Judgment: G.D. Saxena, J.;- Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 18th October 2001 in Sessions Case No. 23/2001 pronounced by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karera, district Shivpuri, acquitting the accused/respondents No. 1 to 3 of the charges for commission of offence under Section 302 or in alternative 302/34 of I.P.C., the petitioner who is brother of the deceased presented this revision under Section 397/402 of Cr.P.C. (2) In short, the prosecution story is that in the intervening night of 1st-2nd December, 2000 Ramniwas (deceased) and his brother Ramkishan (PW-5) were sleeping in their rooms of the separate houses. At about 12 a.m., Ramkishan (PW-5) brother of deceased heard a piercing cry of his brother Ramniwas. So, he rushed to the room of his brother which was bolted from outside. When he opened the room, he found his brother on fire. His brother informed that all accused entered inside his room, after having an Axe and on instigation of accused Panna, they poured kerosene oil over him and set him ablaze and then fled away from the place. As Ramniwas was seriously burnt, his brother carried him to a Police Station and on advice of the present police personnel for saving his life, he shifted his brother to the District Hospital. On receiving instructions from the hospital, the details of the incident and statement of patient were recorded by the Police Officer. On request of the police, the dying declaration was recorded on 2nd December 2000 at about 1-20 p.m., in the District Hospital Shivpuri. The burnt person died on 3rd December 2000. On report from treating Medical Officer of the District Hospital Shivpuri, the Marg intimation was written and after inquiry, F.I.R. was recorded against the named accused at Crime No. 106/2000 for offence under Section 302 read with section 34 of I.P.C. Postmortem on the body of Ramniwas was conducted. Case-diary statements of the witnesses were recorded. The accused were arrested. After investigation charge-sheet was filed before the criminal court having jurisdiction. After committal, the sessions trial was commenced and after recording statements of witnesses, the trial Judge pronounced the judgment of acquittal, hence this revision. (3) The submission put forth by the learned counsel for the complainant is that the impugned judgment of acquittal is against the facts on record and provisions of law and therefore same deserves to be set aside. (3) The submission put forth by the learned counsel for the complainant is that the impugned judgment of acquittal is against the facts on record and provisions of law and therefore same deserves to be set aside. It is contended that the trial judge disbelieved the entire incident merely on the ground that in the dying declaration, the Executive Magistrate mentioned the date of incident as 13-14th November 2000. No explanation was sought from prosecution by the court for wrongly mentioning the date of incident in the dying declaration so recorded. Hence, the trial judge committed manifestly error in discarding the statement of the brother of deceased when specially there was no enmity proved of the deceased or other witnesses with the accused. Therefore, it is prayed that by allowing the revision petition, the judgment of acquittal may be set aside and the case may be remanded back for consideration afresh and passing an appropriate decision. (4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3/accused, opposed the prayer of the petitioner and by supporting the judgment of acquittal prayed that the revision petition may be dismissed. (5) Heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. (6) The question for consideration in this revision is whether the trial judge after considering the entire evidence, correctly passed judgment of acquittal ? (7) On perusal of the prosecution version and evidence as adduced before the trial court, it clearly reveals that the case revolves on circumstantial evidence. The incident took place in peek hours of night when the deceased was taking rest in his room. On hearing the shriek of the deceased, his brother Ramkishan (PW-5) went to the room of his brother which was bolted from outside. When he opened the gate of the room, nobody except his brother was present outside or inside the room. After taking entry inside the room, he found that his brother was seriously burnt. He stated that his brother informed that accused Panna caught hold of his hands, accused Hargovind showed an Axe and accused Kishanlal slept him. Then accused Panna poured a kerosene on him and accused Kishanlal sparked the matchstick and after setting him on fire and closing the room from outside, the accused-persons fled away from the place. No motive of the incident was appeared from his statement. Then accused Panna poured a kerosene on him and accused Kishanlal sparked the matchstick and after setting him on fire and closing the room from outside, the accused-persons fled away from the place. No motive of the incident was appeared from his statement. Another witness of the prosecution, namely, Jagdish (PW-1) who was surprisingly present on the spot, just after incident, did not depose that he saw the accused after incident of burning of deceased while going away from the room of the deceased. He did not support the case and therefore was declared hostile. The original dying declaration which was recorded by the Executive