JUDGMENT - BRAHME P.S., J.:---The State has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and order of acquittal of the respondents passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad in Sessions Trial No. 15/1994 acquitting them of the offences punishable under sections 365, 302, 201, read with section 34 of I.P.C. The respondents were tried before the Additional Sessions Judge for kidnapping one Rahul s/o Gangadhar Ranvir on 5-7-1993 and further committing his murder in furtherance of their common intention. 2. The prosecution case may be stated on the basis of report Exhibit 46 lodged by one Vinod Mamidwar (P.W. 3) on 13-7-1993 at Police Station Umarkhed and admittedly offence was registered at Crime No. 114/1993 in the Police Station. The victim Rahul as usual left house on 5-7-1993 in the morning for attending the school, but he did not return home and that is how his father Gangadhar made search for his son. Though search was made, ultimately the boy was not traced. In fact witness Pratibha (P.W. 1) who was the school teacher informed that Rahul did not attend the school from 2-7-1993 to 8-7-193. Therefore, on behalf of Gangadhar one Shankar Khillar (P.W. 2) lodged a missing report Exhibit 43 at Police Station Umarkhed on 7-7-1993. On 12-7-1993, Gangadhar received one Inland Letter contending that the person who kidnapped Rahul demanded a ransom of Rs. 50,000/-. One Vinod Mamidwar (P.W. 3) filed report Exhibit 46 on 13-7-1993 and also produced a xerox copy of that Inland Letter in that Police Station. In the mean time one Ashok Narwade the brother in-law of Gangadhar told him that Gautam Tukaram Narwade has asked him to send Gangadhar to see him as Gautam Narwade has heard both the respondents telling each other that their plan of extracting amount from the complainant i.e. Gangadhar has failed. Accordingly Gangadhar met Gautam Narawade at village Kupti and disclosed him about the talk that took place between respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2. The information was conveyed to the Police Station Officer and in pursuance of that respondents came to be arrested and brought to the Police Station. 3. Accordingly Gangadhar met Gautam Narawade at village Kupti and disclosed him about the talk that took place between respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2. The information was conveyed to the Police Station Officer and in pursuance of that respondents came to be arrested and brought to the Police Station. 3. In the course of investigation on 23-7-1993 while in the Police Station in presence of panchas Rajesh Devidas and Shiodansingh Devising both the residents alleged to have confessed that they have committed murder of Rahul and respondent No. 2 agreed to show the spot from where Rahul was kidnapped. In pursuance of that disclosure made, police taking with them, respondent No. 1 went to the place as pointed out by him, but as it was dark they could not ascertain exact spot and as such they returned back. It was on the next date in the morning the police again went out alongwith respondent No. 1 to the house of one Mohd. Ali Abdul Ajiz who happens to be his father in law and search for his house was taken and then after they did not find anything in the house respondent No. 1 took them to the side of Kalamkonda Forest near streamlet, there they found one Gamcha, Human Hair, White Half Pant and Skull and pieces of bone lying scattered on the ground. These articles were seized under panchanama. Then on 25-7-1993 the accused No. 1 made a disclosure to produce school bag of Rahul which was given to the son of Shaikh Babu Gulam Nabi resident of Rahuri. In pursuance of the statement made accused No. 1 led to the police to the house of Shaikh Babu Gulam Nabi and got produced one school bag, which came to be seized under seizure memo. The articles seized were sent to the chemical analyser for examination. The skull and pieces of bones were sent to the Professor of Anatomy for examination. After the completing the investigation charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial. 4. Respondents pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Their defence was that of denial. After the completing the investigation charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial. 4. Respondents pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Their defence was that of denial. The prosecution examined in all 14 witnesses including Gangadhar (P.W. 4), the father of victim, Gautam (P.W. 8), panch witness-Shiodansingh Chavan (P.W. 11) and Manohar Dhuldhar (P.W. 14) the Investigating Officer. The respondents were examined under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code. They have denied the prosecution evidence to the extent it was against them. Respondent No. 2 who happens to be the nephew of Gangadhar filed additional written statement Exhibit 84 in which he has stated that a false case is filed against him. That there was dispute between his father and Gangadhar over the issue of partition of ancestral property. That some 15 days prior to missing of Rahul when his grandmother was ill Gangadhar had been to their village and that time a quarrel had taken place between his father and Gangadhar and that time Mohd. Ali Abdul Ajij respondent No. 1 from their village was present. Since he helped them, Gangadhar abused him and threatened that he would see him. He also submitted that in his opinion Rahul fled away from the house with all his clothes and he is not dead. The witnesses are deposing falsely under pressure of police. He also stated that prior to the said incident Ramabai w/o Gangadhar abused him and drove him out of the house and as there was no vehicle to go back to his village, he had stayed in the lodge, as he had no other alternative. 5. Before the trial Court the prosecution led the evidence to establish the circumstances on which the prosecution wanted to place reliance. These circumstances comprised of discovery of skull, pieces of bones, human hair and Gamcha from the place in the forest in pursuance of the disclosure statement made by the respondents. 