JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA, J.) – Nobody appears for the respondents, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State is present. 2. In Government Appeal (DB) No. 50 of 1989, the State of Bihar has assailed the judgment dated 31st May of 1989, passed by the learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah in Sessions Trial No. 473 of 1986, arising out of Itarhi P.S. Case No. 13 of 1984 and has acquitted Sidhnath Singh, Dharmnath Singh @ Munna Singh, Bachai Singh, Prabhawati Devi, Brijnandan Singh, Jag Mohan Singh and Shri Nath Singh who were charged under Sections 302/34, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. The accused Fula Devi wife of accused Brija Singh @ Brijnandan Singh died during pendency of the case and proceeding against her was dropped on 28th May 1988. The surviving seven accused persons have faced the trial under Sections 302/34, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 on the charge that they have murdered Nigam Devi, daughter of P.W. 5 Ram Pratap Singh and P.W. 6 Sita Pati Devi in the night of 3/4th March, 1986 at Village Sath, P.S. – Itarhi, District – Bhojpur in furtherance of common intention. 4. Nigam Devi was married on 21.05.1985 to accused Dharmnath Singh @ Munna Singh, Son of accused Bachai Singh and she went to her matrimonial house 22.05.1985. The articles gifted were not accepted and demand of cow, watch and tape recorder was regularly made. The deceased sent a letter showing the demand and misbehaviour towards her. The informant received news through P.W. 3 Rauf Mian. The facts were verified and it was found that the accused persons have played foul by killing Nigam Devi on account of her inability to give the desired dowry articles. 5. Charge sheet was submitted, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions where charges were framed and explained to the accused. When they pleaded innocence, the trial proceeded. 6. Before the trial court, the prosecution adduced evidence of Santosh Kumar (P.W. 1), Awanish Kumar Singh (P.W. 2), Rauf Mian (P.W. 3), Ramjee Singh (P.W. 4), Ram Pratap Singh (P.W. 5), Sita Pati Devi (P.W. 6), Ramayan Singh (P.W. 7), Mahendra Ram (P.W. 8), Dr. When they pleaded innocence, the trial proceeded. 6. Before the trial court, the prosecution adduced evidence of Santosh Kumar (P.W. 1), Awanish Kumar Singh (P.W. 2), Rauf Mian (P.W. 3), Ramjee Singh (P.W. 4), Ram Pratap Singh (P.W. 5), Sita Pati Devi (P.W. 6), Ramayan Singh (P.W. 7), Mahendra Ram (P.W. 8), Dr. P.N. Rai (P.W. 9), Mansoor Alam (P.W. 10) and Anirudh Pd. Sinha (P.W. 11). The defence examined Islam Mian (D.W. 1), Ram Preet Pathak (D.W. 2), Ramkesh Singh (D.W. 3), Harihar Singh (D.W. 4), Babban Singh (D.W. 5), Jai Shankar Singh (D.W. 6), Subedar Ram (D.W. 7), Bachcha Singh (D.W. 8) and Bharat Prasad Singh (D.W. 9). Petition dated 17.03.1986 filed by Ramjee Singh is exhibited as (Ext.1), signature of Ramjee Singh and Ayodhya Chaudhary on the production list is exhibited as (Ext. 2 to 2/1), signature of Ramjee Singh on the inquest report is exhibited as (Ext. 2/2), signature of Ramjee Singh and Pashupati Paswan on the production list is exhibited as (Ext. 2/3 & 2/4), signature of Sitapati Devi on the petition dated 17.03.1986 is exhibited as (Ext. 2/5), signature of Ramain Singh on the petition dated 17.03.1986 is exhibited as (Ext. 2/6), signature of Ramain Singh on the fardbeyan exhibited as (Ext. 2/7), the post-mortem report is exhibited as (Ext. 3), the F.I.R. is exhibited as (Ext. 4), the production list is exhibited as (Ext. 5), para 56 of the case diary is exhibited as (Ext. 6), the inquest report is exhibited as (Ext. 7) and the seizure list is exhibited as (Ext. 8) were the documents which were relied upon by the prosecution. The defence exhibited a photo of deceased Nigam Devi is exhibited as (Ext. A), photo of Nigam Devi (alive) is exhibited as (Ext. B), certified copy of the judgment dated 13.09.1985 passed in GR Case No. 268 of 1982, TR No. 1213 of 1985 is exhibited as (Ext. C), certified copy of the order dated 20.12.1981 passed in Case No. 183 (M) 81, TR No. 129 of 1981 is exhibited as (Ext. D), certified copy of the order dated 24.12.1988 passed in consolidation case no. 1 of 1981-82 is exhibited as (Ext. D/1), certified copy of the order dated 27.02.1979 passed in case no. 504 (M) 77 TR. 85 of 1979 is exhibited as (Ext. D/2), certified copy of depositions Mahabir Singh recorded on 05.06.1981 is exhibited as (Ext. D), certified copy of the order dated 24.12.1988 passed in consolidation case no. 1 of 1981-82 is exhibited as (Ext. D/1), certified copy of the order dated 27.02.1979 passed in case no. 504 (M) 77 TR. 85 of 1979 is exhibited as (Ext. D/2), certified copy of depositions Mahabir Singh recorded on 05.06.1981 is exhibited as (Ext. E) were the documents which were relied upon by the prosecution. 7. Statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. The trial court after analyzing the evidence found that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge against the accused and so the order of acquittal was passed. 8. There was no witness of the occurrence. The circumstantial evidence was brought on record by the prosecution. Case basing upon the circumstantial evidence has to establish that the circumstances from which inference of guilt has sought to be drawn must be firmly established. The circumstances should be of definite tendency pointing towards the guilt of the accused. The circumstances considered inevitably will result in a chain so completed. There is no escape of conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused alone and there was no possibility that the crime has been committed by others. 9. The trial court considered the evidence of the prosecution and found it highly inadequate. No witness claimed to have seen any overt act – either in committing murder and witnessing the dead body disposing. No incriminating article was recovered by the I.O. from possession of any of the accused. The vital argument on behalf of the defence was that the alleged dead body found identified in an Ayurvedic College was not the dead body of the deceased as admitted photo of the dead body is (Ext. A) and photo of Nigam Devi (Ext. B) did not tally. 10. The trial court after threadbare analyzing of the evidence came to the conclusion that in a case basing upon the circumstantial evidence, the circumstances gathered do not make it a complete chain by which the only hypothesis can be emerged that the offence was committed by the accused persons alone. B) did not tally. 10. The trial court after threadbare analyzing of the evidence came to the conclusion that in a case basing upon the circumstantial evidence, the circumstances gathered do not make it a complete chain by which the only hypothesis can be emerged that the offence was committed by the accused persons alone. In presence of some vital gaps in the evidence of the prosecution the trial court has recorded the order of acquittal of the accused; and the order of acquittal can be interfered with if it is found that the trial Judge has failed to take into consideration admissible evidence and has taken into consideration evidence brought on record contrary to law. That is not the case here. The evidences were considered in right perspectives and the reason given by the court in acquittal of the accused is sound. 11. In view of absence of positive and cogent evidence, the trial court has ordered the acquittal of the accused and the judgment does not require any interference. 12. In the result, this Government Appeal is held to be without merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed.