R. D. SHUKLA, J. ( 1 ) APPEAL is directed against the judgement and order dated 12-5-89 of the IVth Addl. Sessions Judge, Indore passed in S. T. No. 282/85 whereby accused-respondents have been acquitted of the offences punishable u/ss. 364, 302 and 201/34 IPC for having committed abduction for murder and murder of Jayasingh @ Pinki on the evening of 18-8-85 and for causing disappearance of evidence for screening the offender by throwing the dead body in the forest of Manpur. ( 2 ) IT is not in dispute that Jayasingh @ Pinki was daughter of one Jaisingh (PW 1) and P. W. 23 Krishnasingh. Madhulika (P. W. 4) and Jitendrasingh (P. W. 8) are sister and brother of Jayasingh. Jaya @ Pinki was a student of B. Sc. Pt. I and was studying in Holkar Science College, Indore. She was aged 17 to 18 years at the time of her death, her birth being of 7th Dec. 1967 (Ex. P/55 ). ( 3 ) ACCUSED Manoj Gupta was studying in Class XI in New Look School. Earlier to it, both were studying in the same school. Accused Ramdeen was the driver of accused Manoj at the time of incident. P. W. 1 Jaisingh and Telurar (father of accused Manoj) are neighbours. It is alleged accused had intimacy with Jaya @ Pinki (indirectly it is also suggested that probably they had illicit relations as such Jaya @ Pinki became pregnant ). On the date of incident accused and Jaya were seen talking something privately by the side of the house. Thereafter Jaya @ Pinki left the house with a bag and dressed up with Kurti, Pajama and Dupatta. It was a festival of Ganesh Chaturthi as such her mother Krishna Singh had applied Mehdi and Mahavar on her feet. Jorawarsingh (PW. 18) who was a servant in the house of Jaisingh heard the sound of starting of motor-car in the house of accused. ( 4 ) IT is alleged that both the accused i. e. Manoj and Ramdeen met her (Jaya) on the way. They took her in the car in the jungle of Manpur. She was strangulated and the body was thrown in jungle. ( 5 ) AS Jaya did not return in the night a search was made. Accused Manoj and the relations of Jaisingh participated in the search. They took her in the car in the jungle of Manpur. She was strangulated and the body was thrown in jungle. ( 5 ) AS Jaya did not return in the night a search was made. Accused Manoj and the relations of Jaisingh participated in the search. Jaisingh inquired about Jaya from Manoj who denied about having any knowledge of her. It is alleged that his conduct was abnormal. He was up-set. His look was indicating as if he has consumed liquor as his eyes were red. Jaya could not be traced, as such a report regarding her 'gumshudgi' was made by Jaisingh on 19-9-85 vide Rojnamcha No. 2212 vide Ex. P/1. Her marks of identification - white complexion, thin body, height 4'10" was also disclosed. It was also informed that while leaving the house she was wearing white Pajama, orange printed Kurti and Chunni (Dupatta ). She was having a brown-coloured purse and wearing a wristwatch. ( 6 ) SINCE Jaya could not be traced an offence under Ss. 368, 366, IPC vide Crime No. 554/85 (Ex. P/50) was registered by M. L. Kalme, S. I. , Police Station-MIG Colony, Indore. 6-A. On 20th Sept. 85 Punja (PW. 3) Chowkidar received information about dead body of a woman lying in the jungle near village Kali Kiray. This information was passed to him by Forest-guard Rajaram (PW. 20 ). He (Punja), therefore lodged a report in Police station Manpur vide Ex. P/6. The same was recorded by P. W. 12 Harnamsingh who registered a Marg No. 44/85. PW. 25 Charansingh - Police Inspector, visited the spot on 21-9-85 at about 8. 30 AM. It was in the forest of Kali Kiray. The dead-body was of a woman who was wearing Kurti, Salwar and was having a Dupatta. She was wearing Pajeb in her feet. There was a big stone kept over her mouth. She had marks of Mehdi and Mahawar on her hands and feet. As such, Shri Charansingh prepared inquest Report Ex. P/7 and sent the body for post-mortem examination with a letter of request Ex. P/11. ( 7 ) ON 21-9-85 Dr. Prakash Chandwaskar (PW. 6) conducted autopsy on the body, and found as follows :-Body of an average built lady, foul smelling coming out from her body. Body was highly decomposed. Maggots were present all over the body. There was distension of the abdomen. Eyes were swollen. P/11. ( 7 ) ON 21-9-85 Dr. Prakash Chandwaskar (PW. 6) conducted autopsy on the body, and found as