Judgment N.Pandey, J. 1. This is a revision against a judgment of acquittal dated 17.5.1993, passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gopalganj, in Sessions Trial No. 30 of 1989, which was registered for the offences under Sections 302/34 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution, in short, was that in the night between 19/20th of August, 1982 while the informant was on the roof of his house along with other family members, heard cry of Sonia Devi (PW-6). When he flashed torch, he noticed three of the accused persons, namely, Ramesh Rai, Hadish Mian and Hare Ram Chaudhur sitting by the side of chimney, It is alleged that these accused persons were carrying blood stained Bhujali. Iddediately after flashing of the torch, these accused persons jumped on the ground and fled away. Thereafter the informant went towards west of the roof to call his brother (deceased Yogendra Thakur) and his nephew (deceased Mahamaya Thakur). When they did not reply, the informant flashed his torch towards the Bathan and identified eight accused persons, carrying weapons. But noticing that the informant had seen them, they fled away. It is further claimed that witnesses also arrived at the place of occurrence. The intimation with regard to the occurrence was sent to the Police through theChowkidar. 3. The defence of the accused persons is complete denial of the allegations. Their further case was that they were implicated because of enmity. In fact, the manner of occurrence and alleged identification of the accused persons was concocted and improbable. According to them, the murder in this case took place at a different place and in a different manner. However, no witness was examined on behalf of the defence. 4. The prosecution in this case examined altogether nine witnesses to prove the charges. PWs-1 and 2 are the co-villagers, who had come at the place of occurrence of Hulla, PW-3 (Bharduli Thakur) is the informant whereas PW-4 (Rajendra Thakur) and PW-5 (Rama Shankar Thakur) are his full brothers. 5. In this case admittedly there was no eye witness of the murder. Therefore, the case of the prosecution rests entirely on circumstantial evidence. The trial Court has accepted that dead bodies of Yogendra Thakur and Mahamaya Thakur were found in a Palani (hut). The identity of the place of occurrence was also established. 5. In this case admittedly there was no eye witness of the murder. Therefore, the case of the prosecution rests entirely on circumstantial evidence. The trial Court has accepted that dead bodies of Yogendra Thakur and Mahamaya Thakur were found in a Palani (hut). The identity of the place of occurrence was also established. But according to him, none of the requirements to prove the guilt of the accused persons in a case of circumstantial evidence could be fulfilled. Of course the Court has found that informant had enmity with one Sant Gyaneshwar, one of the associates of the accused persons. But to satisfactory evidence was produced on record to show that these accused persons had committed the murder at the instance of Sant Gyaneshwar. 6. Apart from what has been noticed above, the identification of the accused persons was also disbelieved because as would appear from paragraph Nos. 41, 42 and 43 of the judgment that the torch in question was not produced either by the police or before the Court. Admittedly the occurrence took place in a dark night, the main basis of the case of the informant was that in the light of torch he could identify the three accused persons on the roof and remaining accused persons near Bathan. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the informant/petitioner however, submitted that presence of the three accased persons with a blood stained Bhujali on the roof of the house was strong circumstance to show that they having committed the murder of Yogendra Thakur and Mahamaya Thakur, have climbed the roof to commit the murder of informant and other members. He however, contended that all the witnesses had stated before the Court that it was because of pre-plan of the notorious criminal of the area, called Sant Gyaneshwar, the accused persons committed such murder. He further contended that a bare reference to the findings recorded by the Court below at paragraph Nos. 53 and 54 it would appear that even the Investigating Officer had found blood drops on the roof near a place where the cover of Bhujali was found. Apart from the roof, even on the railings of the roof finger marks with blood were found. 8. It was contended that in presence of the evidence of PWs 3, 4, 5,. 53 and 54 it would appear that even the Investigating Officer had found blood drops on the roof near a place where the cover of Bhujali was found. Apart from the roof, even on the railings of the roof finger marks with blood were found. 