JUDGMENT 1. - The instant appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and order dated 3rd March 1986 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No. 31/85 whereby the learned trial Court acquitted respondent Jaswant Singh from the charges levelled against him under Section 302 and 201 IPC. 2. As per facts of the case, an FIR was registered at Police Station Pilibanga, District Sri Ganganagar on 15th March 1985 on the basis of statement of PW2 Mehar Chand in which complainant Mehar Chand reported to the police that his brother Sadhu Singh is missing since 16th February 1985. The said report was recorded in the "ROJNAMCHA" by the Police Station Sangria on 21st February 1985, which is evident from Ex.P/2A. 3. The dead body of Late Sadhu Singh was found at canal LNW Longowala Head at Moga No.2 on 25th February 1985. The police had immediately drawn a report under Section 174 Cr.PC. and inspected the site and got the post mortem of the dead body of Sadhu Singh conducted. During the course of completing necessary formalities by the police, PW2 Mehar Chand stated before the police that Jaswant Singh has committed the murder of his brother Sadhu Singh and he has made extra-judicial confession before him. Upon his statement made on 15th March 1985, a case was registered against Jaswant Singh at Police Station Pilibanga vide FIR Ex.P/10 on 16th March 1985. In the investigation, an agreement concerning Sadhu Singh was produced and as per information given by the accused, place of occurrence was searched out and recovery of wine bottle was made and after completion of investigation, police filed challan against Jaswant Singh in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh from where the case was committed to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Hanumangarh. In the investigation, no direct evidence came on record but challan was filed on the basis of circumstantial evidence of last seen and extra-judicial confession so also recovery of articles. 4. The learned trial Court after framing charge under Section 302 and 201 IPC, proceeded to conduct trial. In the trial, statements of as many as 9 prosecution witnesses were recorded viz., PW1 Jasraj, PW2 Mehar Chand, PW3 Lai Singh, PW4 Ramkishan, PW5 Hansraj, PW6 Pyari, PW7 Trilokchand, PW8 Jawahar Singh and PW9 Tarachand (SHO Investigating Officer). 4. The learned trial Court after framing charge under Section 302 and 201 IPC, proceeded to conduct trial. In the trial, statements of as many as 9 prosecution witnesses were recorded viz., PW1 Jasraj, PW2 Mehar Chand, PW3 Lai Singh, PW4 Ramkishan, PW5 Hansraj, PW6 Pyari, PW7 Trilokchand, PW8 Jawahar Singh and PW9 Tarachand (SHO Investigating Officer). During trial, 23 documents were exhibited and thereafter statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused was recorded. Further, in defence, two defence witnesses viz., DW1 Govind Singh and DW2 Mehar Singh were examined. 5. After completion of adducing evidence by both the parties, the case was finally heard and the learned trial Court acquitted respondent Jaswant Singh from the charge levelled against him while giving benefit of doubt vide judgment dated 3rd March 1986. In this appeal, the State Government has i challenged the validity of the judgment rendered by learned trial Court on the ground that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt by way of adducing reliable and trustworthy evidence to prove the fact of last seen together, recovery of articles, motive and extra-judicial confession but the learned trial Court gave its finding contrary to the evidence on record, ; therefore, as per Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of State, the judgment under challenge deserves to be quashed. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that in this case upon perusal of statements of Mehar Chand (PW2) and Pyari (PW6), it is abundantly clear that both these witnesses in clear words deposed that deceased Sadhu Singh was called by accused Jaswant Singh and they both went together but Sadhu Singh did not return whereas respondent Jaswant Singh came back in the village. Upon asking by Smt. Pyari about Sadhu Singh next day, respondent Jaswant Singh replied that Sadhu Singh had gone to Sadul Sahar, meaning thereby, there is evidence on record to prove the fact of last seen together. Upon asking by Smt. Pyari about Sadhu Singh next day, respondent Jaswant Singh replied that Sadhu Singh had gone to Sadul Sahar, meaning thereby, there is evidence on record to prove the fact of last seen together. PW2 Mehar Chand has specifically stated in his statement that upon calling by Jaswant Singh, Sadhu Singh went with Jaswant Singh but did not come back and upon asking by him in the morning of next day, respondent Jaswant Singh said that deceased Sadhu Singh had gone to-Sadul Sahar but Sadhu Singh did not return, therefore, report of missing was given at Police Station Sangria which is on record as Ex.P/2, therefore, when there is evidence on record to prove the last seen together, then obviously it is clear that learned trial Court has wrongly discredited the evidence of these witnesses, in this view of the matter, on the ground of last seen together, prosecution has proved its case but learned trial Court has committed a grave error while not accepting the trustworthy evidence of prosecution. 7. With regard to motive, it is argued that there was money dispute in between Sadhu Singh and respondent Jaswant Singh and an amount of money was outstanding from Sadhu Singh because deceased Sadhu Singh took loan from respondent Jaswant Singh but did not return, therefore, motive is also proved by the prosecution but learned trial Court has discredited the evidence of PW2 Mehar Chand, PW3 Lal Singh and PW6 Pyari w/o deceased Sadhu Singh although in their statements they deposed that there was dispute with regard to money, therefore, judgment is erroneous because prosecution has proved its case with regard to motive to commit offence under Section 302 & 201 IPC. 8. With regard to recovery of articles, it is submitted that as per statement of Investigating Officer, as per information given by respondent Jawant Singh to identify the place of occurrence and recovery of bottle of wine, the bottle was recovered at the instance of respondent Jaswant Singh vide Ex.P/18 and a site plan was also prepared of the place of occurrence informed by the accused and one another bottle was also recovered at the instance of the accused vide Ex.P/20, meaning thereby, cogent evidence of recovery was also adduced by the prosecution but same has not been considered properly by the trial Court. 