follows :-Body of an average built lady, foul smelling coming out from her body. Body was highly decomposed. Maggots were present all over the body. There was distension of the abdomen. Eyes were swollen. Greenish discolouration of the body on both the iliac fossae. There were no hair on the scalp. Skin of the body could be peeled off easily. Blister formation all over the body. After dissection and internal examination Dr. Chandwaskar could not express any opinion as to the cause and duration of death and prepared report Ex. P/12. ( 8 ) THE information regarding the dead body of woman found in the jungle was received by Station House Officer, M. I. G. , Indore. He, therefore, made a request for further post-mortem examination of dead body. The same was conducted on 22-9-85 by Dr. Ashok Sharma (PW. 19) and Dr. Hireshchandra (PW. 22 ). Dr. Sharma on detailed examination found ligature marks over the neck at the level of thyroid cartilage having a width of 2. 5 cm x 5 cm below the chin and mid-line at full extension of the neck. Gradually the mark travelled horizontally round the neck with gradual reduction in the width. The echymosis were also visible. The hyoid bone was separated from the thyroid cartilage. He also examined Salwar, Kurti, under wear and bra of the dead-body and opined that the death was due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation by the ligature and homicidal in nature. The ligature used was soft. The death was within 3 to 5 days, Dr. Sharma (PW. 19) prepared Report Ex. P/37. He also examined vaginal smear and clothes as well and prepared Report Ex. P/35. The report of examination of articles was also prepared vide Ex. P/38. Dr. Sharma prepared diagrams Exs. P/39, P/40 and P/41 and got the photographs taken Exs. P/42 to 49. The Post-mortem Report was countersigned by Dr. Hireshchandra as well. ( 9 ) JAISINGH (PW. 1), father of Jaya @ Pinki, identified the body and the clothes of to be of Jaya. The identification of articles was also conducted during investigation. P/38. Dr. Sharma prepared diagrams Exs. P/39, P/40 and P/41 and got the photographs taken Exs. P/42 to 49. The Post-mortem Report was countersigned by Dr. Hireshchandra as well. ( 9 ) JAISINGH (PW. 1), father of Jaya @ Pinki, identified the body and the clothes of to be of Jaya. The identification of articles was also conducted during investigation. ( 10 ) P. W. 26 Daulatsingh Bhadoria, Inspector Police, took up the investigation of the case on 22-9-85 and arrested two accused persons Manoj Gupta and Ramdeen vide Ex. P/20. On interrogation accused Manoj gave information about sandals vide Ex. P/21. He also gave information about the clothes having been thrown in the rivulet near Umaria. Same was recorded vide Ex. P/22. Thereafter he gave information about car vide Ex. P/23. ( 11 ) ACCUSED Ramdeen gave information about hair band vide Ex. 25. Manoj gave information about the shop wherefrom petrol was taken vide Ex. P/52. One pair of ladies sandal, as pointed out by Manoj was seized vide Ex. P/28. It was in a drum fixed on the side of the road. Ramdeen pointed hair-pin below one stone. The same was seized vide Ex. P/29. One jerry-can was seized from one Sharma Shop-keeper vide Ex. P/26. Clothes wrapped in paper were seized from the rivulet near Umariya vide Ex. P/30. Car bearing No. MBN 9554 was seized from the house of Manoj vide Ex. P/33. Permit of the Car Ex. D/27 and driving Licence Ex. P/53 was also seized. ( 12 ) ACCUSED gave information about the photographs of Jaya vide Ex. P/24. Accused Ramdeen pointed out the shop wherefrom Jerry-can was taken. Thereafter Panchanama Ex. P/32 was prepared. Manoj produced photographs Exs. P/14 and 15, the same were seized vide Ex. P/31. ( 13 ) ACCORDING to prosecution story Jitendra Dwivedi (PW. 9) had intercepted the car driven by Ramdeen and occupied by Manoj Gupta and Jaya @ Pinki. Challan papers Ex. P/16 and challan-book Ex. P/20 were seized vide Ex. P/34. ( 14 ) DURING investigation the School Certificates of accused Manoj and Jaya were also obtained by the Police-officer. Request for identification of articles was made to Naib-Tahsildar on 5-10-1985. Naksha was got prepared from Patwari on 6-10-1985. Challan papers Ex. P/16 and challan-book Ex. P/20 were seized vide Ex. P/34. ( 14 ) DURING investigation the School Certificates of accused Manoj and Jaya were also obtained by the Police-officer. Request for identification of articles was made to Naib-Tahsildar on 5-10-1985. Naksha was got prepared from Patwari on 6-10-1985. ( 15 ) THE property seized during investigation i. e. pair of Chappal, bra, under-wear, shirt, hair-pin, pair of silver Pajeb, wrist watch, handkerchief, iron bangle and purse were sent for identification. P. W. 21 Sudhir Tare conducted test identification of articles vide Ex. D/25. Jayasingh and Smt. Krishnasingh, father and mother of deceased Jaya @ Pinki identified those articles. ( 16 ) THE dead body of deceased was identified mainly on the basis of clothes and the white spot on the body. Jerry-can seized at the instance of accused persons was also got identified. Shri K. R. Rathore (P. W. 5) and conducted test - identification. P. W. 10 Rajendra Sharma correctly identified the jerry-can Ex. P/10. ( 17 ) AFTER investigation both accused-appellants were prosecuted. Both of them have denied the guilt and pleaded false implication. ( 18 ) LEARNED trial Judge has acquitted both of them as above, Hence this appeal. ( 19 ) THE contention of learned counsel for appellant State is that learned trial Judge has not correctly appreciated the circumstantial evidence adduced against accused-respondent. Shri Desai, learned counsel for State has relied mainly on the following circumstances.- (I) The intimate relation between Manoj and Jaya @ Pinki (deceased ).-It has been submitted that the learned trial Judge has wrongly rejected the circumstance in the absence of negative proof holding it to be that it has not been proved that Jaya had no relation with any other person. (II) The evidence of last seen.- (a) deceased Jaya @ Pinki and accused were talking in the corner of the house. Jaya @ Pinki left the house after dressing her with Kurti, Pajama, Dupatta, wrist-watch and silver Pajeb and a purse in hand. (b) Jorawarsingh, servant of Jaisingh heard the sound of starting of motor-car in the house of accused. (c) Jaya @ Pinki did not return in the night. (d) accused was seen in the night with red and swollen eyes indicating as if he has consumed liquor. (b) Jorawarsingh, servant of Jaisingh heard the sound of starting of motor-car in the house of accused. (c) Jaya @ Pinki did not return in the night. (d) accused was seen in the night with red and swollen eyes indicating as if he has consumed liquor. Both accused persons were seen travelling in the motor-car while towards Manpur and the car was challaned for fast driving and absence of number plate, by Jitendra Dwivedi (PW. 9 ). Both the accused persons purchased petrol from the hotel of Rajendra Sharma who thereafter identified the Jerry-can seized at the instance of accused persons. (e) the dead body of woman was found in the forest of Manpur.- (i) on initial examination cause of death was not known but on second examination the cause of death was disclosed as strangulation. (ii) the dead body was identified to be of Jaya @ Pinki by her father Jaisingh and mother Smt. Krishnasingh mainly on the basis of clothes and alleged white spot on the thigh. ( 20 ) AS against it learned counsel for the accused-respondents has submitted that learned trial Judge has disbelieved the circumstantial evidence after close scrutiny and detailed analysis of each of the facts. ( 21 ) IT has further been submitted that the accused himself participated in the search of Jaya @ Pinki. In the night red and swollen eyes of accused-respondent Manoj was because of consumption of liquor. Merely because the car was started some time after Jaya @ Pinki has left the house on inference can be drawn that they left together. ( 22 ) JITENDRA Dwivedi (PW. 9) has fabricated the document as the fine-amount has neither been deposited in the treasury nor it finds place in the entry of Rojnamcha Sanha. The number of challan paper also does not tally with the copy found in the Book. ( 23 ) THE alleged identification of Jerry-can by Rajendra Sharma (PW. 10) is wholly unreliable. Rajendra Sharma and his associate did not know the accused persons from before and, therefore, in the absence of test-identification by them, the dock-identification has rightly been rejected. The number of challan paper also does not tally with the copy found in the Book. ( 23 ) THE alleged identification of Jerry-can by Rajendra Sharma (PW. 10) is wholly unreliable. Rajendra Sharma and