U. V. BAKRE, J :- This is an appeal against acquittal, filed by the State. 2. Both the respondents (accused) were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge - II, Panaji (Trial Judge) in Sessions case No. 27 of 2006 for commission of offence punishable under Sections 302 and 392 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) and Section 3 read with Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. 3. A complaint (Exhibit 159) was lodged by one Rajesh Kashinath Naik on 15/07/2002 alleging that on 15/07/2002 between 17.15 hours to 17.30 hours, some unknown person aged about 25 to 30 years, wearing whitish shirt and half short pant fired a firearm and caused serious injuries on the chest of his sister namely Tanuja Naik which resulted into her death. Upon this complaint, offence was registered vide Ponda Police Station Crime no. 168/02. After some investigation carried out by the Ponda Police, the case was transferred to cm, Crime Branch, Donapaula-Goa. On 07/08/2006, the accused no. 1 was arrested in Ponda Police Station, Crime No. 94 of 2006 registered for offence punishable under Section 379 of I. P.C. and during interrogation, his involvement in the murder of Tanuja Naik came to light. Therefore, the custody of the accused no. 1 was taken over by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Donapaula, on 08/08/2006, in the present murder case. It appears that the accused No.1 disclosed the involvement of the accused no. 2 and therefore he was also arrested on 15/08/2006. 4. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that both the accused persons, on 15/7/2002 at about 17.20 hours, at Caranzal, Parampai, Marcaim near St. Fatima Chapel, in furtherance of their common intention, restrained the deceased who was returning home on foot from the work place, and the accused no. 1 fired a gunshot through a firearm ("Katta") which hit right side chest of the deceased and after she collapsed, the accused no. 2 snatched the gold chain which was around her neck and also her purse and thereafter both fled away. The deceased succumbed to the injury caused to her due to the firearm, on the way to the hospital. 5. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution examined as many as 64 witnesses. However, admittedly only few witnesses are relevant. The case of the accused persons was of denial simplicitor. The deceased succumbed to the injury caused to her due to the firearm, on the way to the hospital. 5. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution examined as many as 64 witnesses. However, admittedly only few witnesses are relevant. The case of the accused persons was of denial simplicitor. They did not examine any witness. 6. Upon consideration of the entire evidence on record, the learned Trial Judge came to the conclusion that the case of the prosecution is full of inconsistencies and improbabilities and there is every reason to believe that both the accused persons have been falsely implicated in the case. The Trial Judge held that there are no circumstances appearing against any of the accused persons and that Investigating Officers have not done proper ground work. The accused persons therefore came to be acquitted. 7. The State is aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order. 8. Learned Special Public Prosecutor, Mr. S. R. Rivonkar argued that PW 9, Prashant Naik is almost an eye witness and he heard the sound of gun shot and saw the person running with a pistol in his right hand and who was wearing white shirt and black half pant. The learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that PW9 subsequently identified the accused no. 1 as the said person. He invited our attention to the evidence of PW 8, Dr. E. J. Rodrigues, who had conducted post-mortem examination of the dead body of Tanuja Naik. He contended that it is an undisputed fact that Tanuja Naik died homicidal death. The learned Special Public Prosecutor further argued that PW 3, Mr. P. Shivashankar, the pancha witness, has proved that on 19/07/2002, from the scene of the offence, one empty cartridge was attached under the panchanama, which panchanama is also proved by the evidence of PW 26, Vijay Kumar Salgaoncar, the head constable attached to cm, Crime Branch. He invited our attention to the evidence of PW 26 who had located the said empty cartridge. He then submitted that on 1517/2002, at about 11.00 a.m., PW 5, Caitan Piedade Aguiar had found one empty cartridge in the grass, in front of the Chapel, where the incident had taken place and he had picked up the said cartridge and had subsequently handed it over to the police. He submitted that PW 27, Mr. Vikas Pednekar acted as pancha witness for attachment of this cartridge. He submitted that PW 27, Mr. Vikas Pednekar acted as pancha witness for attachment of this cartridge. He then invited our attention to the evidence ofPW 41, Madhukar Gaikwad, who acted as pancha witness for the panchanama of disclosure statement made by the accused no. 2 and recovery of the said firearm (Katta), at his instance. He pointed out that the empty cartridge which was located by PW 5, Caitan PiedadeAguiar near the Chapel and the empty cartridge which was found at the scene of offence were fired from the firearm recovered at the instance of the accused no. 2 and this fact is duly proved by the report of the Ballistics Expert, produced by PW 64, Bhanudas Dessai. He further submitted that the gold chain of the deceased was recovered at the instance of the accused no. 1 and that this recovery is duly proved by PW 46, Franky Fernandes. He therefore contended that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of strong circumstantial evidence and therefore the impugned judgment and order is liable to be quashed and set aside. The learned Special Public Prosecutor prayed that both the accused be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 392 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and Section 3 read with Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and they be appropriately sentenced. 9. Per contra, Shri M. Teles, learned counsel for the accused persons, argued that this is a total1y false case filed by the prosecution against the accused persons since the police wanted to protect the real culprits. He pointed out that in the theft case registered under Crime No. 94 of 2006, there was absolutely no evidence about the involvement of the accused no. 1 and ultimately he was released under Section 169 of Cr. P. C. According to the learned counsel for the accused, the accused no. 1 was thereafter simply planted in the present case alleging that he had made confession. He submitted that no confessional statement of the accused no. 1 before any competent authority was recorded. Shri M. Teles further argued that the so called eye witness namely PW 9, Prashant Naik is a planted witness. The incident had occurred on 15/07/2002. PW 9, had not seen the face of the person who was running with the pisto1. He submitted that no confessional statement of the accused no. 1 before any competent authority was recorded. Shri M. Teles further argued that the so called eye witness namely PW 9, Prashant Naik is a planted witness. The incident had occurred on 15/07/2002. PW 9, had not seen the face of the person who was running with the pisto1. He had only seen the back of the said person. Identification parade was held sometime in the year 2006 that is after about 4 years and it was not at all possible for PW 9, to identify the accused no.1. He invited our attention to the cross-examination of PW 9, wherein he has stated that he had seen the accused many times in the cm office at Dona Paula prior to the identification parade. In his cross-examination PW 9, has confirmed that he might have seen the accused, prior to identification parade, for about four to five times. The learned counsel pointed out that the panchanama of the scene of offence was conducted on 16/07/2002 on which day the place near the scene of offence was searched but no empty cartridge was found. Hence, according to the learned counsel the empty cartridge allegedly found at that place was planted. He then argued that the alleged recovery of a gold chain at the instance of the accused no. 1 loses its significance since the father of the deceased has not identified the same to be of his deceased daughter. He contended that the alleged recovery of the firearm at the instance of the accused no. 2 has also no relevance since its nexus with the death of the deceased is not proved. 10. We have gone through the entire material on record. 11. The fact that Tanuja Naik was found in an unconscious state on the katcha road near S1. Fatima Chapel, at Caranzol, Marcaim and was taken by a Maruti Car, initially to Dr. Priolkar's hospital at Priol and since her condition was critical, she was being taken to Goa Medical College, at Bambolim but on the way, she expired, as is revealed from the evidence of PW 6, Pradeep Fadte and PW 7, Pramila Gaonkar, is not disputed. 12. The evidence of PW 8, Dr. Priolkar's hospital at Priol and since her condition was critical, she was being taken to Goa Medical College, at Bambolim but on the way, she expired, as is revealed from the evidence of PW 6, Pradeep Fadte and PW 7, Pramila Gaonkar, is not disputed. 12. The evidence of PW 8, Dr. E. J. Rodrigues, Associate Professor, Forensic Medicine at Goa Medical Co11ege Hospital at Bambolim reveals that he conducted the post mortem examination over the dead body of Tanuja Naik on 16/07/2002. The injuries noted by PW 8, as stated by him and mentioned in the memorandum of autopsy at Exhibit 36 arc as follows: "1) Lacerated punctured wound of 3.5 x 2.5 cms present on right side upper middle front of chest in 4th intercostal space, 117 cms above right heel, 6 cms from mid line and 2 cms above right nipple with protrusion of subcutaneous tissues, fat and with fluid blood coming out from the chest wound and with stippled tattooing effect in surrounding 5 cms radius on upper front of chest on right side. There is also a superficial