar situation wherein a taxi came to be hired by three persons and the taxi driver thereafter met with a violent end. The case pertains to Madikeri town and it created a sensation in the local area because there was a lot of public resistance and a demonstration which possibly had their own effect on the police and the other authorities. The brief facts are that on 14-2-1992, a white ambassador taxi bearing the Registration No. CNZ 4476 was hired from the taxi stand by three persons for an outstation trip. According to the prosecution, these persons casually approached p. W. 18-Manjunath who refused to take them, after which, they approached the driver of the adjoining taxi by the name of khaleel. Khaleel offered to take the three persons out of whom one sat in the front seat and two in the rear seat. It was not very unusual for Khaleel to go on outstation trips and his not returning to the house on that day did not appear strange either to his wife or to his family members. On the next day however, the taxi was found abandoned in the town near an area called rajaseat with the keys inside it and this was noticed by khaleel's family members who in turn reported the matter to the police. When the taxi was checked, a tooth was found in the taxi. There was no dispute about the fact that this was Khaleel's taxi and this provoked a violent reaction in the town, particularly from the taxi drivers as the local press immediately put out the news that some miscreants had engaged the taxi and had done away with the driver. It was only one week later that a body was found floating in a bloated and decomposed condition at a project site near Periyapatna and the local police were informed about it. With the help of two local persons, the body was taken out from the water and it was found that the body had a heavy stone tied to it with a coir rope, obviously in order to prevent the body from floating. With the help of two local persons, the body was taken out from the water and it was found that the body had a heavy stone tied to it with a coir rope, obviously in order to prevent the body from floating. In the meanwhile, the Madikeri Police had taken up the investigation as Khaleel was found missing and, from the clothes on the body and in particular, the fact that one of the teeth was missing and that there was a clip on the teeth which had been fixed by a Dentist, the body was conclusively identified as being that of Khaleel. Apart from the brothers, the wife has identified the body which was to some extent disfigured due to bloating and certain parts of the flesh having been eaten by the aquatic creatures. The police found that a black dial Citizen watch, which Khaleel used to wear, was missing. On the basis of various investigations that were done, the police arrested the three accused and it is alleged that accused 1 was instrumental in the recovery of an elastic belt which had been used for purposes of strangling Khaleel and that he also produced the wrist watch. We need to mention here that as far as the watch is concerned, the prosecution has examined the person from whom khaleel bought the watch for Rs. 500/-, who has identified the watch in question, but more importantly, Khaleel's brother and his wife have also identified the watch from the make as also the type of strap as being the very watch which the deceased used to regularly wear. Apart from this, the prosecution alleges that the other two accused took the police party and pointed out the spot from where the stone has been obtained, the spot where the car is alleged to have broken-down as also the spot where the dead body was taken and thrown into the water. On completion of the investigation, the accused were charge-sheeted, committed to the Court of Sessions and were put on trial. The learned Trial judge, in the course of a detailed judgment, has carefully examined each of the pieces of evidence and has come to the conclusion that a conviction was not possible on such evidence and he therefore, acquitted the accused. The State of Karnataka has filed the present appeal contending that the acquittal was unjustified. ( 2 ) MR. The learned Trial judge, in the course of a detailed judgment, has carefully examined each of the pieces of evidence and has come to the conclusion that a conviction was not possible on such evidence and he therefore, acquitted the accused. The State of Karnataka has filed the present appeal contending that the acquittal was unjustified. ( 2 ) MR. A. B. Patil, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor has done, in our opinion, an absolutely first class job of analysing the entire evidence and presenting the appeal on behalf of the state. His contention is that this is a case of gruesome murder insofar as the three accused hired the taxi and that they thereafter mercilessly killed the driver obviously for very petty considerations, namely in order to steal whatever money and valuables he had with him. Obviously, what they recovered was very little and it is also clear that they were not even interested in the car which was driven back to Madikeri town and abandoned there. Mr. Patil pointed out that the crime appears to be the handiwork of a well planned and executed scheme, that it was a calculated cold-blooded murder and that it is almost a professional job insofar as the accused have even taken the precaution to cover their tracks. He demonstrates that even though the body could have been dumped in any lonely area in that particular region where it would have probably decomposed or being consumed by the wild animals and vultures; that the accused took the precaution to buy a rope, get hold of a large stone and that they thereafter very securely tied the stone to