his associate did not know the accused persons from before and, therefore, in the absence of test-identification by them, the dock-identification has rightly been rejected. ( 24 ) LASTLY it has been submitted that the dead body found in the forest of Manpur has not been proved to be Jaya @ Pinki as according to Jaysingh (father) the height of Jaya, as reported by him, was 4'10" while the height of dead body of woman found in the Manpur forest was 5'1". The fact of white spot has never been stated earlier and appliance of Mahavar is a subsequent addition and does not find place in the initial story of the prosecution and identity marks of Jaya @ Pinki disclosed by her parents. It has also been submitted that Jaya @ Pinki was unmarried and according to Hindu custom, Mahavar is generally applied by married women. ( 25 ) IT is an established principle of law that in cases of appeal against acquittal court should attach greater weight to appreciation of evidence by the trial Judge who had the occasion to watch the demeanour of witnesses. ( 26 ) EVEN if the appellate court can come to a different conclusion on close scrutiny of the evidence the finding arrived at by the trial court ought not to be interfered with if the same is probable. The finding of fact normally ought not to be disturbed unless the same is found to be perverse and based on rejection of some material evidence. The finding of fact normally ought not to be disturbed unless the same is found to be perverse and based on rejection of some material evidence. ( 27 ) ALTHOUGH the powers of the High Court to reassess the evidence and reach its own conclusion are as extensive as in appeal against the order of conviction, yet, as a rule of prudence, the High Court should always give proper weight and consideration to matters e. g. (i) the view of the trial judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; (ii) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at the trial (iii) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt, and (iv) the slowness of an appellate Court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses. If on appraisal of the evidence and on considering relevant attending circumstances it is found that two views are possible, one as held by the trial Court for acquitting the accused, and the other for convicting the accused in such a situation the rule of prudence should guide the High Court not to disturb the order of acquittal made by the trial Court. Unless the conclusions of the trial Court drawn on the evidence on record are found to be unreasonable, perverse or unsustainable, the High Court should not interfere with the order of acquittal. (AIR 1988 S. C. 1158 : 1988 Cri LJ 1154 ). ( 28 ) WE will examine each of the circumstances independently and see as to whether the finding of trial Court is probable and whether there is any preversity in the conclusions drawn by the learned trial Judge. ( 29 ) LEARNED trial Judge in paras 50 to 56 of the Judgement discussed the fact of intimacy between deceased Jaya @ Pinki and accused Manoj. Some suggestion about her intimated relation with one Balraj Patel was also given. Learned trial Judge has disbelieved the story of intimacy between accused Manoj and Jaya @ Pinki (deceased) as there is no mention of the fact Gumshudgi Report Ex. P/1. Some suggestion about her intimated relation with one Balraj Patel was also given. Learned trial Judge has disbelieved the story of intimacy between accused Manoj and Jaya @ Pinki (deceased) as there is no mention of the fact Gumshudgi Report Ex. P/1. Though we do not agree with the inference of learned trial Judge regarding the requirement of the proof that she had no intimacy with any other person but the prosecution is bound to prove the fact of intimacy and their (Manoj and Jaya) leaving together. There is absolutely no evidence to show that they left the house together. The only evidence adduced is as stated by Madhulika (PW. 4), sister of deceased and Jorawarsingh (PW. 18), servant of the father of deceased that accused and deceased were talking in a lonely place in the corner and in between the two houses. ( 30 ) IT is not in dispute, as has been stated by P. W. 1 Jayasingh, P. W. 4 Madhulika and P. W. 23 Smt. Krishnasingh that Jaya @ Pinki left the house all alone. ( 31 ) JORAWARSINGH (PW. 18) has only stated about the hearing of