grazed typed abrasion of 3.5 x 2 cms on mid-medial aspect of right arm with stippled tattooing effects on upper, outer and lower aspect of right arm, surrounding 7 cms radius. On dissection, the chest wound has made a lacerated puncture in the skin, subcutaneous tissues and 5th costo-chondral junction of 2.5 cms thickness and has penetrated the right side chest cavity, lacerated the pleura and lower lobe of right lung of 2 x 1.5 cms, then lacerated the right side of diaphragm of 2 x 1.5 cms, entered through and through the substance of liver between the two, right and left lobes from superior to inferior surface just outer to gall bladder for 8 cms depth with recovery of cardboard and black felt wads in situ. Then it has penetrated the abdominal cavity and traversed to T/12-L/1, with fracture of right side vertebral bodies with recovery of cardboard wad and laceration of right psoas muscle and finally got deflected 7 cms to right at L/2 level with recovery of cylindrical missile with extensive extravasation of blood underneath. The total depth pf the track from chest wound to L/1 vertebral body is 26 cms and with the deflection to the right at L/2 by 7 cms. The total depth pf the track from chest wound to L/1 vertebral body is 26 cms and with the deflection to the right at L/2 by 7 cms. The direction is from above downwards, backwards and medially up-to L/1 and with deflection to the right at L/2 by 7 ems. The missile recovered is a rifled slug of shot gun cartridge of 1.6 cms. length, 1.75 cms diameter, 26.7 grams weight, resembling a blunt bullet with a deep hollow cavity at its base and with angularly inclined ribs resembling course rifling marks on bullet with 11 intact and 1 distorted, flattened with irregular projections at its base." The cross-examination of PW 8 reveals that he had recovered full components of cartridge (rifled slug) from the dead body of the deceased. The cause of death, according to PW 8, is haemorrhage and shock vide injury no. 1 consequent to spent firearm missile. 13. There can be no doubt that the death of the deceased Tanuja Naik is homicidal. 14. The only question is as to who is the author of the injuries sustained by the deceased. 15. At the outset, it has to be mentioned that the complaint (Exhibit 159) of Rajesh Naik, the brother of the deceased, upon which the crime was registered, has not been proved. Said Rajesh Naik has not been examined. Therefore, the foundation of the prosecution case itself is weak. 16. Secondly, PW 9, Prashant Naik had not seen the actual incident of firing the gun shot at the deceased. He says that he only heard the sound of explosion of gelatin and had seen the person running away. Though, PW 9 has further stated that after noticing the said person with the pistol, he also saw a girl fallen on the ground at a distance of about IS to 20 metres away, however, the above portion of the deposition of PW 9 cannot be believed because it is proved that he had not stated so to the police, when his statement was recorded. According to PW 9, he, subsequently, sometime in the year 2006, identified the accused no. 1 in the identification parade. 17. PW 49, Shri Antonio L. A. Mascarenhas, then working as Special Judicial Magistrate, had conducted the Test Identification Parade, in which PW 9 had identified the accused no.1. The memorandum of T. I. Parade is at Exhibit 125. 18. According to PW 9, he, subsequently, sometime in the year 2006, identified the accused no. 1 in the identification parade. 17. PW 49, Shri Antonio L. A. Mascarenhas, then working as Special Judicial Magistrate, had conducted the Test Identification Parade, in which PW 9 had identified the accused no.1. The memorandum of T. I. Parade is at Exhibit 125. 18. The date of the incidence is 15/7/2002. PW 9 had not given to the police the description of the said person whom he had seen running with pistol, when he gave statement. PW 9 has stated in his cross-examination that he had not seen the face of the said person and had only seen his back. The identification parade was held on 11/10/ 2006, which is more than four years after the incidence. According to PW 9, he identified the accused no 1 in the parade, by seeing his back. In his cross-examination, PW 9 has stated that he had seen the accused many times in the cm office at Donapaula, prior to identification parade. He has further stated that he might have seen the accused prior to identification parade, about 4 to 5 times. The Test Identification Parade is therefore nothing but a farce. There is great force in the contention of the learned counsel for the accused persons that PW 9 is a planted witness. The identification of the accused no. 1 done by PW 9 is totally unreliable and false. If the identification of the accused is discarded, then, even otherwise, the evidence of PW 9 does not prove anything against the accused persons. 