the body and then dumped it in a very deep reservoir which had about 35 feet of water so that the body would not surface as normally happens with a corpse and that it would virtually decompose and disappear without any trace. Obviously, once the decomposition set in, the buoyancy of the corpse was so much that irrespective of the weight of the stone, it still surfaced on the water and that was how the villagers saw it. Mr. Obviously, once the decomposition set in, the buoyancy of the corpse was so much that irrespective of the weight of the stone, it still surfaced on the water and that was how the villagers saw it. Mr. Patil submitted that he is relying on these facts for purposes of demonstrating that the accused are not novices and that this was a premeditated murder and that despite an excellent investigation, the accused have still got away and that consequently, this constitutes a miscarriage of justice. Mr. Patil submitted that undoubtedly there are no eye-witnesses to the incident, but he took us through the paper book in some detail and has culled out the various circumstances, 14 of which, if linked up one after the other, would conclusively establish the nexus between the accused and the offence. It is unnecessary for us to reproduce in detail the various references in the evidence, but we do propose to set out the circumstances relied upon by mr. Patil for purposes of contending that these particular circumstances taken individually and collectively, point unmistakably to the guilt of the accused. ( 3 ) IN the first instance, Mr. Patil points out that on 14-2-1992, the three accused who have been identified by P. W. 18, the taxi driver, approached Manjunath at the taxi-stand at Madikeri with the prospect of engaging his taxi. These persons were unsuccessful as far as Manjunath was concerned after which, they went to Khaleel. According to P. W. 18, quite apart from their having spent some time with him, that he saw them discussing with the deceased for about 10 minutes after which, they got into the white Ambassador taxi, one of them seated in the front and the other two at the back. Mr. Patil submits that p. W. 18 is a total stranger and no animus is even alleged between him and the accused and that therefore, this evidence must be accepted as being a very strong circumstance against the accused because that was the last time that Khaleel was seen in Madikeri with his taxi. Being last seen together with the deceased is an extremely incriminating circumstance and Mr. Patil has therefore, relied very strongly on this factor. Tracing the sequence of events on that night, Mr. Being last seen together with the deceased is an extremely incriminating circumstance and Mr. Patil has therefore, relied very strongly on this factor. Tracing the sequence of events on that night, Mr. Patil then takes us to the first stop which was made by this taxi which happened to be at a wine store in which P. W. 37 was working. This witness is quite categorical about the fact that the three accused came to his store and purchased a bottle of Brandy which they did not take away. They also purchased some Soda and the three of them consumed the Brandy in the shop. According to this witness, the driver Khaleel did not come into the shop, but was waiting near the taxi outside and was talking to another driver. Mr. Patil has placed strong reliance on this evidence because, he contends that irrespective of the starting point where P. W. 18 last saw the accused with the deceased, that later on, in the course of the same night which was obviously the night on which khaleel was murdered, P. W. 37 has seen the accused persons with the deceased for the last time. Thereafter, Mr. Patil relies on the evidence of P. Ws. 9 and 10 who happen to be Forest guards. According to them, they were on the lookout for sandalwood poachers and they stopped the car and they state that the accused 2 was driving the car and that accused 1 and 3 were the other two occupants of the car. Mr. Patil relies on this evidence for purposes of establishing two very important facts, the first being that the three accused were the only inmates of the car and the second one being that the driver Khaleel, who should normally have been driving the car, was nowhere on the scene. Learned Advocate submits that the spot where the car was seen by the Forest Guards is not far away from the spot where the body was ultimately recovered and that therefore, the only legal inference that could arise was that by this point of time, the accused had not only murdered the driver, but that they had also disposed off the body. This is further evident from the fact that the guards are quite categorical when they point out that they not only looked into the car, but that they had also checked the luggage carrier which was found to be empty. ( 4 ) NEXT, we come to the evidence of P. Ws. 19, 20 and 21 in support of two very crucial facts. The first of them is that on the same night, accused 1 went to P. W. 20 and borrowed a can of diesel from him. Mr. Patil has pointed out the reason for this insofar as the petrol bunk owner, who has also been examined, has stated that due to insufficient supply of fuel during the season, that it was customary for the petrol bunk to put up a sign that no stocks are available and the accused obviously required fuel for the car which was why A1 approached P. W. 20 and obtained the can of diesel. Mr. Patil relies on this circumstance for an additional reason, namely that the purchase of the diesel according to the learned Advocate clearly connects the accused with the use of the car and it therefore, shows that they had not parted company with Khaleel and the car, but that they were still very much