JUDGMENT P. D. KODE, J. The State-applicant has sought leave to prefer an appeal against the Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 7th May, 2012 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad at Alibag in Sessions Case no. 100 of 2006 acquitting the respondent original accused from the charge of commission of offences under Sections 302, 201, of Indian Penal Code. 2. The said prosecution was initiated by the Taloja Police Station, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad as a result of investigation of C.R. no. 108 of 2005 registered with the said police station upon the report (Exhibit-17) lodged by PW.1 Mohsin Abdulla Shaikh, husband of the victim Nasima on 18th September, 2005 regarding the commission of such offences by the respondent at Village Ovepeth on the same day. The Trial Court after appreciation of a prosecution evidence predominantly of circumstantial nature acquitted the respondent. 3. Mr. P.S. Hingorani, Learned A PP vehemently contended that the trial court miserably failed to appreciate the significance of various circumstances duly established by cogent and convincing evidence at the trial. He urged that apart from the respondent having not disputed victim Nasima having met with homicidal death the same is duly established by the evidence of P.W.3 Dr. Rajendrakumar Gundappa Itkari, Medical Officer, Panvel Rural Hospital regarding autopsy conducted by him of the corpse of Nasima, the injuries found on her corpse and noted by him and cause of death of Nasima given by him. He urged that said evidence is duly corroborated by the further evidence adduced by the prosecution regarding the situation prevailing in the vicinity of corpse and of corpse of Nasim as established by the evidence of spot panch (PW.7) Abdul Ajij Ahmadmiya Shaikh and of inquest panch (P.W.8) Chandrakala Harishchandra Waskar and of police witnesses P.W.16 API, Arun Manohar Pimpale. It was urged that the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses is duly supported by the documentary evidence in shape of P.M. notes (Exhibit-22), spot panchnama (Exhibit-27) and Inquest Panchanama (Exhibit-29) duly proved by the prosecution on the record. Learned APP contended that the cumulative effect of said evidence leads to no other conclusion than deceased Nasima having met with homicidal death. 4. He further contended that through the evidence of P.W.1- husband and particularly his evidence in paragraph no. Learned APP contended that the cumulative effect of said evidence leads to no other conclusion than deceased Nasima having met with homicidal death. 4. He further contended that through the evidence of P.W.1- husband and particularly his evidence in paragraph no. 7 of Nasima having appraised him in detail as to how respondent was having evil eye upon her, the prosecution has established that the respondent had a probable motive for the commission of crime in question. It was urged that by adducing the evidence of PW.4 Shafiya Yasin Shaikh, PW.5 Mukhtyar Mahamad Shaikh, PW.2 Mobin Sayyad Shaikh, PW.6 Isak Abdul Quadir Shaikh, PW.15 Vikas @ Kutkutya Motiram Joshi, villagers who had seen the respondent in the vicinity of the place at which the corpse was found, some time prior to occurrence of an incident and/or thereafter has further established of respondent having a good opportunity for commission of an crime in question. It was urged that out of them the evidence of PW.4 further discloses that the respondent then was seen in the frightened condition and that at the relevant time the respondent was interested in seeing that PW.4 does not go further i.e. towards the place at which the dead body of the deceased was found. It was urged that the evidence of the said witnesses considered in proper prospective also reveals that reason then advanced by the respondent for his such conduct was false. It was urged that the prosecution through the evidence of PW.13 Vasudeo Janu Waskar and I.O. PW.17 P.I. Nasirkhan Rhimankhan Pathan, had established that the respondent was having the knowledge about the place at which Nasima had died and so also about the place at which her chappal was lying. 5. Learned APP contended that the said circumstances established by the prosecution forms a complete chain leading to the sole inference of guilt of the respondent. He contended that hence the trial court ought to have convicted and sentenced the respondent for the offences for which he was charged. It was urged that however the trial court having erroneously acquitted the respondent, the judgment to such effect delivered by the trial court being not in consonance of the evidence and/or the circumstances emerging from the said evidence is not only erroneous but perverse and the same requires reconsideration. He thus prayed for granting leave as sought. 6. It was urged that however the trial court having erroneously acquitted the respondent, the judgment to such effect delivered by the trial court being not in consonance of the evidence and/or the circumstances emerging from the said evidence is not only erroneous but perverse and the same requires reconsideration. He thus prayed for granting leave as sought. 6. According to the prosecution on 18th September, 2005 during the noon time victim Nasima, wife of PW.1 had been for answering the call of nature PW.1 was then sleeping when his wife had left. After awakening PW.1 found that his wife was not in the house, and soon thereafter he learned that a dead body was found in the place used for answering call of nature in the stream of the village Ovepeth PW.1 rushed at the said place. He found that dead body was of his wife-Nasima and villagers had gathered at the said place. The death of Nasima was reported by one of the person from said persons to Taloja Police Station and the police from the said police station reached the spot. PW.1 furnished the details and the crime in question was registered against the unknown person. After effecting the investigation the respondent was arrested on 21st September, 2005 in evening. After completion of the further investigation the respondent was charge-sheeted and after trial he was acquitted. 7. After careful perusal of the judgment and notes of evidence of 17 witnesses and the relevant documentary evidence adduced at the trial, we find it extremely difficult to agree with the submission canvassed by learned APP. 8. We are of such a considered opinion that as it is not in dispute that Nasima had met with homicidal death due to five injuries sustained by her on head and the entire prosecution case rest upon the circumstantial evidence due to their being no eye witness for the crime in question. 8. We are of such a considered opinion that as it is not in dispute that Nasima had met with homicidal death due to five injuries sustained by her on head and the entire prosecution case rest upon the circumstantial evidence due to their being no eye witness for the crime in question. Though we are well conscious that the guilt of the culprit can be established either by direct or by circumstantial evidence and as such even the circumstantial evidence can never be said to be of weak nature than direct evidence of an eye witness, it is now well settled by catena of the decisions of the Apex Court that in order to sustain a finding of a guilt on basis of the circumstantial evidence, it is incumbent upon the prosecution firstly to establish firmly the circumstances relied by leading cogent and convincing evidence to establish the same and secondly the said established circumstances within themselves must form a formidable complete chain leading to the sole inference of the guilt of the accused. As a corollary, it can be said that the circumstances established being not capable of reaching the sole conclusion about the guilt of accused for the offence committed and their existing the other probability of the crime in question being committed by some body else, then no conclusion of a guilt can be arrived on basis of even such a circumstances established. The same being the situation of evidence in the instant case, we are unable to agree with the submissions canvassed by learned APP. 9. We are of such a considered opinion as the evidence of PW.1 and more particularly the matters recorded in paragraph no. 7 of Nasima having appraised him that the respondent was behind her and was having evil eye upon her are found to be in the nature of improvement made at the trial by PW.1. Hence, it is difficult to find any infirmity in trial court not relying the said evidence as establishing the respondent possessing the motive for commission of the crime. 10. It is indeed true that the perusal of the evidence of PW.4, PW.S, PW.2, PW.6 to some extent supports the submissions of the learned APP that by the same the prosecution has established that the respondent was in the vicinity at the place at which the corpse was found. 10. It is indeed true that the perusal of the evidence of PW.4, PW.S, PW.2, PW.6 to some extent supports the submissions of the learned APP that by the same the prosecution has established that the respondent was in the vicinity at the place at which the corpse was found. It is also true that the evidence of PW.4 discloses that respondent was then frightened and asked her not to go ahead as there were she buffaloes ahead. However the perusal of evidence also reveals that the field of the respondent was nearby the place at which the body was found. The perusal of the evidence of the said witnesses does not reveal that the respondent was found nearby the body. Thus prosecution evidence itself denotes the probable reason for the respondent being in the area nearby the corpse of the Nasima. Having regard to the same and prosecution having not adduced any further evidence establishing nexus of the respondent with the corpse, it is difficult to assume any significant potential to the said circumstance. Even the case regarding circumstance of respondent possessing the knowledge about the place at which the corpse was found is also of no different. Apart from the investigating agency having knowledge about the said facet, even viewed from the another angle that alike other witnesses then in said vicinity possessing the knowledge of the said fact, no much significance can be attached with the said circumstance and/or to another circumstance pointed out by learned APP of respondent possessing the knowledge of the place at which the chappal of the deceased was lying. Needless to add both the said circumstances either alone or even after taking into consideration the circumstances earlier referred, are incapable of reaching to the sole conclusion of themselves forming a chain leading to the sole inference of the guilt of the respondent. Suffice to say that even the said circumstance accepted as it is does not rule out the reasonable possibility of the culprit being somebody else other than the respondent and particularly in absence of any evidence of respondent having motive to commit a crime. 11. Suffice to say that even the said circumstance accepted as it is does not rule out the reasonable possibility of the culprit being somebody else other than the respondent and particularly in absence of any evidence of respondent having motive to commit a crime. 11. The trial court having duly taken into consideration all the aforesaid aspects surfacing from the prosecution evidence and having reached to the conclusion of said evidence failing to establish guilt of an appellant, we are unable to find any infirmity in the said finding arrived by the trial court. In the said premises the judgment and order passed by the trial court being based upon the evidence surfaced at the trial and rational inference arising out of the same, we find no case being made out by the prosecution necessitating reconsideration of the judgment and order intended to be appealed. Hence the prosecution application for grant of leave sans merit deserves to be and stands dismissed accordingly. Appeal dismissed.