19. PW 5, Caitan Piedade Aguiar, who resides near the place of offence, has stated that on 15/7/2002, at about 5.30 a.m. to 6.00• a.m. he heard the big sound of gun shot. He has further stated that on the same day at about 11.00 a.m., he went near the Chapel and learnt that a theft had taken place in the chapel. He has stated that while returning back, he noticed that in the grass existing in-front of the chapel, there was an empty cartridge. PW 5 has deposed that he picked up the said empty cartridge, brought it home and kept it near the window to show it to his family members. He has stated that while returning back, he noticed that in the grass existing in-front of the chapel, there was an empty cartridge. PW 5 has deposed that he picked up the said empty cartridge, brought it home and kept it near the window to show it to his family members. According to PW 5, after coming to know about the incident of firing of gunshot at the daughter of Kashili, he handed over the cartridge to a police constable. 20. PW 27, the Police Constable, Vikas Pednekar has confirmed that on 15/7/2002, he had accompanied P.I. Mhamal and other staff at the scene of offence and one villager by name Caitan Aguiar handed over to him one empty cartridge saying that he found it infront ofthe Chapel. PW 27 has stated that he handed over the said cartridge to P.I. Mhamal. 21. However, PW 59, Shri Naresh Mhamal, the then P.I. of Pond a Police Station does not say that PW 27 handed over to him any empty cartridge. No panchanama of the attachment of the empty cartridge handed over by PW 5 to PW 27 and by PW 27 to PW 59, has been produced on record. Be that as it may, it is seen from the records that this empty cartridge was marked as Exhibit 3. 22. PW 2, Virendra Naik acted as one of the panch a witnesses to the panchanama of the scene of offence (Exhibit C-21). He has stated that bushes towards the back side of the Chapel were damaged on account of scuffle and they saw one hairclip, umbrella and slipper and also one shirt with blood stains at the site. This panchanama was drawn on 16/07/2002 and admittedly it had rained on the previous night. Therefore, it cannot be understood as to on what basis PW 2 says that the bushes were damaged on account of scuffle. Admittedly, no relevance of the hairpin, umbrella and slipper has been established with the deceased and/or with the crime. Similarly, it is not known as to whose shirt has been attached. What is important is that according to PW 2, the Investigating Officer and his other team members had made search of the area covering about 40 metres of the scene of offence and they had searched all around minutely. Similarly, it is not known as to whose shirt has been attached. What is important is that according to PW 2, the Investigating Officer and his other team members had made search of the area covering about 40 metres of the scene of offence and they had searched all around minutely. PW 2 has stated in his cross-examination that no cartridge of the bullet was found on 16/07/2002. 23. However, PW 3, P. Shivashankar, who acted as one of the pancha witnesses on 19/7/2002, for a panchanama drawn at the same place where the panchanana of scene of offence was drawn, has stated that one empty cartridge was found there and was attached. According to PW 3, the distance between the empty cartridge and the place where the murder took place is about 20 to 25 metres. However, according to the previous witness, namely PW 2, the Investigating Officer and his team had made minute search of the area covering around 40 metres at the scene of offence on 16/7/2002, but no empty cartridge was found. Therefore, the question arises as to how on 19/7/2006, the empty cartridge came at the site. PW 3 does not know as to who found the said empty cartridge. PW 3 had not asked the police as to where they got the said cartridge. PW3 has stated that the police did not draw the sketch in his presence showing the place whether the cartridge was found or the place where the dead body was lying. It is difficult to believe that an empty cartridge was found and attached at the scene, in presence of PW 3, on 19/7/2002. 24. As PW 3 stated that he does not know as to who found the empty cartridge there, the prosecution, instead of examining the second pancha witness to the said panchanama, examined PW 26, Vijay Kumar Salgaonkar, the then Head Constable attached to cm Crime Branch, who has deposed that it is he who located the said empty cartridge on 19/7/2002 at a distance of about 18 to 20 metres away from the place of murder of Tanuja Naik. PW 26 does not say that he was one of the members of the team, which had accompanied the Investigating Officer, at the time of the said panchanama. PW 26 does not say that he was one of the members of the team, which had accompanied the Investigating Officer, at the time of the said panchanama. According to PW 26, on 19/7/2002, he and others had gone for the purpose of investingsation along with Ponda Police staff at the scene of offence and he located the said empty cartridge. However, instead of picking it up and bringing it at the Police Station, he informed P.I. Mhamal of Pond a Police Station about the said empty cartridge after which D.I.G. and S. P. were called and then P.I. Mhamal attached the said cartridge under the panchanama. The attachment panchanama (Exhibit C-24) does not mention the facts in the above manner. 