in association with the vehicle even late on that night. P. Ws. 19 and 21 however, deposed to an even more incriminating fact namely, that A3 purchased a roll of coir rope from a small shop and the reason given by him was that he wanted to use it for tying a cow. Normally, the purchase of a rope may be an innocuous act, but Mr. Patil has demonstrated that Khaleel's dead body was found securely tied in two places with this very rope which was used for purposes of fastening a large stone before the body was thrown into the water. There are at least half a dozen witnesses who deposed to the fact that when the body was taken out of the water, the rope was still around it and that the stone got loose and fell back into the water. Mr. Patil submits that the purchase of the rope and the fact that this was the very rope found on the dead body which is m. O. 8, very clearly and unmistakably connects the accused with the commission of the offence. Mr. Patil submits that the purchase of the rope and the fact that this was the very rope found on the dead body which is m. O. 8, very clearly and unmistakably connects the accused with the commission of the offence. ( 5 ) MR. Patil thereafter relies on 3 other circumstances which are of considerable consequence, the first of them being the fact that the car was thereafter abandoned near Rajaseat and we have the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 2 and 5 who have deposed to this effect. P. Ws. 2 and 13 elaborate on this evidence insofar as the significant aspect of the tooth which was missing from the mouth of the deceased was found fallen in the car and the ignition keys of the car were also found in the car itself. It is at this stage, that Mr. Patil relied on what he termed as about the strongest piece of evidence which directly incriminates the accused insofar as in the light of the evidence, that these three persons had taken charge of the car and were travelling in it, it has also come on record that the car had got punctured and that one of the wheels required to be changed. When the police examined the car, they are alleged to have found very distinct finger prints on the rear view mirror as also on a hubcap which was found in the luggage carrier. P. W. 42 is the important witness who deposes to these facts and to the crucial evidence which is to the effect that the specimen finger prints of the accused tallied with the finger prints that were found on the rear view mirror and on the hubcap. Mr. P. W. 42 is the important witness who deposes to these facts and to the crucial evidence which is to the effect that the specimen finger prints of the accused tallied with the finger prints that were found on the rear view mirror and on the hubcap. Mr. Patil submitted that the earlier evidence establishes that the accused hired the taxi, that they travelled in the taxi and that after a certain point of time that night, they were the only occupants of that taxi, which was being driven by A2 and he relies on the evidence to which we have referred, which indicates that A1 had even borrowed a can of diesel which was obviously required due to shortage of fuel and of the fact that one of the tyres had got punctured and he submits that in this background, the finding of the finger prints will conclusively establish that it was the three accused and no other persons who were in possession of that vehicle on that night. The learned Advocate has relied on the fact that had khaleel been driving the taxi, the finger prints on the rear view mirror would have been his and similarly, if Khaleel had changed the wheel and thereafter left the hubcap in the luggage carrier being the driver, that again the finger prints would have been his and the fact that the finger prints turned out to be that of the accused, establishes beyond all doubt that it was the accused alone who were performing these functions in the car and not the driver Khaleel. The inference which the learned advocate asked the Court to draw is that the accused started out with the driver, that the driver was absent at all times later that night, while the accused were still in possession of the car and that nobody other than the accused could have been responsible for the disappearance of the driver which in this case was because of the fact that he was murdered. ( 6 ) AS far as the conduct of the accused is concerned, Mr. Patil seeks to place strong reliance on the fact that they were absconding for almost two weeks until they were apprehended at a small town in Tamil Nadu by the name of Muthugoundanauru on 1-3-1992. Mr. ( 6 ) AS far as the conduct of the accused is concerned, Mr. Patil seeks to place strong reliance on the fact that they were absconding for almost two weeks until they were apprehended at a small town in Tamil Nadu by the name of Muthugoundanauru on 1-3-1992. Mr. Patil submits that the accused have not given any explanation for their absconding after 14-2-1992 until they were arrested except for a mere denial and a statement that they had been arrested from their residences and he submits that in this background, the fact that they were absconding must be construed as a guilty circumstance against them. In addition to this, strong reliance is placed on the recovery of the Citizen watch which has been established to belong to the deceased and we have the evidence of P. W. 22 and the other supporting witnesses to the effect that this recovery along with the belt was at the instance of accused 1. At this stage, Mr. Patil relied heavily on the medical evidence for purposes of establishing the cause of death and he pointed out that Khaleel was a young man aged about 28 years and that the post-mortem examination indicated that there were