sound of starting of the motor-car. He has nowhere stated that he saw accused Manoj or driver Ramdeen taking the vehicle out of their house. It is only on the basis of conjecture that the fact of taking of vehicle was stated by Jorawarsingh. There is no evidence to show that Pinki was picked in the car. ( 32 ) IT has come in the evidence of Jaysingh, Madhulika Jitendrasingh Dwivedi and Smt. Krishnasingh that accused himself participated in a search of Jaya @ Pinki. This is a conduct against the normal conduct of a criminal who has participated in the ghastly crime of murder. Even if this argument of prosecution is accepted that accused was behaving that way to falsely show his innocence, but that by itself would in no way connect the accused with the crime and if the two inferences of a fact can be drawn the inference in favour of the accused will have to be drawn and, therefore, learned trial Judge was right in rejecting that part of evidence for the proof of the conduct of a participisx criminis. ( 33 ) P. W. 1 Jaysingh while making a report of Gumshudgi (Ex. ( 33 ) P. W. 1 Jaysingh while making a report of Gumshudgi (Ex. P/1), which was definitely made after he, his members of the family and accused Manoj have tried to search Jaya @ Pinki and have failed in tracing her outthere is no mention of the unusual and abnormal behaviour of Manoj Gupta. ( 34 ) EVEN otherwise the conduct stands explained as accused Manoj has admitted having consumed some liquor in the night. Under the circumstance it cannot be said that the trial Judge has committed any perversity in not accepting the conduct against the accused. ( 35 ) THE prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of Jitendra Dwivedi who allegedly saw both the accused persons and Jaya @ Pinki travelling in a car on the same night. Learned trial Judge has discussed this part of evidence in paras 77 to 86 of his judgement. ( 36 ) JITENDRA Dwivedi (P. W. 9) has stated that he was working as a Station House Officer of P. S. Rajendra Nagar Police-Station. During checking he found that a Fiat Car bearing No. MBN 9554, (admittedly, belonging to the father of accused Manoj and seized from the house of accused) was moving with a fast speed. It was not having number-plate, as such the driver was fined Rs. 5/ -. He has further stated Ramdeen was driving the vehicle. Accused Manoj and one girl who basis of photograph, later identified as Jaya @ Pinki (deceased) were sitting on the rear side of the vehicle. ( 37 ) ACCUSED Ramdeen has denied his signature on the challan papers. Copy of the original Rojnamcha Sanha and the copy of the Rojnamcha Sanha sent to Supdt. of Police was got produced in the Court. This document Ex. D/30 does not contain any such entry. No receipt of penalty was given. ( 38 ) THIS witness had admitted that he never saw the accused persons earlier. He saw them only on the date of incident. Similarly he has further admitted that he did not know the girl (alleged Jaya @ Pinki) from before. He gave the identification mark only during his statement in the Court. In his police-Statement Ex. D. 10 the description about the identification mark does not find place. We have examined the document ourselves, as it was hotly contested by both the parties. He gave the identification mark only during his statement in the Court. In his police-Statement Ex. D. 10 the description about the identification mark does not find place. We have examined the document ourselves, as it was hotly contested by both the parties. ( 39 ) THERE appears to be interpolation in the last line of Rojnamcha Sanha No. 1186. The space between the earlier six lines is much more as compared to the last lines entered therein. ( 40 ) EX. D/20-A (Carbon copy of Ex. P/16) though shows an entry of fine of Rs. 5/- with receipt No. 126/18-9-85 but there is no entry of receipt number in the original document Ex. P/16. This goes to show that there has been some subsequent interpolation in the document of recovery of fine. The original document Ex. P/16 shows Serial No. 488 - Book No. 10 and Challan No. 38. But the carbon copy of the document or challan kept with the Supdt. of Police and produced in the Court at the instance of accused persons, shows that all the three documents with serial number 488 are in the book while only one carbon copy of challan book Sr. No. 487 and two carbon copies of