Judgment :- K.N. Basha, J. The State has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 28.09.2004 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.IV, Chennai, in S.C.No.254 of 2004 acquitting the sole accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC. 2. The occurrence in this case is shown to have taken place on 012. 2003 at 12.45 mid night at the poop deck of the fifth deck in the ship, called, M.V. Nancowry owned by Andaman and Nicobar Administration. 3. The charge against the accused is that on 012. 2003 at 11.00 a.m, while he went to fourth deck for dumping garbage found that the deceased, who was frequently traveling in the ship, was smoking, which was objected by the accused and for that, the deceased abused him in a filthy language and pushed him down, due to that enmity the accused took a knife from the kitchen and cut the deceased on his left ear, while the deceased was sleeping with one lady, namely, Sewell Carina Elizabeth on the same night and the deceased died and thereby the accused is liable to be punished for the offence under Section 302 IPC. 4. The prosecution in order to prove its case, examined P.Ws.1 to 16, filed Exs.P.1 to P.16 besides marking M.Os.1 to 21. 5. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell, as unfolded during the course of trial through the evidence adduced by the prosecution, is as follows : (i) The accused was working as third Cook in the ship known as M.V. Nancowry. The deceased, Cohen Yoel, was one of the frequent passengers and he was an Isralian. P.W.1 was the Captain of the ship. P.W.2 was the Assistant Director of Andaman-Nicobar Shipping Services. P.W.3 was the Seaman of the ship. P.W.4 was the Seamans Assistant of the ship. P.W.5 was working as Staff Nurse in the ship. P.W.6 was the co-worker of the accused as he was also working as a Cook in the same ship. (ii) As per the evidence of P.W.1, the ship/M.V. Nancowry left from Port Blair Port on 012. 2003 to Chennai Port. P.W.3, who was on fire patrol duty on 012. 2003 at about 1.00 a.m., while going rounds, went to fifth deck and at that time, he heard the hue and cry of a lady seeking "Help, Help". (ii) As per the evidence of P.W.1, the ship/M.V. Nancowry left from Port Blair Port on 012. 2003 to Chennai Port. P.W.3, who was on fire patrol duty on 012. 2003 at about 1.00 a.m., while going rounds, went to fifth deck and at that time, he heard the hue and cry of a lady seeking "Help, Help". P.W.3 was not able to hear the exact sound and only with the movement of the lips through the glass door, he understood that the lady was seeking for help. The lady was found at Poop deck area of fifth deck. Thereafter, P.W.3 immediately informed the Duty Officer through walkie-talkie and the Duty Officer told him that he would be sending two duty officers and accordingly, the officers, one Deepak Sarkar and P.W.4 came to the spot of P.W.3. Thereafter, all the three proceeded towards the scene, namely, poop deck and at that time, they were said to have seen the accused coming down from fourth deck to third deck. At the scene P.Ws.3, 4 and one Deepak Sarkar, found a foreign lady and on her thigh, the injured, deceased, was lying and there was a pool of blood in the scene. The said Deepak Sarkar informed the Duty Officer. P.W.4 went and informed the staff Nurse, P.W.5. Even before P.W.4 gave the message about the injured to P.W.5, the Staff Nurse, she was informed by the accused to the effect that one person was lying with injuries in the ship and asked her to go and attend. Thereafter, P.W.5 and others went to the scene. (iii) P.W.6, a co-worker/another cook, working along with the accused stated that the accused was residing in the same room along with him and on 012. 2003 at 10.00 p.m., the accused came to the room and after lighting the Cigarette, he left the room and on the next day morning at 6.30 a.m., he found the accused was sleeping. (iv) The Doctor, P.W.12, who was working as the Medical Officer in the ship, received the information about the occurrence on 012. 2003 at 1.15 a.m. He rushed to the hospital inside the ship. But no one was there and at 1.25 a.m., the injured was brought to the hospital. On examination, the Doctor found that the injured already died. (iv) The Doctor, P.W.12, who was working as the Medical Officer in the ship, received the information about the occurrence on 012. 