serious injuries in and around the area of the neck which unmistakably disclose a case of strangulation. The belt therefore, assumes considerable importance because, the opinion of the relevant witnesses is to the effect that it was with this particular belt, that the deceased had been strangulated. Also, Mr. Patil has relied on the fact that the recovery of the watch at the instance of accused 1 unmistakably indicates that accused 1 was not only connected with the murder, but also with the act of removing the watch and keeping it for himself. Coupled with this, Mr. Patil relies on the fact that an injury was found on accused 1 and the age of the injury as indicated by the Doctor coincides with the time of the incident. There are other minor pieces of evidence such as the dentist-P. W. 13 who has very clearly stated that Khaleel was his patient and that the clip on his tooth had been put by him. We also have the evidence of the two tailors P. Ws. 27 and 39 who have stitched the shirt and the pant which were found on the deceased Khaleel. ( 7 ) MR. We also have the evidence of the two tailors P. Ws. 27 and 39 who have stitched the shirt and the pant which were found on the deceased Khaleel. ( 7 ) MR. Patil thereafter takes us to the most important evidence in the case, namely the identification parade which was conducted by the Tahsildar P. W. 45, Prabhakar Sharma on 5-3-1992. The crucial witnesses 9, 10, 18, 37 and 42 have identified all the three accused in this parade. Mr. Patil relies on certain significant facts, the first of them being that the parade has been conducted in keeping with the requisite norms by an independent authority, namely the Tahsildar, that he has taken the precaution on each occasion to observe the ratio of 1:10 insofar as one accused was made to stand with as many as 10 other dummies and each of the witnesses was required to pick out the accused from among 11 persons and Mr. Patil relies on the fact that the memo indicates that all the witnesses have identified all the accused without making a single mistake. Learned advocate submits that this is the most crucial and the most significant evidence in the case which establishes to the full satisfaction of the Court that these were the very persons who had engaged the taxi, who had been found in the taxi, and who were responsible for the commission of the crime on that night. Lastly, Mr. Patil has relied on the evidence of the P. S. I. , p. W. 46, for purposes of piecing together the various evidences as also in order to indicate that it was at the instance of the accused that the recoveries were made, but more importantly that the accused pointed out the various spots, particularly the place where the dead body had been thrown. Summing up, Mr. Patil contended that there is no manner of doubt whatsover on the basis of this material, that the accused and they alone were the persons who have committed the offences and in this background, he was critical of the judgment under appeal wherein the learned Trial Judge has upheld a number of infirmities which Mr. Patil submits are minor and are of no consequence. Patil submits are minor and are of no consequence. In conclusion, the learned Additional State Public prosecutor submitted that the judgment has resulted in a miscarriage of justice and that it is liable to be set aside and the accused ought to be convicted. ( 8 ) EARLIER we had occasion to complement the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the excellent manner in which he had presented his case, but we need to record that equally rich compliments are required to be bestowed on Mr. Pavin, learned Advocate, who represents the accused. In the face of what seemingly appears to be a difficult case and a heavy record, the respondent's learned Advocate has very patiently taken us, meticulously through every significant aspect of the matter which requires to be highlighted from the point of view of the accused. He submitted that even though prima facie, this appears to be a open and shut case, that the Court ought to take careful note of the fact that this is an appeal against acquittal and that it is well-settled law that where the Trial Court, which has had the benefit of observing the witnesses and examining the evidence at first hand, records valid, cogent and convincing reasons for the decision that it has arrived at, that merely because another view is possible, that it is not permissible to disturb that judgment. We accept the correctness of this proposition and it is in the light of this postion that we have re-examined the record. Mr. Pavin has attacked the investigation on a variety of grounds, the first of them being that he points out that if one were to meticulously check each of the circumstances, that there are a number of serious flaws which have come out and on the basis of which a very serious doubt arises with regard to the adverse conclusions which the prosecution has asked the Court to draw. Without disputing the fact that undoubtedly the taxi was engaged on 14-2-1992, that somebody did in fact murder the driver and throw his body tied with a stone in the water and that the taxi was thereafter found abandoned in Madikeri, Mr. Pavin submits that the Court will have to ascertain as to whether the crucial circumstances which the prosecution relies on have been individually proved before going into the aspect of examining whether they form a chain. Pavin submits that the Court will have to ascertain as to whether the crucial circumstances which the prosecution relies on have been individually proved before going into the aspect of examining whether they form a chain. To this extent, the learned Advocate is right because if he can demolish even a few