9. 9. For extra-judicial confession of respondent Jaswant Singh, it is submitted that PW1 Jasraj, PW2 Mehar Chand, PW3 Lal Singh and PW6 Pyari have deposed in their statements that before Panchayat twice respondent Jaswant Singh made extra-judicial confession that he has murdered deceased Sadhu Singh while giving him wine at Longowala Head and threw his body in the canal and in this view of the matter, the learned trial Court was under an obligation to accept the testimony of these witnesses for extra-judicial confession but has failed to consider the reliability of these witnesses for the purpose of extra-judicial confession and has wrongly arrived at the finding that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond doubt, therefore, the judgment rendered by the trial Court for acquitting respondent Jaswant Singh from the charges levelled against him on the basis of benefit of doubt is erroneous and deserves to be quashed and respondent Jaswant Singh is liable to be punished for the offence committed by him under Section 302 & 201 IPC. 10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Jaswant Singh vehemently argued that the judgment given by the trial Court is based upon sound appreciation of evidence of prosecution so also the learned trial Court while giving finding of acquittal has held that there are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and no reliable and credible evidence has been produced on record to prove the prosecution case. Further, it is argued that admittedly there is (no ?) direct evidence on record so also challan was filed on the basis of circumstantial evidence, therefore, the learned trial Court while observing the adjudication made by the Hon'ble Apex Court that in the event of filing challan on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances is required to be proved in toto, so also it is the duty of the prosecution to adduce evidence for the purpose of completing chain of circumstances, then it is not proper to convict the accused upon such evidence because the circumstances relied upon must be established and the chain of evidence furnished by those circumstances should be so complete as not to. leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. The learned trial Court has relied upon various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and thereafter arrived at the finding that prosecution has failed to prove a case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, accused has rightly been acquitted from the charges levelled against him. It is also submitted that as per judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2009) 9 SCC 368 , State of Rajasthan v. Naresh alias Ram Naresh , the scope of appeal against acquittal is very narrow, the order of acquittal should not be lightly interfered with even if the Court believes that there is some evidence pointing finger towards the accused. The Hon'ble Apex Court has relied upon various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and gave finding that appeal against acquittal shall not be entertained in casual manner. As per verdict of Hon'ble Supreme Court, if prosecution wants to prove the fact of circumstantial evidence then the same must be proved by leading evidence which is reliable and trustworthy so also pinpoints and conclusively proves the guilt of the accused. In this view of the matter, the finding arrived at by the trial' Court with regard to extra-judicial confession of last seen together, motive and recovery does not require any interference because learned trial Court has assessed the evidentiary value of prosecution witnesses upon which the prosecution has relied upon. 11. Before we proceed to examine the merits of the acquittal appeal, it would be appropriate to refer to the principles which would govern and regulate the hearing of appeal by the High Court against an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. In the case of Ajit Savant Majagavi v. State of Karnataka, reported in AIR 1997 SC 3255 , the Supreme Court has laid down the principles which read as under 1. In an appeal against an order of acquittal, the High Court possesses all the powers, and nothing less than the powers it possesses while hearing an appeal against an order of conviction. 2. The High Court has the power to reconsider the whole issue, reappraise the evidence and come to its own conclusion and findings in place of the findings recorded by trial Court, if the said findings are against the weight of the evidence on record, or in other words, perverse. 3. 2. The High Court has the power to reconsider the whole issue, reappraise the evidence and come to its own conclusion and findings in place of the findings recorded by trial Court, if the said findings are against the weight of the evidence on record, or in other words, perverse. 3. Before reversing the finding of acquittal, the High Court has to consider each ground on which the order of acquittal was based and to record its own reasons for not accepting those grounds, not subscribing to the view expressed by the trial Court that the accused is entitled to acquittal. 4. In reversing the finding of acquittal, the High Court has to keep in view the fact that the presumption of innocence is still available in favour of the accused and the same stands fortified and strengthened by the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the trial Court. 5. If the High Court, on a fresh scrutiny and reappraisal of the evidence and other material on record, is of the opinion that there is another view which can be reasonably taken, then the view which favours the accused should be adopted. 6. The High Court has also to keep in mind that the trial court had the advantage of looking at the demeanour of witnesses and observing their conduct in the Court, especially in the witness box. 7. The High Court has also to keep in mind that even at that stage, the accused was entitled to benefit of doubt. The doubt should be such as a reasonable person would honestly and conscientiously entenam as to the guilt of the accused. 