Sr. No. 486 are present in the book. The absence of receipt number in the original document Ex. P/16; presence of three carbon copies with the same serial number in the book creates a suspicion as to whether the challan was really done on 18-9-85. Learned trial Judge has disbelieved this document and the fact of collection of fine because of these discrepancies. The finding of learned trial Judge is not only probable but appears to be reasonable and it cannot be term to be perverse. ( 41 ) RULE 638 of Police Manual requires that the fact of receipt including the fine and balance ought to be written in the Rojnamcha Sanha. P. W. 9 Jitendra Dwivedi has admitted in para 4 that there is no mention of recovery of fine in the Rojnamcha. ( 42 ) NOT only this, the challan number 488 is in the name of two persons i. e. Ramdeen (accused-respondent No. 2) and one Gopal S/o Kanhaiyalal. This further creates suspicion about the genuineness of the document and the imposition of fine including of vehicle No. MBN 9554 done by Jitendra Dwivedi. ( 42 ) NOT only this, the challan number 488 is in the name of two persons i. e. Ramdeen (accused-respondent No. 2) and one Gopal S/o Kanhaiyalal. This further creates suspicion about the genuineness of the document and the imposition of fine including of vehicle No. MBN 9554 done by Jitendra Dwivedi. Shri Jitendra Dwivedi identified the photograph of deceased after one year "during the course of statement" in the Court, that she was the other woman occupant in the car on the date of incident. No test identification was arranged. Such identification in the dock cannot be accepted with all certainty. The purpose of this observation is that the Investigating Officer in the mistaken seal for the success of his case was prone to resort to "padding" and suppression or distortion of facts. It is in this background of suspicion that this piece of circumstantial evidence collected by him had to be evaluated. AIR 1976 SC 69 : (1976 Cri LJ 10 ). ( 43 ) SUCH identification made by Jitendra Dwivedi (PW. 9) cannot be accepted and it would be highly unsafe to base conviction on such identification. "where a witness identifies an accused who is not known to him in the Court for the first time, his evidence is absolutely valueless unless there has been a previous T. I. Parade to test his powers of observations. The idea of holding T. I. Parade under Section 9 is to test the veracity of the witness on the question of capability to identify an unknown person whom the witness may have seen only once. If no T. I. Parade is held then is will be wholly unsafe to rely on his bare testimony regarding the identification of an accused for the first time in Court. ". . . AIR 1979 SC 1127 . ( 44 ) "identification of a person by witness for first time in Court without being tested by a prior test identification parade is valueless. ". . ( AIR 1980 SC 1382 : (1980 Cri LJ 965) ( 45 ) THIS fabrication and interpolation in the document as referred above, would create suspicion in other piece of evidence collected by the prosecution and unless the same is found proved by cogent reliable and reasonably probable evidence, the same cannot be relied for basing conviction. ". . ( AIR 1980 SC 1382 : (1980 Cri LJ 965) ( 45 ) THIS fabrication and interpolation in the document as referred above, would create suspicion in other piece of evidence collected by the prosecution and unless the same is found proved by cogent reliable and reasonably probable evidence, the same cannot be relied for basing conviction. ( 46 ) THE next evidence relied on by the prosecution is the fact of purchase of petrol by two accused persons from Rajendra Sharma (PW. 10 ). Rajendra Sharma (PW. 10) has stated that on the fateful night (festival day of Ganesh Chaturthi) these two accused persons came to his shop and demanded five litres of petrol which he supplied them on price of Rs. 50/- and he supplied the petrol in a jerry-can. He further states that he identified the jerry-can (Art. 