2003 at 1.15 a.m. He rushed to the hospital inside the ship. But no one was there and at 1.25 a.m., the injured was brought to the hospital. On examination, the Doctor found that the injured already died. (v) P.W.1, the Captain of the ship, who has already advised the other duty officers to take the injured to the hospital also in the meantime, rushed to the hospital and he was informed by the Doctor, P.W.12 that the injured, namely, Cohel Yoel, a foreign passenger with ticket No.31102, first class birth No.763, was brought dead to the hospital. It is stated by P.W.1 that the deceased was an Isralian. P.W.1 also found another lady passenger, namely, Sewell Carina Elizabeth with bloodstains on her cloths and that lady was from England. The Doctor, P.W.12, informed P.W.1 that the deceased appeared to have died due to cut injury on the backside of the neck and also due to profuse bleeding and asphyxia. Thereafter, P.W.1 informed about the occurrence to P.W.2, Assistant Director, Andaman-Nicobar Islands Administration Shipping Services, Chennai. Ex.P.1 is the log book, in which, P.W.1 has stated the details about the occurrence, which was signed by the Captain, Medical Officer and Welfare Officer. Ex.P.2 is the message sent by P.W.1 to the Assistant Director. (vi) P.W.16, Inspector of Police attached to M-1 Harbour Police Station, received the message about the occurrence through the Deputy Commissioner, Flower Bazaar Circle sent by the Deputy Director, Andaman-Nicobar Islands Shipping Corporation, and entered the same in the General Diary. The message sent by the Deputy Director, Andaman-Nicobar islands Administration Shipping Corporation, dated 012. 2003 is marked as Ex.P.3. It was informed in that message to the Deputy Commissioner, Law and Order, B-2, Flower Bazaar Circle, Chennai, that the occurrence took place "On Board" on 012. 2003 at 01.30 hours. It is also mentioned that the reason for the death as per the Medical Officers report is cardio respiratory arrest due to severe bleeding lacerated injury on the neck near left ear. The details of the deceased passenger were also mentioned in that communication and it is also mentioned that the vessel (ship) was scheduled to reach at Chennai Port on or about 12.30 hours on 012. The details of the deceased passenger were also mentioned in that communication and it is also mentioned that the vessel (ship) was scheduled to reach at Chennai Port on or about 12.30 hours on 012. 2003 and requested the Deputy Commissioner to register the case. P.W.16, on receipt of such information, made arrangements to summon the photographer, Forensic Assistant, Finger Print Expert, Sniffer Dog, etc. on 012. 2003. The ship reached the Chennai Port at Central Berth on 012. 2003 at 5.00 p.m. (vii) P.W.16 received the report from P.W.1 and registered the case, on return to the police station, in Crime No.67 of 2003 for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Ex.P.14 is the Express First Information Report and he sent the same to the higher police officials and to the Court. He went to the scene of occurrence and prepared the Observation Mahazar, Ex.P.11, and the Rough Sketch, Ex.P.15 in the presence of P.W.13 and another. He took photographs through the photographer. He also recovered the bloodstained khaki colour pant, M.O.13, bloodstained green colour T-Shirt, M.O.14, bloodstained green colour underwear, M.O.15, as produced by one Sewell Carina Elizabeth. P.W.16 also recovered M.O.5, rubber sheet, M.O.6, bloodstained bet spread, M.O.7, bloodstained chappel, M.O.8, water bottle, M.O.9, Nizam-Jam bottle, M.O.10, Mango drink tin, M.O.11, ever-silver plate and M.O.12, kitchen knife, from the scene of occurrence. He held inquest on the dead body. Ex.P.16 is the inquest report. During inquest, he examined P.W.1, one Deepak Sarkar, Shangli, Senthil Kumar, Asingh Alisha, Sewell Carina Elizabeth, P.W.13, Selvaraj and others and recorded their statements. He sent the body for post-mortem. (viii) The Doctor, P.W.11, conducted post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased on 12. 2003 at 2.15 p.m. and found the following injuries on the deceased : Injuries : An oblique gaping chop wound 12 X 2 X 6 cms on left temporo-occipital region of scalp. The depth of the wound is 6 cms at the centre of the wound and gradually shallow towards both ends. The upper end of the wound is 0.5 cm above upper end of the root of ear lobe. The lower end of the wound is 1 cm left lateral to midline of nape of neck. The margins of the wound are clean cut. The upper edge of the wound is beveled. The lower edge of the wound is overhanging. The upper end of the wound is 0.5 cm above upper end of the root of ear lobe. The lower end of the wound is 1 cm left lateral to midline of nape of neck. The margins of the wound are clean cut. The upper edge of the wound is beveled. The lower edge of the wound is overhanging. The underlying base of the mastoid process of left temporal bone and the lower part of left side of occipital bone are found cut fractured exposing mastoid air cells and the outer surface of durameter covering the lower part of left cerebella hemisphere. The completely cut left mastoid process across its base exposing mastoid air cells and multiple fragmented chip of lower part of left side of occipital bone 2.8 X 2.5 cms are adherent to overhanging scalp tissue of lower edge of the wound. On the medial part of the wound on the left side of the nape of neck, subcutaneous soft tissues are found cut. On reflection of scalp, tissue of the scalp pale and present on