JUDGMENT : A.K. Trivedi, J.- Informant/petitioner being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment of acquittal dated 8.5.2003 passed by Presiding Officer, Additional Court No. 1 (FTC), Sasaram in connection with Sessions Trial No. 284/2002/30/2002 has filed the instant revision petition. 2. While assailing the judgment of acquittal it has been submitted on behalf of petitioner that the learned lower Court had not considered the evidence adduced on behalf of prosecution under proper perceptiveness. It has further been submitted that process of scrutinizing of the evidence by the learned trial Court divulges the pre-occupied mind of the learned P.O. leaning in favour of O.P./accused on account of which, the interest of prosecution is found severely daunt. It has further been submitted that in spite of having sufficient material on record to justify conviction of the opposite parties, the aforesaid relevant pieces of evidences have completely been ignored. Further, elaborating the points. it has been submitted that the learned lower Court misconstrued the legal position that the evidence of hostile witnesses should be brushed aside in its totality. It has further been submitted that had the learned lower Court taken the evidence of the hostile witnesses in its entirety the chain of circumstance might have been found completely fused encircling the OPs to be responsible for causing death of deceased in pre-planned manner. 3. Then coming to the evidence of PW 9 Yogendra, uncle of deceased as well as PW 10, the informant, it has been submitted that Yogendra had categorically stated that he along with deceased have got down during midst of way at Sakla Bazar while returning from Dehri where they met with accused persons who managed to detain the deceased. Arun Kumar Singh @Tuntun Singh on the pretext of gossiping as well as tracing out solution in the background of dispute arose during previous election. Then thereafter, the dead body of deceased was found on the following morning. That means to say, the theory of last seen is found applicable and for that, the evidence of PW 9 was consistent without any material contradiction as is evident from the evidence of PW 11, the I.O. It has also been submitted that in terms of Section 134 of the Evidence Act, it is the quality and not the quantity which would count during appreciation of evidence whereupon PW 9 had shown his bona fide. Therefore, rejection of evidence of PW 9 by the learned trial Court appears to be inappropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. It has further been submitted that PW 9 is found corroborated with PW 10, the informant who, though is a hearsay witness, but his evidence is found consistent with the evidence of PW 9. He had categorically stated whatever conveyed to him by PW 9 which is found corroborated by PW 9. It has further been submitted that there happens to be no controversy with regard to death of deceased, Arun Kumar Singh. It is also apparent that PW 9 had supported the theme of last seen and on account thereof, it was incumbent upon the accused to have explained during course of statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr PC. Having not been explained on their part is a circumstance which will go against the accused and on account thereof, in the totality of the event the case is found fully proved. Therefore, the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned lower Court is bad, illegal, perverse and is fit to be set aside. 5. Though on account of non-cooperation of learned counsel for O.P. Nos. 2 to 6 by having their absence for days together, the argument on their behalf could not finally concluded. However, during course of part hearing it has been argued that the judgment of acquittal should not be disturbed in routine manner unless and until there happens to be glaring procedural defect apparent from the judgment impugned as well as gross error has been committed by the trial Court during course of appreciation of evidence. So far this particular case 'is concerned, none of these factors are visualizing and on account thereof, the judgment impugned is fit to be confirmed. 6. It has further been argued that all the witnesses have gone volte face to the prosecution. Apart from the fact that there is improbability visualizing from the evidence of PW 9 as well as PW 10, it is apparent that PW 10 is not an eye-witness to occurrence and on account thereof, his evidence is of no use for the prosecution. With regard to PW 9. Apart from the fact that there is improbability visualizing from the evidence of PW 9 as well as PW 10, it is apparent that PW 10 is not an eye-witness to occurrence and on account thereof, his evidence is of no use for the prosecution. With regard to PW 9. it has been submitted that apart from inconsistency appearing in his evidence, his appearance along with deceased Arun Kumar Singh became suspicious from his own deposition whereunder he had stated that he usually resides away from the village of which deceased, Arun Kumar Singh was a resident. From his evidence, it is apparent that he resides at his parental house while the deceased was residing at Nawasa along with PW 10. Apart from this, evidence of PW 9 is not at all supported with by any of the PWs. Not only this, from his evidence material development is found as supported by PW 4 who makes his evidence unreliable. 