25. There is reasonable doubt about the fact of finding of an empty cartridge at the scene of offence on 19/7/2002, as has been rightly argued by the learned counsel for the accused persons. Be that as it may, it is seen from the records that this empty cartridge was marked as Exhibit 2. 26. PW 41, Madhukar Gaikwad and PW 43, Chandra Prakash Naik were examined by prosecution in order to prove a disclosure statement made by the accused no. 1 and recovery of fireann (Katta) at his instance. The said panchanama (Exhibit 95) does not narrate the disclosure made by the accused in his language, except a few lines. A perusal of the cross-examination of PW 41 and PW 43, reveals that they did not adhyre to the statements made by them in their examination-in-chief. PW 41 has stated in his cross-examination that there was darkness in the room of the house of the accused no. 2 as there was no electricity. He has stated that he had not seen as to who had removed the katta from the vessel since it was dark at the relevant time. He has admitted that he had seen the katta in the hands of the police. PW 41 does not know as to from where the katta was removed. Even the learned Public Prosecutor, after the above answers were given by PW 41, in his cross-examination, had sought for permission to cross-examine him, which permission, however, was rejected by the trial judge. It becomes very difficult to believe that both these witnesses had gone to any place in State of Madhya Pradesh. Even the learned Public Prosecutor, after the above answers were given by PW 41, in his cross-examination, had sought for permission to cross-examine him, which permission, however, was rejected by the trial judge. It becomes very difficult to believe that both these witnesses had gone to any place in State of Madhya Pradesh. No evidence like tickets or bills or other documents regarding journey by train or otherwise to Madhya Pradesh and about other miscellaneous expenditure on the way or at Madhya Pradesh, has been produced. PW 41 says that the Katta was removed from the barrel but PW 43 says that a pocket containing Katta was removed from the left side of the barrel. It is pertinent to note that the house from which the Katta was allegedly recovered was occupied by several other persons. The said place was not in exclusive possession of the accused no. 2. 27. The incident of firing gun shot at the deceased had taken place on 15/7/2002. The alleged recovery of the firearm (katta), is said to have been done on 21/8/2006, i.e. after more than four years. It is not easy to believe that the accused no. 2 would take the weapon of murder, from Goa to Madhya Pradesh and preserve it safely in his own house, for such a long period, without destroying it, only for the police to recover it at his instance. 28. The empty cartridge (Exhibit 3) that was allegedly found by PW.5 Caitan Piedade Aguiar in the grass in front of the chapel and the empty cartridge (Exhibit 2) attached from the scene 6f offence were sent along with the said firearm (Katta) to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory at Hyderabad. As per the examination report of the CFSL (Exhibit 194/colly), both empty cartridges were fired through the said country-made pistol (Katta). However, the examination of the firearm and the empty cartridges, etc. was done by the Ballistic Expert in the year 2006. The incident had occurred in the year 2002. There is no opinion that the said cartridges were fired about four years back. 29. However, the examination of the firearm and the empty cartridges, etc. was done by the Ballistic Expert in the year 2006. The incident had occurred in the year 2002. There is no opinion that the said cartridges were fired about four years back. 29. However, as already discussed above, the finding of an empty cartridge by PW 5 and picking it up and carrying it at his house without any reason is not natural and believable; the recovery of the empty cartridges from the scene of offence is not reliable; and lastly the alleged recovery of the firearm (katta) at the instance of the accused no. 2 is not beyond doubt. There is no evidence that one of the said empty cartridges contained the bullet which hit the deceased. 30. The evidence of PW 8, Dr. E. J. Rodrigues reveals that the ammunition i.e. full components of the cartridge (rifled slug) recovered from the body of the deceased was preserved by PW 8 and sent for Ballistic examination. The result of the examination, done by the Ballistic Expert, of the said ammunition(lead slug) retrieved from the body of the deceased, reveals that the same is not similar to that of the lead slugs contained in original single ball Shaktiman 12 bore cartridges. There is therefore no evidence to prove that the ammunition (lead slug) that was found in the dead body was fired from the firearm allegedly attached at the instance of the accused no. 2, from his house. 