either of the margins of the wound. On removal of Calvarium, durameter is intact and diffuse subarachnoid haemorrhage present on left cerebella hemisphere. Hyoid bone and other Laryngeal cartilages are intact. Trachea and Larynx: Empty; Subcutaneous soft tissues of the neck are pale; Heart: Normal in size, chambers are empty; Lungs: Normal in size c/s pale and dry; Stomach: contained 130 ml of yellowish white thick partly digested food material with discernible cooked rice particles. No definite smell. Mucosa pale; Liver, Spleen and Kidneys: Normal in size c/s pale; Small Intestines: Contained brown chyme; Large Intestines: contained formed faecal matter; Bladder: contained 40 ml of clear urine; Brain: Normal in size c/s pale." The Doctor, P.W.11, opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to cut injury in head. Ex.P.10 is the Post-Mortem Certificate. (ix) In continuation of his investigation, P.W.16 examined the Doctor, P.W.11, who has conducted post-mortem, and thereafter handed over the body to the Deputy Director, Andaman-Nicobar Islands Shipping Administration, for sending the same to Israel. Thereafter, he examined the other witnesses on 112. 2003 and on the same day at 6.00 a.m., he arrested the accused at the ship, M.V. Nancowry from his room bearing No.308. Thereafter, he examined the other witnesses on 112. 2003 and on the same day at 6.00 a.m., he arrested the accused at the ship, M.V. Nancowry from his room bearing No.308. In pursuance of the admissible portion of his confession under Ex.P.7, P.W.16 recovered M.O.1, knife, M.O.2, Jeans pant, M.O.3, shirt and M.O.4, mat. Thereafter, the accused was remanded to judicial custody. After examining the remaining witnesses and receiving the chemical examination reports, Exs.P.4 and 5 and the Serologist report, Ex.P.6, and after completing the investigation, P.W.16 filed the charge sheet against the accused on 05.09.2004 for the offence under Section 302 IPC. 6. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in respect of incriminating circumstances appearing against him through the evidence adduced by the prosecution, he has come forward with the version of total denial and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case. 7. On consideration of the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial Judge has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused and acquitted the accused by assigning various reasons. 8. Mr. N.R. Elango, learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the learned trial Judge has committed serious error of law in acquitting the accused in spite of incriminating materials available on record implicating the accused. It is submitted that though there is no eye-witness to the occurrence, the prosecution has produced certain clinching circumstances against the accused. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that the last seen theory was spoken to by P.Ws.3, 4 and 5 implicating the accused alone responsible for causing the death of the deceased. It is submitted that the accused, after the occurrence, went and informed P.W.5, the Staff Nurse, attached to the hospital of the ship to the effect that a passenger was lying with injuries at the fifth deck of the ship and asked her to give treatment and also further requested her not to disclose that he had informed her about the same to anyone and the said conduct of the accused clearly shows his guilty mind. It is further contended that the recovered articles M.O.1, bloodstained knife, M.O.2, bloodstained pant and M.O.3, bloodstained shirt contained A-Group of blood which is the blood group of the deceased and as such that is also one of the incriminating circumstance put forward by the prosecution against the accused. It is submitted that there are clinching and incriminating circumstances available on record as put forward by the prosecution which would complete the chain of circumstances leading to the one and only inference of the guilt of the accused and as such the learned trial Judge has committed error of law in brushing aside those circumstances without assigning valid reasons. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused contended that the learned trial Judge has assigned valid reasons and those reasons are based on the materials available on record. It is contended that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment of acquittal. The learned counsel would contend that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the motive and there are several missing links in the chain of circumstances put forward by the prosecution and the chain is not at all completed. It is contended that P.W.1, Captain of the ship, was said to have recorded statements from the witnesses, who were working in the ship and based on those statements he has signed the log book, Ex.P.1, containing the sequence of events about the occurrence. But the said statements recorded by P.W.1 were not produced before the