7. Because of the fact that none is an eye-witness of the occurrence, therefore, the case based upon circumstantial evidence and for that link of chain should be found properly inter connected. There should not be an opportunity for a stranger to intervene. Even accepting the evidence of PW 9, he has seen the deceased in company of O.P. Nos. 2 to 6 at Sakla Bazar and since thereafter there is no evidence on the record whereupon an inference could be drawn that deceased was taken away at the canal by the accused persons alive or dead where his dead body was recovered. That means to say, even accepting the evidence of PW 9, there is complete absence on the part of prosecution to explain as to how the deceased covered such a long distance from Sakla Market to the canal where his dead body was found nor the O.Ps. be held accountable in the background of such lapses. 8. Learned A.P.P. fairly submitted that on account of turning the material witnesses hostile, the case of the prosecution is not at all found properly proved. 9. be held accountable in the background of such lapses. 8. Learned A.P.P. fairly submitted that on account of turning the material witnesses hostile, the case of the prosecution is not at all found properly proved. 9. The ambit and scope of revisional power more particularly relating to judgment against the acquittal has been subject to consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court times without number and more recently" in the case of Venkatasan v. Rani, as reported in 2013 (4) East Cr C 134 (SC) : (2013) 4 PLJR 154 SC, it has elaborately been dealt with in paragraphs-6 and 7 which are as follows :- "6. To answer the questions that have arisen in the present case, as noticed at the very outset, the extent and ambit of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court, particularly in the context of exercise thereof in respect of a judgment of acquittal, may be briefly noticed. The law in this regard is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court. Illustratively, as also chronologically, the decisions rendered in Pakalapati Narayana Gajapathi Raju v. Bonapalli Peda Appadu, Akalu Ahir v. Ramdeo Ram, Mahendra Pratap Singh v. Sarju Singh, K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of A.P. and Logendranath Jha v. Polai Lal Biswas may be referred to. Specifically and for the purpose of a detailed illumination on the subject the contents of paras 8 and 10 of the judgment in the case of Akalu Ahir v. Ramdeo Ram (supra) may be usefully extracted below. "8. This Court. however, by way of illustration, indicated the following categories of cases which would justify the High Court in interfering with a finding of acquittal in revision : (i) Where the trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the case, but has still acquitted the accused; (ii) Where the trial Court has wrongly shut out evidence which the prosecution wished to produce; (iii) Where the appellate Court has wrongly held the evidence which was admitted by the trial Court to be inadmissible; (iv) Where the material evidence has been overlooked only (either) by the trial Court or by the appellate Court; and (v) Where the acquittal is based on the compounding of the offence which is invalid under the law. These categories were, however, merely illustrative and it was clarified that other cases of similar nature can also be properly held to be of exceptional nature where the High Court can justifiably interfere with the order of acquittal." "10. No doubt, the appraisal of evidence by the trial Judge in the case in hand is not perfect or free from flaw and a Court of appeal may well have felt justified in disagreeing with its conclusion, but from this it does not follow that on revision by a private complainant, the High Court is entitled to re-appraise the evidence for itself as if it is acting as a Court of appeal and then order a re-trial. It is unfortunate that a serious offence inspired by rivalry and jealousy in the matter of election to the office of village mukhia, should go unpunished. But that can scarcely be a valid ground for ignoring or for not strictly following the law as enunciated by this Court." The observations in para 9 in the case of Vimal Singh v. Khuman Singh would also be apt for recapitulation and, therefore, are being extracted below. "9. Coming to the ambit of power of the High Court under Section 401 of the Code, the High Court in its revisional power does not ordinarily interfere with judgments of acquittal passed by the trial Court unless there has been manifest error of law or procedure. The interference with the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court is limited only to exceptional cases when it is found that the order under revision suffers from glaring illegality or has caused miscarriage of justice or when it is found that the trial Court has no jurisdiction to try, the case or where the trial Court has illegally shut out the evidence which otherwise ought to have been considered or where the material evidence which clinches the issue has been overlooked. These are the instances where the High Court would be justified in interfering with the order of acquittal. Sub-section (3) of Section 401 mandates that the High Court shall not convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. Thus, the High Court would not be justified in substituting an order of acquittal into one of conviction even if it is convinced that the accused deserves conviction. Sub-section (3) of Section 401 mandates that the High Court shall not convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. Thus, the High Court would not be justified in substituting an order of acquittal into one of conviction even if it is convinced that the accused deserves conviction. No doubt, the High Court in exercise of its revisional power can set aside an order of acquittal if it comes within the ambit of exceptional cases enumerated above, but it cannot convert an order of acquittal into an order of conviction. The only course left to the High Court in such exceptional cases is to order retrial.” 7. The above consideration would go to show that the revisional jurisdiction of the High Courts while examining an order of acquittal is extremely narrow and ought to be exercised only in cases where the trial Court had committed a manifest error of law or procedure or had overlooked and ignored relevant and material evidence thereby causing miscarriage of justice. Re-appreciation of evidence is an exercise that the High Court must refrain from while examining an order of acquittal in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under the Code. Needless to say, if within the limited parameters, interference of the High Court is justified the only course of action that can be adopted is to order a re-trial after setting aside the acquittal. As the language of Section 401 of the Code makes it amply clear there is no power vested in the High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. 10. In the background of the aforesaid settled principle, it is evident that in exceptional cases only there should be appraisal of the evidence that too where the trial Court has erred during appreciation of the evidence available on the record as well as has overlooked the same. 11. Thus, taking into account the rival submissions as well as plea of the petitioner more particularly, needs re-appraisal of the evidence to come to the conclusion whether findings so recorded by the learned lower Court are sustainable. From the L.C. record it is evident that altogether 13 PWs have been exan1ined on behalf of prosecution out of whom PW 1 is Mohit Yadav who had denied to have knowledge with regard to occurrence and as such he was declared hostile. From the L.C. record it is evident that altogether 13 PWs have been exan1ined on behalf of prosecution out of whom PW 1 is Mohit Yadav who had denied to have knowledge with regard to occurrence and as such he was declared hostile. This PW 1, in the aforesaid background is found of no use for the prosecution. 12. PW 2 is Sitaram Halwai who had simply disclosed with Tuntun was murdered about eight months ago but he is unable to say as to who had murdered and where he was murdered. Again this PW is of no use. 13. PW 3 is Jalaluddin Ansari. As per fardbeyan, the deceased along with accused persons had gone to his betal shop. However, during course of evidence, he disowned the same and on account thereof, his evidence is also found irrelevant with regard to prosecution version. 14. PW 4 is Ramsundari Devi. She had simply said that Tuntun Singh was murdered about eight months ago but she has shown her ignorance with regard to place and manner of occurrence. According to prosecution version, she had witnessed the deceased in company of an accused. Therefore, her evidence is also found of no use so far prosecution case is concerned. 15. PW 5 has simply said that he came to know that one dead body is floating in the canal but he is unable to say whose dead body it was as he did not see the same. 16. PW 6 had stated that a rumour was heard by him regarding murder of Tuntun Singh but he had not seen his dead body. He further denied presence of Tuntun Singh at his shop. 17. PW 7 had said that he is unable to disclose as to how murder of Tuntun Singh was committed but he had seen the dead body. During cross-examination, he had stated that Jogendra Singh and father of deceased Nathuni Singh along with his family members had come but they have not disclosed the names of assailant. 18. PW 8 has stated that he knew about the occurrence. Inquest report was prepared in his presence as well as in presence of Damodar Singh by the police over which he had put his signature and accordingly, his signature was exhibited. However, he failed to say any thing regarding occurrence. 19. 18. PW 8 has stated that he knew about the occurrence. Inquest report was prepared in his presence as well as in presence of Damodar Singh by the police over which he had put his signature and accordingly, his signature was exhibited. However, he failed to say any thing regarding occurrence. 19. PW 13 is Shashi Kant Singh, a formal witness who had exhibited an informatory petition bearing No. 1188/2001 filed on behalf of Nathuni Singh. 20. Now PWs 9, 10, 11 and 12 are the witnesses over which much emphasis has been laid on behalf of prosecution. 21. PW 12 is Dr. Hemant Kumar who had conducted post-mortem over the dead body of Tuntun Singh @ Arun Kumar Singh on 6.1.2002 at about 4:30 p.m. and found the following ante mortem injuries over the dead body : External Ligature mark present at the level of thyroid cartilage-about 1/2" width surrounding all around neck. It is horizontal and slight upward in the right side. 2. There are two ligature marks in the right side of neck 1/2" apart. 3. Blood coming out from the right eye. It is congested and red. On dissection cranial cavity opened. Brain membrane and brain matter was congested and petichael haemorrhage found. Chest cavity opened. Heart blood in both chambers. Lungs-both lungs intact and congested. Blood came out on dissection, stomach contains semi digested food-congested. Liver-both kidney and spleen are congested. Bladder contained about 100 ML of urine. Neck dissection. Ecchymosis under the ligature mark. Muscle lacerated. Hematoma around thyroid cartilege. Trachea congested. Trachea of thyroid cartilage. In the opinion of the doctor, the time elapsed since death is 12 to 24 hours. The cause of death has been shown due to asphyxia caused by strangulation. During course of cross-examination nothing substantial has been found. When the evidence of doctor is going to be considered, it is evident that the death of deceased might have taken place on 5.1.2002 in between 4:30 p.m. to 6.1.2002 at 4:30 a.m. and presence of semi digested food in stomach suggests having the food at least two to three hours before death. 22. PW 10 is the informant. Admittedly, he is not an eye-witness to occurrence. He had stated that on 4.1.2002, he was at his house. 22. PW 10 is the informant. Admittedly, he is not an eye-witness to occurrence. He had stated that on 4.1.2002, he was at his house. His younger brother Yogendra Singh as well as Tuntun Singh @ Arun Kumar Singh had gone to Dehri on 4.1.2002 and returned back to Sakla Bazar after getting Rs.20,000/-. They met with Bagha Pandey, Kamla Paswan, Ashok Singh and Sanju Singh at Sakla Bazar out of whom Bagha Pandey told Yogendra to move to his house, they along with Tuntun will come later on as they have to resolve the dispute relating to election. Thereafter, Yogendra came and on query disclosed the aforesaid event. Tuntun did not return in the night. In the following morning, he was informed by a passerby that he had seen a dead body at Sakla canal over which he along with Yogendra rushed and identified the dead body to be that of Tuntun. On the information of chaukidar, police came before whom he had given his fardbeyan and then had shown his suspicion against the accused persons who may have committed murder in the aforesaid background as well as for money and golden chain. At para-6, there happens to be contradiction. He had further admitted presence of his ancestral house at Bharpuria Village. Then had admitted presence of cases at the behest of others. 23. PW 9 is Yogendra Singh. He had stated that on 4.1.2002, he along with Tuntun @ Arun Kumar Singh had gone to Dehri from Bharpuria and during midst thereof they met with Kamla Paswan at canal who enquired from them regarding destination and further, when they will return back over which he informed that they were going to Dehri and will return tomorrow. Arun happens to be his nephew. They came at Dehri, took Rs. 20,000/- and then thereafter, he along with Tuntun Singh had got down at Sakla Bazar on 5.1.2002. At about 5:00 p.m. by bus. They had gone to shop of Lalan Singh where they had taken tea and during course thereof, Bagha Pandey, Kamla Paswan, Ashok Singh and Sanju Singh came. Bagha Pandey indulged in talk with Tuntun and then they both had gone to the shop of Jalaluddin to take betal. He directed Tuntun to proceed over which Bagha Pandey had disclosed that you should go to your house. Bagha Pandey indulged in talk with Tuntun and then they both had gone to the shop of Jalaluddin to take betal. He directed Tuntun to proceed over which Bagha Pandey had disclosed that you should go to your house. He along with Tuntun will follow as some talk with regard to case has to be made. Thereafter, he returned back to his house and during course thereof, he saw Mohit Yadav at Sakla canal. On query made by his father he informed regarding Tuntun. On the following day when he along with Nathuni Singh proceeded in search of Tuntun. They had seen a dead body in a canal which was taken out and identified that of Tuntun. There was string spot at his neck. The cash as well as the golden chain were missing. The police came there and Nathuni Singh had given statement over which he had put his signature as well as Yogendra Singh had also put his signature. He had further identified the accused. During cross-examination at para-9, he had admitted that they have got tarka at village, Maheshdih and further disclosed genealogical table of his maternal grand father. He had further admitted presence of one 396, IPC case launched by Rajdeo Singh of Mahadeopur against his brother along with others. In para-12 he had disclosed that after getting information with regard to death of Tuntun, they had gone to P.O. and remained there. Paras-14, 15 happen to be contradiction and the same is found corroborated with by the evidence of PW 11, I.O. 24. PW 11 is the I.O. He after registration of the case, had conducted the investigation and during course thereof, had inspected the place of occurrence, disclosed and identified as canal. Prepared inquest, sent the dead body for post-mortem then his attention was drawn by the prosecution towards the statement of hostile witnesses. During cross-examination, he had admitted the contradiction persisting in the evidence of PW 9 (para-14, 15 and that of informant, Nathuni Singh under para-16). 25. Therefore, from the evidence available on record, it is apparent that none is an eye-witness to occurrence. During cross-examination, he had admitted the contradiction persisting in the evidence of PW 9 (para-14, 15 and that of informant, Nathuni Singh under para-16). 25. Therefore, from the evidence available on record, it is apparent that none is an eye-witness to occurrence. Although, there happens to be material contradiction in the evidence of PW 9, Yogendra Singh the sole witness over which prosecution has put reliance, even with the aid of Section 134 of the Evidence Act is sole testimony is not found inspiring confidence on account of material contradiction persisting in his testimony as well as having not been corroborated by other evidence at least by a shopkeeper where they had gone to take tea, the betal shopkeeper where deceased along with Bagha Pandey had taken betal, Mohit Yadav with whom they had met. Even accepting his evidence, mere association at Sakal Bazar will not identify the opposite party as a culprit because of the fact that prosecution had not been able to place any sort of evidence during intervening period. 26. The basic principle for consideration of case based upon circumstantial evidence attracts the chain of circumstances be interlinked in such a manner as not of leaving any reasonable ground for the conclusion with the innocence of the accused, and the prosecution evidence must be up to such a level suggesting that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused, and such finding should be placed by the circumstances which should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. Now, coming to the facts of present case, the following infirmities are found ;- (a) The prosecution has not brought on record any document with regard to previous litigation relating to election in between Bagha Pandey and deceased; (b) When the prosecution was well knowing since before regarding acrimonious relationship then in that event, sitting idle for whole night without any reasonable explanation; (c) Informant PW 10 had not disclosed that Tuntun had gone to place of PW 9 Yogendra Singh and from there, they had gone to Dehri while PW 9 had suggested so on 4.11.2002. 27. PW 9 as well as PW 10 had stated that they have brought Rs. 20,000/- from Dehri but its source has not been explained whether it was withdrawn from a Bank or it was borrowed from a friend or it was taken on loan. 27. PW 9 as well as PW 10 had stated that they have brought Rs. 20,000/- from Dehri but its source has not been explained whether it was withdrawn from a Bank or it was borrowed from a friend or it was taken on loan. PW 9 had not disclosed the reason for getting down at Sakla Bazar. Save and except the evidence of PW 9, the prosecution failed to prove presence of PW 9 as well as deceased at Sakla Bazar and in likewise manner having the deceased in association with the O.P. 28. The medical evidence suggests death in between 12 to 24 hours and consequent thereupon it was upon the prosecution which would have shown the presence of deceased along with O.Ps. during intervening period by reliable evidence. 29. Even having considered the evidence of PW 9, a grave suspicion may arise. For the purpose of convicting an accused whether suspicion could substitute the obligation whereunder prosecution is bound to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt that has been properly considered and explained by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar Singh v. State of Rajasthan, as reported in (2013) 5 SCC 722 under para-21 which is incorporated hereinbelow :- "21. Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof, and there is a large difference between something that 'may be' proved and 'will be proved'. In a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof. This is for the reason, that the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is quite large and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. In a criminal case, the Court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof. The large distance between 'may be' true and 'must be' true, must be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the prosecution, before an accused is condemned as a convict, and the basic and golden rule must be applied. The large distance between 'may be' true and 'must be' true, must be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the prosecution, before an accused is condemned as a convict, and the basic and golden rule must be applied. In such cases, while keeping in mind the distance between 'may be' true and 'must be' true, the Court must maintain the vital' distance between conjectures and sure conclusions to be arrived at, on the touchstone of dispassionate judicial scrutiny based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case, as well as the quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record. The Court must ensure, that miscarriage of justice is avoided and if the facts and circumstances of a case so demand then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, keeping in mind that a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely probable doubt but a fair doubt that is based upon reason and common sense. (Vide: Hanumant Govind Nargundkar & Anr. v. State of M.P., AIR 1952 SC 343 ; Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of Mahrashtra, AIR 1973 SC 2622 ; Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 ; Subhash Chand v. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 1 SCC 702 ; Ashish Batham v. State of M.P., AIR 2002 SC 3206 ; Narendra Singh & Anr. v. State of M.P., AIR 2004 SC 3249 ; State through CBI v. Mahender Singh Dahiya, AIR 2011 SC 1017 ; .and Ramesh Harijan v. State of U.P., AIR 2012 SC 1979 )." 30. At the present juncture, para-22 thereof has also got relevance and is accordingly, incorporated below : "22. In Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 2773 , this Court observed as under : "Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases where in the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence." 31. Thus, the instant revision petition is found devoid of merit and is accordingly, dismissed. This principle has a special relevance in cases where in the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence." 31. Thus, the instant revision petition is found devoid of merit and is accordingly, dismissed. Revision dismissed.