8. It was contended that in presence of the evidence of PWs 3, 4, 5,. and 6 that accused persons were seen in the light of the torch, the case of the prosecution could not have been disbelieved simply because such a torch was not seized nor was produced before the Court. He contended that the Court below should have appreciated that at the initial stage itself while recording his fard-beyan, the informant had disclosed before the police that the accused persons were identified in the light of torch. Therefore, the ratio of the case relied upon by the trial Court are not applicable to the facts of the present case. Because in those cases means of identification were disclosed after recording of the First Information Report. He next contended that the chain of evidence which the prosecution had narrated before the police and the Court was quite sufficient to prove that Yogendra Thakur and Mahamaya Thakur were murdered at the hands of these accused persons. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties while referring to different paragraphs of the judgment, pointed out that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the murder in question was committed by these accused persons. He also pointed out different decisions relied upon by the Court to show that in a case of this nature, unless means of identification are produced before the Court, the identification of the accused persons can not be established. 10. He next contended that from the evidence brought on the record, it has been established that no explanation was furnished by the Investigating Officer and the prosecution why blood- stained cover or drops were not seized by the police. Therefore, the Court below has rightly come to the conclusion that the story of blood drops and blood marks appears to be embellishment, which had taken place to improve the prosecution story. That apart, the absence of such a story m the statement of other witnesses, particularly the informant further weakens the story regarding presence of blood etc. Therefore, the Court below has rightly come to the conclusion that the story of blood drops and blood marks appears to be embellishment, which had taken place to improve the prosecution story. That apart, the absence of such a story m the statement of other witnesses, particularly the informant further weakens the story regarding presence of blood etc. He next contended that the prosecution has also failed to establish the motive of the accused persons behind such murder. The case of the prosecution was that the accused persons had committed murder at the instance of Sant Gyaneshwar. No evidence whatsoever was led to show that these accused persons had any concern with said Sant Gyaneshwar. Therefore, on the basis of such a far-fetched story, in a case of such circumstantial nature, it would not be in the interest of justice to convict the accused persons. 11. From the findings recorded by the trial Court, there is no doubt that dead bodies of two deceased were found in the Palani near Bathan. This has also been found that accused persons were on inimical terms with the informant. The prosecution witnesses have no doubt supported the version of the informant before the Court. But admittedly in this case there was no eye witness to the occurrence had taken place in a dark night and the only means of identification of the accused persons was the torch light of the informant. But unfortunately although statement was made in the fardbeyan, but the prosecution failed to produce such torch either before the police or the Court. 12. Therefore, the prosecution case was fully dependant upon appreciation of circumstantial evidence. According to the Court below and rightly so, none of the circumstances, as enumerated by the Apex Court in the case of Mahmood V/s. State of U.P., AIR 1976 SC 69 , was proved so as to connect the accused persons with the alleged murder. The story of blood on the top of the roof and railing also has not been proved. Because no attempt was made bv the Investigating Officer to seize such blood nor the informant had disclosed this fact before the police. 13. The story of blood on the top of the roof and railing also has not been proved. Because no attempt was made bv the Investigating Officer to seize such blood nor the informant had disclosed this fact before the police. 13. Apart from what has been noticed above, I am conscious about various decisions of the Apex Court including that AIR 1962 SC 1788 K. Chinnaswamy Reddy V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh and anothers and AIR 1968 SC 707 ; Mahendra Pratap Singh V/s. Sarju Singh and anothers, wherein, in has been held that in a revision against acquittal, no interference should be made unless and until there is a glaring defect of procedure, such as that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the case or the Court had shut out some material evidence, which was admissible or attempted to take into account evidence which was not admissible or had overlooked some evidence. 14. Therefore, in the background of the facts of this case and looking to all the circumstances, which have been brought to my notice, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. Accordingly, I have no option but to dismiss this revision petition. It is dismissed accordingly.