of the crucial links, the law of circumstantial evidence, which requires that a complete and unbroken link has to be established, would come to his assistance. ( 9 ) COMING to the initial part of the case, Mr. Pavin points out that the taxi driver-P. W. 18, who claims to identify the three accused as the persons who engaged the taxi, obviously did not know them before the incident. The prosecution has relied on the fact that he had identified the accused in the parade on 5-3-1992. Similarly, the wine shop owner, who claims to have seen the three accused in the company of the deceased, had admitted in the cross-examination that he was busy in his shop, that he was attending to his customers, that the accused has spent a short time there, but more importantly, he had not paid attention to what was happening on the road. Mr. Pavin submitted that it is quite obvious in this background, that the police have merely picked up the owner of this shop for purposes of establishing a link, whereas a careful scrutiny of this evidence will indicate that he could not have either identified or seen the accused or seen who was standing near the taxi on that night. Mr. Pavin has sought to also point out that places such as these where liquor is sold are swarming with a large number of casual customers and that the three accused and Khaleel were neither regulars nor persons who had been there prior to that date and that therefore, it is too far-fetched to expect that they could have been identified. He has strongly attacked the evidence of the forest Guards, because he submits that this evidence is downright false insofar as they categorically stated that they made an entry in their logbook and for some strange reasons, the logbook has not been produced. Mr. Pavin submitted that the non-production must lead to an adverse inference against the prosecution under Section 114 of the Evidence Act. ( 10 ) AS regards the borrowing of the diesel, it is Mr. Mr. Pavin submitted that the non-production must lead to an adverse inference against the prosecution under Section 114 of the Evidence Act. ( 10 ) AS regards the borrowing of the diesel, it is Mr. Pavin' ssubmission that this circumstance is an innocuous one insofar as it cannot incriminate accused 1 if he is supposed to have borrowed a can of diesel from somebody on a particular night unless there is other evidence to connect him with the crime. As regards the two persons who deposed about A3 having purchased the rope on that night, Mr. Pavin has levelled the same criticism insofar as he contends that this was a casual visit of a stranger to a small way side shop and admittedly, a number of days have passed before the accused were even arrested and that it is therefore, impossible for the prosecution to expect the court to accept that these persons in a dimly lit shop, would remember an insignificant incident like this, that too so much later. ( 11 ) THE strongest attack that has been put forward by Mr. Pavin is with regard to the most fundamental part of the entire prosecution case, namely the aspect of identification. It is true as pointed out by the learned Advocate that howsoever gruesome and unfortunate the incident may have been, and howsoever much it may appear that these accused were connected with the crimes, that it is the identification which will ultimately establish whether it was they or some other persons who were responsible for what happened. In this regard, Mr. Pavin points out that there are some serious lacunae in the holding of the identification parade, the first of them being that the Tahsildar has not indicated in the memo as to whether he took the precaution of selecting dummies of more or less the same age and physical characteristics to which the accused belonged. If this was not done, it would not at all have been difficult to pick out the accused persons even on a random basis. More importantly, Mr. If this was not done, it would not at all have been difficult to pick out the accused persons even on a random basis. More importantly, Mr. Pavin relies on the fact that even though the tahsildar seems to indicate in his evidence that the accused were not shown to the identifying witnesses prior to the parade, he has drawn our repeated attention to witness after witness, who has admitted in cross-examination that when they were called to the jail for identification on 5-3-1992, that they had been shown the accused and that this was prior to the holding of the parade. Mr. Pavin submitted that the entire purpose of holding an identification parade is totally frustrated if the witnesses are shown the accused and having regard to the fact that witness after witness has admitted that the accused were shown to them prior to the identification, the learned Advocate submitted that the Court will have to reject this evidence in toto. We have carefully scrutinised the entire head of evidence relating to identification and we have pointed out earlier that this is basic and fundamental as far as the present case is concerned, because it is only the identification which establishes that these were the persons responsible for the crime. In the light of the infirmities in the holding of the parade and in the light of the clear-cut admissions on the part of the identifying witnesses, we have no option except to uphold the contentions raised by Mr. Pavin on behalf of the respondents that the entire process of identification in this case is rendered not only nugatory, but totally and completely worthless. The law prescribes very serious safeguards as far as the identification is concerned, and if these safeguards are transgressed, then that evidence cannot be relied upon. This is a murder trial and the all important