5. Before the trial Court the prosecution led the evidence to establish the circumstances on which the prosecution wanted to place reliance. These circumstances comprised of discovery of skull, pieces of bones, human hair and Gamcha from the place in the forest in pursuance of the disclosure statement made by the respondents. Since the disappearance of Rahul, respondent had stayed in the hotel and was found in a restaurant accompanied by a boy, the factum of disclosure of the talk between the respondents that Rahul was kidnapped and done to death, as heard by the witness-Gautam (P.W. 8), seizure of school bag and books and note books alleged to be belonging to victim Rahul, the report of the chemical analyser finding that human hair and also extra judicial confession alleged to have been made by respondent No. 2 to Gangadhar. The learned trial Judge found that none of the circumstances on which the reliance was placed by the prosecution was either proved or was incriminating in nature. The trial Court found that the prosecution has failed to prove that the respondents committed any offence. The prosecution also failed to prove that Rahul died homicidal death. Consequently the trial Court acquitted the respondents. This order is under challenge in this appeal. 6. We have heard Shri Mujumdar, learned A.P.P., for the appellant-State. He submitted that the trial Court has committed an error in discarding the circumstantial evidence, more particularly the finding of human hair and the skull. He submitted that the discovery of articles incriminating in the nature has been duly established by the prosecution through evidence of panch witness Shiodansingh (P.W. 11) and Gangadhar has identified all these articles seized including the school bag and books as that belonging to victim Rahul. He therefore, urged that the appeal be allowed and the respondents be convicted for the offence with which they were charged. 7. As against this Mr. Brahme, appearing for respondent No. 1 supported judgment of the trial Court. He pointed out from the material on record and reasoning given by the trial Court that the circumstances, even if found to be established are no way incriminating in nature. He submitted that evidence on which the prosecution has placed reliance, no way connects either of the respondents to the commission of the crime. 8. In this case admittedly the prosecution could not lay its hands on direct evidence. He submitted that evidence on which the prosecution has placed reliance, no way connects either of the respondents to the commission of the crime. 8. In this case admittedly the prosecution could not lay its hands on direct evidence. As such the prosecution case hinges on circumstantial evidence. When the case depends on circumstantial evidence, heavy burden is cast upon the prosecution to establish by clinching evidence in support of its case on every circumstance. As regards the appreciation of circumstantial evidence and conviction to be based on circumstantial evidence, the Apex Court, way back in the year 1976 observed in A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 917 (Chandmal and another v. State of Rajasthan)1, as under: "It is well-settled that when a case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy three tests. Firstly, the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established. Secondly, those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. Thirdly, the circumstances taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else. That is to say the circumstances should be incapable of explanation on any reasonable hypothesis save that of the accused's guilt." In first place let us see whether the prosecution has proved that the victim Rahul died homicidal death. The only evidence the prosecution could have in this regard is about the find of human skull and pieces of bones and human hair. The report of the chemical analyser in respect of examination of these articles is negative. The report Exhibit 32 shows that no blood is detected on Exhibit 1 i.e. earth and hair. The hair at Exhibit 1 is human. So far as the skull is concerned report Exhibit 33 is that the skull is damaged hence unsuitable for skull superimposition. The dead body of Rahul was not available for identification. Only the skull, pieces of bones and human hair lying in the forest of Kalamkonda were available. The bones were sent to Anatomy Department, Medical College, Nagpur. The report of Dr. M.R. Shende, Lecturer, in Anatomy Government Medical College, Nagpur is produced at Exhibit 80. On perusal of the report, it is revealed that bones belong to human being. Only the skull, pieces of bones and human hair lying in the forest of Kalamkonda were available. The bones were sent to Anatomy Department, Medical College, Nagpur. The report of Dr. M.R. Shende, Lecturer, in Anatomy Government Medical College, Nagpur is produced at Exhibit 80. On perusal of the report, it is revealed that bones belong to human being. The sex can not be opined. Nor any opinion could be given whether human being was a male or female and of what age. Therefore, mere finding of skull, bones, human hair is not sufficient to establish that the same things of victim Rahul. Therefore, the evidence in this regard cannot be even remotely show that Rahul died much less homicidal death. 9. The prosecution placed reliance on the evidence of Gangadhar that he learnt from Gautam (P.W. 8) that respondents have done to death his son Rahul, but they did not gain anything. The prosecution examined Gautam as witness. In his evidence he has candidly denied to have any disclosure to Gangadhar as to any talk that was between the respondents, much less to the effect that Rahul was done to death. There is absolutely no evidence of any nature to show that the victim Rahul was done to death. Merely on the basis of finding of skull, bones and human hair it is difficult to hold that Rahul was done to death and he died homicidal death. The trial Court rightly discussed the evidence in this regard and came to the conclusion that the evidence was not sufficient to establish that Rahul died homicidal death. 10. Much less been made of the Inland Letter alleged to have been written by respondent No. 2. In this connection the evidence of Gangadhar was led by the prosecution, but the report of the handwriting expert, was not favourable to the prosecution in the sense, the handwriting of the letter was not found to be that of respondent No. 2. Therefore, the mere finding of that Inland Letter received by Gangadhar is of no consequence. That cannot be a circumstance connecting the respondents. 