31. On 20/7/2002, according to PW 4, Oswald Soares, he acted as one of the pancha witnesses and while inspecting the scene of offence, one locket was found in the bushes by the police party, in his presence, at a distance of about 18 metres away from the place where Tanuja's body was found. This attachment panchanama is at Exhibit 26. The said locket is of gold and has idol of Laxmi. For the same reasons as stated earlier, it is surprising as to how this valuable gold locket was not found at that place on 16/7/2002, when the panchanama of the scene of offence was drawn and on 19/7/2002 when the panchanama of attachment of the empty cartridge was drawn. There is therefore reasonable suspicion about the attachment of the said locket, from the scene of offence. There is therefore reasonable suspicion about the attachment of the said locket, from the scene of offence. Besides, the nexus of the said locket with the deceased or with the crime is not proved. 32. PW 42, Vandesh Shetye acted as one of the panch a witness for the panchanama of the disclosure made by accused no.1. According to him, he was told by the Police Inspector that one gold chain was sold by the accused at Mapusa Gold Shop and the accused Rajinish Singh has agreed to show the said shop. He further stated thereafter the accused Rajinish Singh discloses he had sold the gold chain to one goldsmith at Mapusa. According to PW 42 the accused no. 1 took them to Mapusa market to some shop having sign board "Jewellery Pednekar". However the shop was closed. Hence nothing was recovered under this panchanama. Admittedly, PW 42 has acted as pancha witness in about 35 to 40 cases. The evidence of PW42 does not prove anything which is relevant to the present case. 33. The goldsmith namely Pratap Pemekar/PW 31 has been examined to prove that the accused no. 1 had come to his shop to sell one broken gold chain. PW 31 has stated that one person speaking Hindi came with broken chain to his shop in the year 2002. However, according to him he did not purchase the said gold chain. He has identified the accused no. 1 to be a person looking like the one who had come to his shop. Thus, identification of accused no. 1 done by PW 31, before the trial judge was not certain. However, he had identified the accused no 1 in the test identification parade conducted by PW 49, Shri Antonio Mascarenhas, the Special Judicial Magistrate, in the year 2006. The memorandum of identification parade is at Exhibit 125. According to PW 31, in the year 2002, thousands of people had visited his shop and he had not kept record of those persons. PW 31 was not knowing the accused no. 1 previously. It is difficult to believe that PW 31 would be in a position to identify the accused no. 1 after more than 4 years. Be that as it may, PW 31 was shown the chain in an identification parade. PW 31 was not knowing the accused no. 1 previously. It is difficult to believe that PW 31 would be in a position to identify the accused no. 1 after more than 4 years. Be that as it may, PW 31 was shown the chain in an identification parade. He says that the said chain was not in a similar fashion when it was brought before him for sale and hence he could not identify the same. The above evidence ofPW31 cannot be of any assistance to the prosecution at all. 34. PW 46, Franky Fernandes, acted as one of the pancha witnesses, for the panchanama (Exhibit 111) of disclosure and. recovery of an yellow coloured metallic chain at the instance of the accused no. 1. This panchanama was drawn on 20/8/2006 and the chain was allegedly shown by the accused no. 1 in his room which was also occupied by his cousin. The words of disclosure, narrated by PW 46, as those spoken by the accused no. 1 and the words incorporated in the panchanama (Exhibit 111) to be stated by the accused no. 1 are different. This chain was marked as CB-1. The incidence of murder of Tanuja Naik had taken place on 15/7/2002. It is difficult to believe that the accused no. 1 would preserve and keep with him the chain if it was of the deceased, for more than four years, only for the police to recover it at his instance, on 20/8/2006. Since the pendant of Laxmi was found at the scene of offence, the chain to be subsequently recovered had to be a broken chain. But the chain allegedly recovered at the instance of the accused no. 1 is not a broken chain. As already stated earlier, PW 31, the gold smith could not identify this chain. 35. It is seen that the police had attached a gold chain from the neck of the accused no.1, which he was wearing on the date of his arrest, on 7/8/2006. The arrest and attachment panchanama, proved by PW 44, Dinesh Raikar, is at Exhibit 104. No Exhibit number was given to this chain. It is not known as to what is the relevance of this chain with the crime. 36. The arrest and attachment panchanama, proved by PW 44, Dinesh Raikar, is at Exhibit 104. No Exhibit number was given to this chain. It is not known as to what is the relevance of this chain with the crime. 