Court and not marked as exhibits and as such the prosecution has suppressed those documents and has not come forward with the true version. It is submitted that one of the material witnesses, namely, one Sewell Carina Elizabeth, who was found with the body of the deceased and who was said to have been sleeping along with the deceased at the time of occurrence, has not been examined by the prosecution and as such the learned trial Judge has rightly drawn adverse inference against the prosecution version. The learned counsel would further contend that the last seen theory said to have been spoken by P.Ws.3, 4 and 5 is unbelievable and unacceptable as they have not stated so during their examination by P.W.1 and also not disclosed about the same to anyone till they were examined by the police. The learned counsel would further contend that the last seen theory said to have been spoken by P.Ws.3, 4 and 5 is unbelievable and unacceptable as they have not stated so during their examination by P.W.1 and also not disclosed about the same to anyone till they were examined by the police. It is contended that the alleged arrest and recovery are also unbelievable and unreliable, as the mahazar witness, P.W.10, has stated that he cannot state anything about the alleged confession given by the accused. It is submitted that the above said infirmities and inconsistencies were pointed out by the learned trial Judge and the learned trial Judge has assigned valid and categorical reasons for acquitting the accused and as such there is no ground made out by the prosecution to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal. 10. We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions put forward by either side and also thoroughly scrutinized the materials available on record and perused the impugned judgment of acquittal. 11. This is a case of circumstantial evidence. The prosecution heavily placed reliance on two incriminating circumstances, namely, the last seen theory said to have been spoken by P.Ws.3 to 5 and the alleged recoveries of M.O.1, knife and bloodstained cloths from the accused which are said to have tallied with the blood group of the deceased. At the outset, we are constrained to state that the learned trial Judge has assigned clear and categorical reasons based on the materials available on record for acquitting the accused. 12. Before proceeding to consider the reasons assigned by the learned trial Judge, it is relevant to refer the settled principle of law laid down by the Honble Apex Court in respect of power of the appellate court in interfering in the judgment of acquittal and in respect of the reliability of the circumstantial evidence. 13. The Honble Apex Court in Satbir Singh V. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1977 SC 1294 has held as follows : ".... As a practical proposition, in an appeal against acquittal, it is always necessary that the reasons given by the trial Court for recording an acquittal should be examined by the High Court. 13. The Honble Apex Court in Satbir Singh V. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1977 SC 1294 has held as follows : ".... As a practical proposition, in an appeal against acquittal, it is always necessary that the reasons given by the trial Court for recording an acquittal should be examined by the High Court. If the conclusions of the trial Court are not based upon any evidence of they are such as no reasonable body of men, properly instructed in law, can reach, on the evidence, or they are so palpably wrong as to shock the sense of justice, the High Court will be justified in taking a contrary view by giving its own reasons. It is not enough that it is just possible for the High Court to take a contrary view. While interfering with acquittal the judgment of the High Court should demonstrate clearly the unworthiness of the conclusions of the trial Court having regard to all the relevant evidence in record." 14. In yet another decision in State of Karnataka Vs. K. Gopalakrishna reported in 2005 (9) SCC 291 the Honble Apex Court has held as follows : "17. .... If on the basis of the same evidence, two views are reasonably possible, and the view favouring the accused is accepted by the court below, that is sufficient for upholding the order of acquittal. However, if the appellate court comes to the conclusion that the findings of the court below are wholly unreasonable or perverse and not based on the evidence on record, or suffer from serious illegality including ignorance or misreading of evidence on record, the appellate court will be justified in setting aside such an order of acquittal." 