11. Then the circumstance of last seen, so far as respondent No. 2 is concerned, the prosecution has led evidence of witness Rajendra (P.W. 5), S.K. Daud Mastan (P.W. 6) and Bandu (P.W. 7). Therefore, the mere finding of that Inland Letter received by Gangadhar is of no consequence. That cannot be a circumstance connecting the respondents. 11. Then the circumstance of last seen, so far as respondent No. 2 is concerned, the prosecution has led evidence of witness Rajendra (P.W. 5), S.K. Daud Mastan (P.W. 6) and Bandu (P.W. 7). These witnesses have categorically stated that the respondent No. 2 was found at Umarkhed in the morning, he had stayed in the hotel and the witness Bandu (P.W. 7) who was working as servant in the hotel has stated that a boy was with respondent No. 2. At this juncture, we may refer to the additional statement filed by respondent No. 2 in which he has candidly stated that as Gangadhar's wife drove him out of the house, he was required to stay in the hotel that night. It is again very pertinent to note that witness Bandu has not identified the boy who was with respondent No. 1, when they visited hotel in the morning. Nobody has stated that the boy who was with the respondent No. 2 was victim Rahul. In such circumstances, having regard to the explanation given by the respondent No. 2, his presence in the morning at Umarkhed and even his staying in the hotel or restaurant at night is of no consequence at all. It cannot be a circumstance incriminating in the nature. 12. Much has been made about the identification of the school bag as well as pant by Gangadhar when it was seized by the police. It is also matter of record that Gangadhar then produced two similar pants of victim Rahul as instructed by police. The trial Court has discussed the entire evidence in this regard. The identification of the half pant by Gangadhar was of no consequence when the solitary pant that was seized from the place which was accessible to every one was shown to witness Gautam. It is significant to note that Gautam was asked to bring similar pants by police after seizure of the pant. That apart so far as the school bag is concerned, it was not a discovery at the instance of either of the respondents. As the evidence stands the recovery of the school bag was in pursuance of the search of the house of relative of respondent No. 1 while respondent No. 1 was in custody. That apart so far as the school bag is concerned, it was not a discovery at the instance of either of the respondents. As the evidence stands the recovery of the school bag was in pursuance of the search of the house of relative of respondent No. 1 while respondent No. 1 was in custody. Therefore, seizure of school bag as well as half pant by itself is of no consequence and it is very difficult to say that these articles were belonging to the victim Rahul. If that is so, then mere seizure of these articles will not be sufficient to and connect the respondents to the commission of the crime. 13. So, the circumstances on which the prosecution placed reliance are found to be not sufficient to established that the victim Rahul was done to death and that was the act of the respondents. The trial Court has given reasons for discarding the circumstances and came to the conclusion that the circumstances are not established and they are not sufficient to point out the guilt of the respondents. This being the appeal against acquittal, the Apex Court has laid down the legal position in 2002(1) Supreme Court Cases 71 (Kashiram and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh)2, as under: "Though the High Court while hearing an appeal against an acquittal has powers as wide and comprehensive as in an appeal against a conviction and while exercising its appellate jurisdiction the High Court can reappraise the evidence, arrive at findings at variance with those recorded by the trial Court in its order of acquittal and arrive at its own findings, yet, the salutary principles which would guide the High Court is-if two views are reasonably possible, one supporting the acquittal and the other recording a conviction, the High Court would not interfere merely because it feels that sitting as a trial Court its view would have been one of recording a conviction. If follows as a necessary corollary that it is obligatory on the High Court while reversing an order of acquittal to consider and discuss each of the reasons given by the trial Court to acquit the accused and then to dislodge those reasons. If follows as a necessary corollary that it is obligatory on the High Court while reversing an order of acquittal to consider and discuss each of the reasons given by the trial Court to acquit the accused and then to dislodge those reasons. Failure to discharge this obligation constitutes a serious infirmity in the judgment of the High Court." In the case before hand as we have stated the finding recorded by the trial Court discarding the circumstances or circumstantial evidence are perfectly justified and we observe that the trial Court has taken a correct view on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case. 14. So far as the respondent No. 2 is concerned, though initially when the appeal was admitted, action under section 390 Criminal Procedure Code was directed to be taken, but inspite of repeated opportunities being given, the respondent No. 2 could not be arrested and this Court by order dated 26-9-2002 has stated that the proceedings against respondent No. 2 were to be closed for the time being. This Court has also further made it clear that if considered necessary further orders would be passed after hearing the appeal against respondent No. 1 on merits. As stated earlier, we have also found that so far as respondent No. 2 is concerned, there is absolutely no evidence against him. The trial Court has also found him not guilty as there was no evidence against him. We therefore close the proceedings finally as against the respondent No. 2. The Sessions Judge be informed of the same so that further action under section 390 of Criminal Procedure Code will not be taken against respondent No. 2. 14-A. We do not find any error on the part of the trial Court in recording acquittal. Bearing in mind the principles laid down by the Apex Court, we do not find that any interference is called for in the decision of trial Court. The appeal, therefore, merits no consideration. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. -----