36. The details of Properties/ Articles/Documents recovered/seized during investigation, which list is at paragraph 10 of the Final Report under section 173 of Cr.P.C., filed by the police, mentions the yellow metallic chain marked as CB-I, which was allegedly attached at the instance of the accused no. 1 but there is no mention of the chain attached from the neck of the accused, at the time of his arrest. This chain was neither the subject matter of the theft in the chapel nor it is the subject matter of Tanuja murder case. 37. PW 15, Kashinath Naik is the father of the deceased, Tanuja. He was called at the Police Station, in connection with the identification of the gold chain and the pendant of Laxmi. He could not identify both the items. No other witness examined by the prosecution has identified the said items as belonging to the deceased. There is no evidence on record to prove that the deceased was wearing any gold chain with pendant of goddess Laxmi, prior to her murder. 38. Various witnesses have been examined to prove that there was an attempt to commit theft in the Chapel on 141712002. There is an attachment panchanama drawn on 20/9/ 2002 at the said Chapel. PW 10, Alex Aguiar and PW 14, Rajanikant Naik, the pancha witnesses were examined to prove the said attachment panchanama regarding the recovery of the wooden broken pieces of the cupboard, lock, metal like bullet, and a spring, in the Chapel. Since PW 10 did not support the said panchanama which is at Exhibit 49, the second pancha witness namely PW I 4, Rajinijkant Naik was examined. However, since there is no corroboration between the evidence of PW 10 and PW 14, his evidence pertaining to the said attachment panchanama is also not reliable. Be that as it may, the involvement of the accused persons in the said incidence of an attempt to commit theft in the Chapel, is not established. The connection of the said incidence of theft in Chapel with the murder of Tanuja Naik is not known. Be that as it may, the involvement of the accused persons in the said incidence of an attempt to commit theft in the Chapel, is not established. The connection of the said incidence of theft in Chapel with the murder of Tanuja Naik is not known. Therefore, the evidence of witnesses, examined to prove the said incident of theft in the Chapel is of no relevance. 39. The evidence of the PW36, Fatte Naik, Police Constable reveals that sometime in the year 2002, he found one ladies purse of black colour in the jungle, while carrying out investigation in Tanuja murder case. According to PW 36, the said purse was attached under the panchanama. However, no nexus of the ladies purse with the crime has been proved. 40. The evidence on record reveals that Aguiar brothers, namely Caitan Aguiar (PW 5) and Gler Aguiar (PW 12) were suspected by the family of the deceased Tanuja, in the present case. The 12 bore DBBL gun belonging to Mr. Gler Aguiar was attached. However, ultimately, no connection of the said gun with the injury sustained by the deceased could be established. PW 61, Police Inspector, Braz Menezes, then attached to cm, Crime Branch had recorded the statement of Caitan Piedade Aguiar and had subjected the said two brothers namely Caitan and Gler to polygraphic lie detector test, at FSL, Hyderabad. According to PW 61, on 07/11/2003, the report of this test was received, which was negative. The witnesses examined, in this regard, are therefore useless. 41. PW 47, Ram Asre has stated that the accused nos. 1 and 2 had become friends in Goa and when he was in Allahabad, at his native place, on 8/7/2002, the accused persons happened to meet him. According to PW 47, the accused persons told him that they went to one place at Allahabad and bought one Katta for Rs. 1500/-. He has also stated that subsequently, the accused persons told him that they on 14/7/2002 went with the Katta towards Madkai and towards Church and came across the girl called Tanuja. PW 47 has stated that thereafter, on the newspaper, he read about the murder of Tanuja and realised that the said murder was with the help of the gun (Katta) which the accused no. 1 was having. According to PW 47, after some days, he happened to meet the accused no. PW 47 has stated that thereafter, on the newspaper, he read about the murder of Tanuja and realised that the said murder was with the help of the gun (Katta) which the accused no. 1 was having. According to PW 47, after some days, he happened to meet the accused no. 2 by the side of a pan patti shop where the accused no. 2 showed to him a broken chain and told that he wants to sell it. He has stated that thereafter he went to his native place in U.P. and on one day, in the village of U.P. , he met one person by name Nakul who told him that he had sold the Katta to the accused for Rs. 1500/-. No person by name Nakul has been examined by the prosecution. 