'q') in the test-identification. ( 47 ) THE fact of purchase of petrol in a jerry-can on the fateful night of Ganesh Chaturthi of 1985, does not find place in his police-statement. ( 48 ) THE presence of a vehicle at a distance also does not find place in his police-statement Ex. D/22. The test-identification of jerry-can also appears to be suspicious as there was mark of cross by red-pen on the bottom of jerry-can but this identification mark does not find place in the test identification. That appears to be a subsequent improvement. He has further admitted during cross-examination that four other jerry-cans mixed with Article 'q', were not having any paper-slip, while paper-slip was pasted on this jerry-can. This further creates doubt as to the genuineness of the identification. It appears no test-identification of two accused persons was got done from this witness. This identification in the dock would be highly unsafe to be acted upon. AIR 1979 S. C. 1127 (supra ). ( 49 ) DINESHCHANDRA (PW. 7) has corroborated the story disclosed by Rajendra Sharma (PW. 10 ). He has also stated that he has never seen the two accused-persons earlier and thereafter. He also identified them only in the Court. As observed earlier no test-identification was held and therefore, it would be highly unsafe to act upon the statement of these witnesses i. e. Dineshchandra (PW. 7) and Rajendra Sharma (PW. 10 ). ( 50 ) LEARNED trial Judge has discussed this evidence and rejected the test-identification. He also identified them only in the Court. As observed earlier no test-identification was held and therefore, it would be highly unsafe to act upon the statement of these witnesses i. e. Dineshchandra (PW. 7) and Rajendra Sharma (PW. 10 ). ( 50 ) LEARNED trial Judge has discussed this evidence and rejected the test-identification. We do not find any perversity in the conclusion and the inference drawn by the learned Trial Judge. . ( 51 ) THUS, the evidence of accused persons being last seen with deceased Jaya @ Pinki has rightly been disbelieved. As observed earlier we find no perversity in it. It must further be observed that the conclusion and inference drawn by the learned trial Judge on this aspect of circumstantial evidence is not only probable but cogent and reasonable. ( 52 ) LEARNED counsel for the State has referred to a case reported in AIR 1990 S. C. 2134 : (1990 Cri LJ 2276) Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan and AIR 1995 SC 230; Ramkumar v. State of Haryana. , in support of his contention and submitted that the appellate Court has got powers to reappreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion. We respectfully agree with the principle enunciated therein. There is no dispute about the power of reappraisal of evidence by the High Court (which we have also tried to do) but if on appraisal of evidence the conclusion and inference drawn by the trial Judge appears to be probable the same ought not to be reversed, even if the other view is possible. ( 53 ) LEARNED counsel for respondents has disputed the identification of the body as well. The body has been identified mainly on the basis of clothes. The fact of presence of Mahavar on the feet of Jaya @ Pinki does not find place in the original Gumshudgi report. However, that mark has been found on the dead body found in the Manpur Jungle. Similarly, there is no mention of white spot on the body of Jaya @ Pinki as per original report while the white spot was detected during the second post-mortem examination conducted by Dr. Ashok Sharma and Dr. Hireshchandra. ( 54 ) DR. A. K. Sharma has admitted that the height of the woman whose dead body was examined by him was 5' 1" (Ex. P/4 ). Ashok Sharma and Dr. Hireshchandra. ( 54 ) DR. A. K. Sharma has admitted that the height of the woman whose dead body was examined by him was 5' 1" (Ex. P/4 ). The photograph shows the measurement done with the help of a tape. Jaysingh has stated the height to be 4' 10". Thus, there appears to be discrepancy on the point of height, application of Mahavar and the white spot; but as the body has been identified with the help of clothes recovered, the finding of learned trial Judge as to the body being of deceased Pinki (Jaya) can reasonably be accepted. The discrepancies as referred above do create a suspicion but there does not appear to be any reason as to why the relations of Jaya @ Pinki (deceased) would identify the body to be of Jaya @ Pinki, if the same belongs to other woman. ( 55 ) THE fact of recovery of chappals and clothes at the instance of accused Manoj and hair-pin at the instance or accused Ramdeen, has been disbelieved by the learned trial Judge. The same has been discussed in paras 63 to 76 of the judgement. The recoveries