12. It is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that in an acquittal appeal if other view is possible then also appellate court cannot substitute its own view by reversing the finding of acquittal into conviction unless the findings of the trial Court are perverse, contrary to the material on record, palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. (See : Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat, (1996) 9 SCC 225 . 13. In Anok Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1992 SC 598 , the Supreme Court has held that in an appeal against acquittal, the High Court should attach greater weight to appreciation of evidence by the trial Judge who had the occasion to watch the demeanour of the witnesses. 14. 13. In Anok Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1992 SC 598 , the Supreme Court has held that in an appeal against acquittal, the High Court should attach greater weight to appreciation of evidence by the trial Judge who had the occasion to watch the demeanour of the witnesses. 14. We have considered the rival submissions made by both the parties. Admittedly, deceased Sadhu Singh was missing since 16th February 1985 but report of missing for the first time to the police was made by Mehar Chand on 21st February 1985, which is evident from 'ROJNAMCHA' Ex.P/2A. In the said information, it was informed in the writing of Mehar Chand (PW3) that his real brother Sadhu Singh and his uncle's son-Jaswant Singh went together for domestic work to Hanumangarh Junction and Jaswant Singh came back in the evening of next day but his brother did not return and further it is stated that deceased Sadhu Singh was seen at bus-stand but till today he is missing, meaning thereby, no allegation was levelled by PW2 Mehar Chand in Ex.P/2A against Jaswant Singh when first time gave information to the police with regard to missing of deceased Sadhu Singh. In this case, to prove the fact of last seen together, there are three witnesses; viz. PW2 Mehar Chand, PW3 Lal Singh and PW6 Pyari and while considering their statements, the learned trial Court gave finding that there are major contradictions with regard to the fact that respondent Jaswant Singh and deceased Sadhu Singh were last seen together and on the basis of major contradictions in the statements of close relatives of the deceased, the learned trial Court has not relied upon the testimony of these witnesses for the purpose of accepting a ground of last seen together. We have also perused the statements of these witnesses and in our opinion there are major contradictions so also in Ex.P/2A no such version was given by PW2 Mehar Chand with regard to the fact of Jaswant Singh calling deceased Sadhu Singh to come with him. In this view of the matter, the finding of the learned trial Court with regard to last seen together does not require any interference. 15. For the purpose of ascertaining the ground of motive, we have assessed the prosecution evidence which is on record. In this view of the matter, the finding of the learned trial Court with regard to last seen together does not require any interference. 15. For the purpose of ascertaining the ground of motive, we have assessed the prosecution evidence which is on record. It is worthwhile to observe that in the first application filed by PW2 Mehar Chand, no fact was asserted by him with regard to any money transaction between respondent Jaswant Singh and deceased Sadhu Singh. Further, a bare perusal of statement of PW2 Mehar Singh, it will reveal that it neither bears any date nor anything has been said where Panchayat took place, therefore, upon assessment of the statement of PW2 Mehar Chand for the purpose of ascertaining the fact where Panchayat was conducted twice, we are of the opinion that nothing has been said with regard to the alleged place where Panchayat took place in which an extra-judicial confession was made by respondent Jaswant Singh. More so, no independent witness of Panchayat has been produced on record although the statement of Sarpanch of the area PW8 Jawahar Singh was recorded but he has not deposed in his statement that anything was said by respondent Jaswant Singh with regard to committing murder of Sadhu Singh. We have perused the statement of Sarpanch Jawahar Singh (PW8). Nothing has been said by Sarpanch with regard to extra-judicial confession or holding any Panchayat by him. When no specific allegation or assertion has been made by PW8 Jawahar Singh, who is an independent witness, then the learned trial Court has rightly discredited the statement of PW2 Mehar Chand, PW6 Pyari and PW4 Ramkishan, therefore, the finding arrived at by the trial Court with regard to not accepting the evidence of motive, does not require any interference. 16. In this case, the Public Prosecutor has argued that at the instance of accused memo of site plan of the place of occurrence was made so also bottles of wine were recovered as per his confessional statement but in our opinion when extra-judicial confession is not proved then there is no question of accepting the contention with regard to connecting respondent Jaswant Singh with the crime on the basis of so called recovery. 17. We have perused the statements of all the prosecution witnesses. 17. We have perused the statements of all the prosecution witnesses. One thing is very important which is required to be observed that none of the witness has given any date of incident and the date on which the Panchayat is said to be held in which alleged extra-judicial confession was made by respondent Jaswant Singh. In this view of the matter, the finding of the learned trial Court of acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt does not require any interference. 18. We are also in full agreement with the learned counsel for the respondent that as per verdict of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2009) 9 SCC 368 , if prosecution wants to prove the fact the same must be proved by leading evidence which is reliable and trustworthy, which pinpoints and conclusively proves the guilt of the accused. While applying the above principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, we have assessed the evidence on record and we find that evidence led by the prosecution is not trustworthy so also chain of circumstances is totally missing in this case, therefore, no error has been committed by the trial Court while acquitting respondent Jaswant Singh from offence under Section 302 & 201 IPC.Hence, this appeal is dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******