42. PW 47 has identified the chain .showed to him, in the Court after almost 6 years from the date of incidence and which was intact and not broken, as the same which the accused no. 2 had showed to him with intention to sell, though the chain allegedly showed to him by the accused no. 2 was a broken one. Such identification is not reliable. 43. The evidence of this witness (PW 47) has been totally shattered in the cross-examination. His two statements were recorded by the Police and one by the Magistrate, in the year 2006. He was arrested on 6/11/07 by the police in connection with selling and possessing Gutka and case under crime no. 139/07 was registered against him. PW 47 has admitted that there are many criminal cases pending against him, including even a murder case. He is married twice. There are various omissions in the police statements of PW 47, which ha'(e beet; duly proved. He was arrested along with PW 59, Papu and some others, in the said case of theft in the chapel. In fact, he was mercilessly assaulted by Ponda Police at Police Station, as voluntarily stated by him. PW 47 is a person involved in several criminal cases including murder case and even for any small reason, he would oblige the police. Evidence of such witness which otherwise is not direct evidence, is not reliable at all. 44. The accused no. 1 was arrested in a theft case registered at Ponda Police Station, under crime no 94/2006. PW 47 is a person involved in several criminal cases including murder case and even for any small reason, he would oblige the police. Evidence of such witness which otherwise is not direct evidence, is not reliable at all. 44. The accused no. 1 was arrested in a theft case registered at Ponda Police Station, under crime no 94/2006. It was found that there was no involvement of the accused no. 1 in the said crime and therefore he was released under section 169 of Cr.P.C., in the said case. The said case was closed on account of insufficient evidence. It is alleged by the prosecution that during interrogation in the said Crime -no. 94/06, the accused no. 1 had disclosed his involvement and the involvement of the accused no. 2, in the present case and therefore he was arrested in the present case. However, there is no confessional statement of the accused no. 1 recorded by any competent authority. On the contrary, PW 49, the Special Judicial Magistrate, recorded the statement of the accused no. 2 which statement is produced by PW 49 as Exhibit 124. In this statement, the accused no. 2 has stated that he had come to Goa eight years prior to October, 2006 and had worked on a fishing trawler at Malim, Betim and thereafter as a security guard at "Gemini Distilleries" at Vasco for about 8 to 9 months and therefore had not come to Goa at all. 45. It is well settled principle that when a case rests on circumstantial evidence, such evidence must be cogently and firmly established. The circumstances should form a chain pointing towards guilt of the accused and same should be 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. If any link in the chain is missing, the guilt of the accused cannot be established [See "Mujib and another vs State of Kerala", 2000 ALL MR (Cri) 573]. In the present case, the circumstances which have been pointed out by learned Public Prosecutor are totally shaky and manipulative and the same have not been firmly established and further they do not form a complete chain leading to the only conclusion of the guilt of the accused. 46. In the present case, the circumstances which have been pointed out by learned Public Prosecutor are totally shaky and manipulative and the same have not been firmly established and further they do not form a complete chain leading to the only conclusion of the guilt of the accused. 46. There is no need to discuss the evidence of other witnesses examined by the prosecution, since the same loses its significance in view of the failure of the prosecution to prove the charge by the above discussed evidence. 47. In a case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to him under the fundamental principle of Criminal Jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved to be guilty by a competent Court of law Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened. If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by trial Court. (See 2007 Cri. L. J. 2136). In the case of "State of Rajasthan Vs. Shera Ram @ Vishnu Dutta", [JT 2011(13) S.C. 4671 : [2011 ALL SCR 29841, the Apex Court has reiterated the above principles and has further held that in an appeal against acquittal, interference is needed only when it is contrary to evidence, palpably erroneous or view taken is not a possible view. 48. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the accused persons were the authors of the injuries sustained by the deceased Tanuja Naik which resulted into her death. The impugned judgment and order is in accordance with the settled principles of Criminal Jurisprudence, based on correct appreciation of the entire evidence on record. No interference with the same is called for. 49. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.