question is as to whether these particular accused can be awarded the severe punishment which the law prescribes for such a grave offence and the crucial and most important connecting factor, namely identification, if it is found to be suspect and of no consequence, then it would be impossible to hold that the crime has been committed by these accused. ( 12 ) AS far as the recovery of the watch is concerned, Mr. ( 12 ) AS far as the recovery of the watch is concerned, Mr. Pavin submitted that undoubtedly it was a Citizen watch, but he again points out that there are several infirmities with regard to the manner in which the recovery has been effected. We have scrutinised the evidence in this regard and we have taken note of what the learned Advocate submitted, namely the fact that there is nothing unusual abuout a Citizen watch with a gold strap and that such watches are also available in the market and are used by several other persons and in this background, he contended that the consequences of being found in possession of property which belonged to the deceased cannot be fastened to accused 1. Similarly, he submitted that there is a serious dispute with regard to whether the belt in question was a plastic belt or a cloth belt and we do find that there is considerable substance in this objection because, the prosecution appears to have made a total mess of this part of the evidence. We however, need to point out that the objections canvassed with regard to the recovery of the watch are not of any consequence, but again, this one circumstance alone would not be sufficient for purposes of recording a conviction. ( 13 ) ON the point of abscondence, Mr. Pavin points out that the Circle Inspector who is alleged to have proceeded all the way to tamil Nadu and arrested the accused, is unable to produce any documentary evidence in support of that fact and we do find it extremely strange when he states that even though he was in another State that he did not take the assistance of the local police for arresting the accused which is an absolute must and more importantly, that the accused were not produced before any Court at that place before being brought back to Madikeri. There is something strange about this part of the evidence which renders it unacceptable. If that evidence goes, there is nothing else to indicate that the accused were absconding and that they have not been arrested by the police earlier. ( 14 ) DEALING with another extremely strong piece of evidence, namely the finger prints, Mr. Pavin was critical of the claim made by the police that finger prints were found on the rear view mirror and on the hubcap. ( 14 ) DEALING with another extremely strong piece of evidence, namely the finger prints, Mr. Pavin was critical of the claim made by the police that finger prints were found on the rear view mirror and on the hubcap. He vehemently submitted that these are not highly polished surfaces and that it is impossible, particularly if the hubcap was black and not shining, for any identifiable finger prints to have been found on those items. We are unable to accept this objection because, the Finger Print expert has stated that the finger prints were in fact impressed on these items. However, the learned Advocate has raised a second objection which is of considerable consequence, namely the fact that though it is a requirement of law that under Rule 1535 of the Karnataka Police Manual, that when the specimen finger prints are obtained, that a proper inventory must be drawn up in order to establish the identity of the specimen finger prints and that this must be done in the presence of the two witnesses. In the present case, the prosecution seems to have taken a short-cut insofar as neither has such inventory been produced nor have the witnesses been examined and consequently, the learned Advocate submitted that there is no means of knowing as to whether the specimen finger prints in fact belong to the accused or not. This is a very serious error on the part of the prosecution and leaves an absolute void in the prosecution case because, the duty of establishing that the specimen finger prints were those of the accused is a primary duty cast on the prosecution. In the light of this error, the evidence relating to the finger print identification will also have to be discarded. ( 15 ) ON a total consideration of the record therefore, we do find that whereas the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor had catalogued the whole series of circumstances which did prima facie appear to indicate that there was no doubt whatsoever about the linkage of the accused with the crime, that on a deeper and more correct examination of the record, it will be found that there are certain very basic and fundamental infirmities in the prosecution case which are destructive to the extent that it would be impossible to hold that the offence has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. We also uphold the submission canvassed by the respondent's learned Advocate, namely that where the learned Trial Judge has not overlooked any part of the evidence, where he has examined the evidence carefully and arrived at a set of findings and conclusions which cannot be categorised as being either wrong, perverse or illegal, that it would be impermissible for this Court to interfere with that judgment in an appeal against acquittal. ( 16 ) HAVING regard to the aforesaid situation both on facts and in law, in our considered view, this is a case in which on the present record, it would be impossible to sustain a conviction. The judgment and order of the Trial Court are accordingly upheld. The appeal filed by the State fails and stands dismissed. --- *** --- .