had been made from an open place accessable to all. Chappals were found from a drum fitted by the side of the road. Clothes were found in the rivulet. Similarly her (Jaya's) hair-pin was also found from the open place. ( 56 ) THE witness of recovery and seizure P. W. 17 Devkaran has admitted his signature on document Ex. P/20. Memo of arrest Ex. P/21, Memo about the shop wherefrom petrol was purchased, Ex. P/23 Memo of Manoj regarding car inside the house Ex. P/24, memo of photograph of Jaya Pinki, Ex. P/25, Memo of Ramdeen about hair-pin beneath the stone and Ex. P/26 memo about jerry-can being in the garage and Ex. P/27 about the seizure. But in para 11 of his examination in-chief he has stated that all these investigations and proceedings were undertaken in the Police-Station and thereafter he along with Police-Inspector Bhadoriya proceeded for recovery and seizure of articles. At a later stage he has accepted that he has signed documents Ex. P/21 to Ex. P/32 - memoranda and seizures as above on the same day. But on perusal of the documents Exs. P/21, P/22, P/23 and Ex. At a later stage he has accepted that he has signed documents Ex. P/21 to Ex. P/32 - memoranda and seizures as above on the same day. But on perusal of the documents Exs. P/21, P/22, P/23 and Ex. P/25, it is evident that these were prepared on 22-9-85 while documents Ex. P/24 and Ex. P/26 are shown to have been prepared on 23-9-85 and document Ex. P/27 has been prepared on 24-9-85. Thus it appears that all these documents were prepared at one time and spread over on different dates. This creates a doubt as to the impartiality of investigation. The duty of investigating officer is not merely to bolster up a prosecution case with such evidence as may enable the Court to record a conviction but to bring out the real unvarnished truth. AIR 1974 SC 1822 : (1974 Cri LJ 890 ). ( 57 ) THUS, on examination of circumstances for showing the complicity of the accused in the crime we also find discrepancy in it. ( 58 ) IT is an established principle of law that for basing a conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence the chain of circumstantial evidence, should be so complete that it is not only consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused but is shown to be totally inconsistent with the innocence of the accused. If the circumstances alleged in this case are examined with this angle, we find the chain not only incomplete but broken at many places. There is no clear and cogent evidence that accused persons accompanied Jaya @ Pinki on the date of fat-ful night. The evidence of their travelling together as stated by Jitendra Dwivedi (PW. 2) is wholly unreliable. It appears the documents have been subsequently fabricated. Similarly the evidence as to the presence of these two witnesses somewhere between Indore and Forest of Manpur on the A-B. Road, as stated by Rajendra Sharma and Dinesh Chandra is also not reliable. ( 59 ) IT is also note-worthy that both of them have not stated about the presence of Jaya @ Pinki (deceased) in the car. ( 60 ) THE following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused based on circumstantial evidence can be said to be fully established : (i) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. ( 60 ) THE following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused based on circumstantial evidence can be said to be fully established : (i) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. (ii) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. (iii) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (iv) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved and; (v) there must be chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have done by the accused. AIR 1984 SC 1622 : (1984 Cri LJ 1738 ). ( 61 ) ALMOST similar view has been taken by their Lordships in other case reported in AIR 1993 SC 2641 : (1993 Cri LJ 3682) Padmanabham Vijaykumar v. State of Kerala. ( 62 ) IN view of discussion above, we do not find any perversity or even improbability in the findings and conclusion of learned trial Judge, the same appears to be cogent and reasonable and, therefore, the appeal filed by the State deserves dismissal. ( 63 ) AS a result appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Accused persons are on bail. Their bail-bonds are discharged. Appeal dismissed. .