15. The Hon’ble Apex Court has reiterated that the following tests have to be satisfied in a case rests upon circumstantial evidence in a latest decision in Krishnan V. State represented by Inspector of Police reported in 2008 (4) Supreme 25 . The Honble Apex Court has held as follows : “This Court in a series of decisions has consistently held that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests :- I. The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; ii. Those circumstances should be of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; iii. Those circumstances should be of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; iii. 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; and iv. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. (See Gambhir V. State of Maharashtra AIR 1982 SC 1157 ." 16. The learned trial Judge has assigned the following reasons for acquitting the accused : (i) The statements said to have been recorded by P.W.1, the Captain of the ship, from the witnesses including P.Ws.3 to 6 were not produced before the Court by the Investigating Officer and as such the origin of the occurrence itself is highly doubtful. (ii) P.Ws.1, and 3 to 6 have not raised any suspicion against the accused till their examination by the police. (iii) There is absolutely no materials produced by the prosecution to show any enmity between the accused and the deceased prior to the occurrence and as such the prosecution failed to prove the motive against the accused. (iv) The non-examination of Sewell Carina Elizabeth, who was lastly seen with the deceased at the scene of occurrence, is fatal to the prosecution case. (v) The arrest and recovery from the accused is also not proved by the prosecution by adducing any acceptable evidence. The Prosecution has not adduced any evidence to show that the confession of the accused given in Hindi was translated in English and the same was recorded by the Inspector. The blood group of the accused was not ascertained by the Investigating Officer by taking blood from the accused and without that process, it cannot be stated that the bloodstains said to have been found in M.Os.2 and 3, shirt and pant, tallied with the blood group of the deceased. 17. We have carefully scrutinized the above said reasons assigned by the learned trial Judge from the materials available on record through the evidence adduced by the prosecution. 18. 17. We have carefully scrutinized the above said reasons assigned by the learned trial Judge from the materials available on record through the evidence adduced by the prosecution. 18. As far as the first and foremost reason assigned by the learned trial Judge, namely, the suppression of the statements recorded by P.W.1, Captain of the ship is concerned, a perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 clearly shows that P.W.1 has recorded the statements from the witnesses including P.Ws.3, 4, 5 and 6. It is admitted by P.W.16, Investigating Officer, in his cross-examination that P.W.1 stated in his report that he has already examined the witnesses and recorded their statements, but the same were not recovered and produced before the Court. Therefore, this serious infirmity in the prosecution case throws considerable doubt about the genesis and origin of the occurrence. 11. The second reason assigned by the learned trial Judge, namely, P.Ws.1 and 3 to 6 have not raised any suspicion against the accused till they have been examined by the police, is also based on relevant circumstances. P.W.3 has admitted in his cross-examination that he has not even stated to P.W.1, Captain, during his examination in respect of seeing the accused at or about the time of occurrence. P.W.3 further admitted in his cross-examination that neither he was examined by the Investigating Officer, who enquired in the ship on 012. 2003, nor he himself informed anything about the occurrence. Therefore, we are also of the view that the evidence of P.W.3 is unreliable and untrustworthy. 12. P.W.4 another witness, examined by the prosecution to speak about the last seen theory has also admitted in his cross-examination that while he was examined by P.W.1, Captain of the ship, on 012. 2003, he has not stated anything about seeing the accused. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.4 does not inspire our confidence. 13. P.W.5, the Staff Nurse of the ship, claimed that the accused informed her about a person lying with injuries and asked her to attend the injured and further requested her not to disclose that he has informed about the injured to her to anyone. But P.W.5 has categorically admitted in her cross-examination that she was not examined by P.W.1, Captain of the ship, and till her examination by the police on 112. 2003, she has not stated anything about seeing the accused to anyone. But P.W.5 has categorically admitted in her cross-examination that she was not examined by P.W.1, Captain of the ship, and till her examination by the police on 112. 2003, she has not stated anything about seeing the accused to anyone. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that it is most unsafe and hazardous to place reliance on her evidence. 