Magistrate Shri Hargovind Singh Bhadoria (PW-6) in the District Hospital Shivpuri is not on record of the trial Judge. However, certified copy of the dying declaration marked as Ex.P/9 is on record. Further the prosecution utterly failed to produce and examine material witness Dr. V.C. Goyal, concerning Physician who treated the injured and in whose presence the dying declaration of the patient was recorded after certification by him. J.N. Saxena (PW-2) Assistant Sub Inspector of the Police Station Kotwali posted at outpost in the District Hospital Shivpuri deposed that on 2nd December 2000 at about 4 a.m., after receiving information of the incident, he reached in the word and recorded case-diary statement of Ramniwas, the burnt person. On 3rd December 2000 on information of death of burnt Ramniwas from the District Hospital, he recorded information in daily dairy of outpost and thereafter prepared the memo of dead body and issued the memo for postmortem (Ex.P/2) alongwith dead-body. On perusal of the record, it appears that no case diary statement which was recorded by this witness at earlier point of time in the hospital was filed nor proved by the prosecution. Even, Dr. Nisar Ahmad (PW-3), who performed the autopsy on the body of burnt Ramniwas deposed that the burns were of grade-II and grade-III and total percentage of burns was approximately 95% on whole body excluding the lower part of both legs and soles. Blacking and peeling of skin was present in neck out parts and in upper and lower limbs. The burns like grade-II and grade-III were, according to the doctor, caused by dry heat and ante-mortem which were fatal in nature. He opined that the cause of death was extensive burns over body and time of death was within 6 hours since examination. The burns like grade-II and grade-III were, according to the doctor, caused by dry heat and ante-mortem which were fatal in nature. He opined that the cause of death was extensive burns over body and time of death was within 6 hours since examination. However, the doctor did not mention about the mode of death of the deceased. The said postmortem report is Ex.P/3. (8) Thus, overall perusal of the circumstantial evidence as placed on the record of the trial Judge discloses that the material on record is not sufficient to convict the accused for killing Ramniwas. (9) In Pudhu Raja Vs. State (2012) 11 SCC 196 , at page 201 the Hon. Apex Court observed as follows :- 14. The law on the issue of interference with an order of acquittal is to the effect that only in exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances and the judgment in appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of the acquittal. The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the trial court’s acquittal bolsters the presumption of innocence. Interference in a routine manner where the other view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference. 15. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish each instance of incriminating circumstance by way of reliable and clinching evidence, and the circumstances so proved, must form a complete chain of events, on the basis of which, no conclusion other than one of guilt of the accused can be reached. Undoubtedly, suspicion, however grave it may be, can never be treated as a substitute for proof. While dealing with a case of circumstantial evidence, the court must take utmost precaution whilst finding an accused guilty solely on the basis of the circumstances proved before it. 16. Furthermore, in such a case, motive assumes great significance and importance, as the absence of motive puts the court on its guard and causes it to scrutinise each piece of evidence very closely in order to ensure that suspicion, emotion or conjecture do not take the place of proof. The evidence regarding existence of motive which operates in the minds of assailants is very often, not known to any other person. The motive may not even be known, under certain circumstances, to the victim of the crime. The evidence regarding existence of motive which operates in the minds of assailants is very often, not known to any other person. The motive may not even be known, under certain circumstances, to the victim of the crime. It may be known only to the accused and to none other. It is, therefore, only the perpetrator of the crime alone, who knows as to what circumstances prompted him to adopt a certain course of action leading to the commission of the crime. (10) In the light of the aforesaid law, we have scanned carefully and thoroughly the record and the evidence of the trial Court. After appreciating the evidence and going through the reasons assigned by the trial Court for the acquittal carefully and further considering the vital features of the case and reasonable probabilities arising out of the circumstances of the matter, after taking into consideration the contentions raised by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3/accused, we come to hold that the prosecution failed to establish the charges against the respondents No. 1 to 3/accused beyond reasonable doubt. (11) Hence, considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, we are of the view that this revision petition has no merit and the learned trial court has not committed any illegality in finding no evidence at all against the accused for convicting them. (12) Accordingly, revision fails and stands hereby dismissed.