14. Yet another witness, P.W.6, has not come forward with any clinching circumstance. He is the room-mate of the accused in the ship, but he has simply stated that the accused came to the room at 10.00 p.m. and after lighting the Cigarette left the room and he alleged to have seen the accused only on the next day morning at 6.30 a.m. sleeping in the room. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the learned trial Judge has rightly rejected the evidence of the above said witnesses. 20.1. The next reason assigned by the learned trial Judge for acquitting the accused is that the prosecution has failed to establish the motive against the accused. It is needless to state that in a case of circumstantial evidence, motive assumes importance. It is also equally well settled that if there are other clinching and incriminating circumstances available on record, then the motive becomes immaterial. As we have already pointed, the main circumstance relied on by the prosecution, namely, the last seen theory is not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and as such proving the motive is very much essential in this case. But the undisputed fact remains that there is not even an iota of material available on record to show any motive against the accused. 20.2. The Honble Apex Court has held in Sakharam V. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1992 SC 758 that, "Absence of motive may not be relevant in a case where the evidence is overwhelming but it is a plus point for the accused in a case where the evidence against him is only circumstantial." 21. Yet another vital infirmity pointed out by the learned trial Judge is the non-examination of Sewell Carina Elizabeth, who was lastly seen with the deceased. Yet another vital infirmity pointed out by the learned trial Judge is the non-examination of Sewell Carina Elizabeth, who was lastly seen with the deceased. A perusal of the materials available on record makes it crystal clear that as per the admitted case of the prosecution, soon after the witnesses, namely, P.Ws.1 and 3 to 5 reached the scene, they found the deceased was lying with injuries on the thigh of the said Sewell Carina Elizabeth. But the prosecution has withheld such material witness without assigning any valid reasons. It is pertinent to be noted that P.W.1, Captain of the ship, stated that the cloths of the said Sewell Carina Elizabeth were also found to be stained with blood and further stated that she informed him that she was sleeping with the deceased at the time of occurrence. It is also relevant to note that P.W.16, the Inspector of Police, categorically admitted in his cross-examination that the deceased was seen lastly alive only by the said Sewell Carina Elizabeth and as a matter of fact, P.W.16 examined Sewell Carina Elizabeth and recorded her statement. But she was not examined by the prosecution before the Court. Therefore, the learned trial Judge has rightly drawn adverse inference against the prosecution for non-examination of the said vital and material witness, Sewell Carina Elizabeth. 22. The last but not the least circumstance put forward by the prosecution, namely, the alleged arrest and recovery, was also disbelieved by the learned trial Judge by assigning valid reasons. The prosecution has chosen to examine P.W.10 for the alleged recording of the admissible portion of confession and recovery of M.O.1, knife, and other bloodstained cloths. It is to be noted that P.W.10 is a taxi driver at Chennai Port. P.W.10 has categorically admitted in his cross-examination that he was not aware about the confession given by the accused in Hindi. P.W.10 was also not able to give identification about the room from where the recoveries were made. Yet another disturbing feature is that Ex.P.9, namely, the alleged recovery mahazar, does not disclose from where M.Os.2 and 3, cloths, were recovered in pursuance of the confession of the accused. P.W.10 was also not able to give identification about the room from where the recoveries were made. Yet another disturbing feature is that Ex.P.9, namely, the alleged recovery mahazar, does not disclose from where M.Os.2 and 3, cloths, were recovered in pursuance of the confession of the accused. Added to all these infirmities, it is pertinent to be noted that P.W.16, Investigating Officer, has categorically admitted that he has not taken any steps to ascertain the blood group of the accused and as such the prosecution cannot place reliance on the alleged recoveries of bloodstained cloths to the effect that the blood group found on the said cloths is that of the blood group of the deceased. 23. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered view that the findings of the court below cannot be stated to be wholly unreasonable or perverse or the findings suffer from any serious infirmity or the learned trial Judge misread the evidence warranting interference of this Court in the impugned judgment of acquittal and as such we are constrained to dismiss the appeal and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits.