JUDGMENT Tarun Kumar Gupta, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against an order of acquittal filed by the defacto complainant after obtaining necessary leave under Section 378 (3) of the Code from this Court vide order dated 10th of December, 2013 passed in CRM SPL No.69 of 2013. 2. The appellant being the informant filed a written complaint to O. C. Kulti P. S. alleging that since her marriage with accused Moloy Ganguly she was subjected to cruelty and torture by her husband and other in-laws. It was further alleged that her husband Moloy Ganguly had an illicit relation with her ‘Boudi’ Smt. Sarmistha Ganguly and that the informant was also tortured by Moloy and his other relations as she protested against said illicit relation. Petitioner had a minor son named Debarchan through her husband Moloy. As said son became aware of the illicit relation and raised objections he was murdered by the accused persons namely Moloy Ganguly, his two brothers namely Aloke Ganguly and Tapan Ganguly, Aloke’s wife Sarmistha Ganguly and their cook Sahadeb Sekhar Pal @ Babu in the early morning of 21st July, 2000 and drowned him in a nearby well to show that it was a case of drowning. On the basis of said complaint Kulti P.S. Case No.157 of 2000 dated 1st of September, 2000 was initiated against all five F.I.R. named persons under Section 498A/302/201 I.P.C. After investigation police submitted charge sheet under Section 498A/302/201 I.P.C. against said five accused persons who also faced trial under those provisions of law in the court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, 1st Court, Asansole in Sessions Trial No.50 of 2006 (S.C. No.40 of 2004). 3. In said case the defence took the plea that there was no question of murdering the minor boy by his father and his relations and that it was an accidental death of the victim by drowning in the nearby well and that the informant lodged a false complaint after a delay of about 47 days just to harass the accused persons. After contested hearing learned trial court acquitted all the accused persons from all the charges by the order impugned dated 19th of August, 20013. 4. Being aggrieved with said order of acquittal the informant has filed this appeal. 5. Mr. After contested hearing learned trial court acquitted all the accused persons from all the charges by the order impugned dated 19th of August, 20013. 4. Being aggrieved with said order of acquittal the informant has filed this appeal. 5. Mr. Sanyal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant informant, submits that learned trial court failed to appreciate the evidence on record on their proper perspective. According to him, the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination (P.W.8) though opined that death was due to asphyxia as a result of drowning being ante-mortem in nature, but he did not find any water in the stomach of the dead body. According to him, said post-mortem examination was incomplete as doctor should have dissected the dead body for sending the viscera to an expert to ascertain whether the victim was pushed in the water of the well after giving him some poisonous food. According to him, the post-mortem examination report was not acceptable and that it was not proved beyond doubt that death of the victim was caused by drowning being accidental in nature. 6. He next submits that the investigating officer (P.W.11) admitted during his cross-examination that he collected circumstantial evidence against the accused persons but could not complete the chain. He accordingly submits that there was scope of further investigation in the matter. He next submits that though there was sufficient evidence of strained relation between the informant wife on the one hand and her husband and other accused persons on the other on account of having an illicit relation between her husband Moloy and his ‘Boudi’ namely accused Sarmistha, but learned court below failed to recognize the same. He submits that the judgment of the court below was a cryptic one and that the appellant has an arguable case in the matter. 7. Mr. Sekhar Kumar Basu appearing for the respondent accused persons, on the other hand, submits that neither at the time of recovery of the dead body of the victim boy nor at the time of inquest over said dead body there was any allegation whatsoever against the present accused persons. He next submits that after the informant had been to her father’s place a false and concocted complaint was filed much belatedly without proper explanation just to harass her husband and other in-laws. He next submits that after the informant had been to her father’s place a false and concocted complaint was filed much belatedly without proper explanation just to harass her husband and other in-laws. He next submits that Nupur Ganguly (P.W.9) categorically deposed how the victim met with said accidental death by drowning. According to him, said witness was not declared hostile by the prosecution and that the defence was entitled to rely upon the same and said evidence was binding on the prosecution. He further submits that learned trial court did not commit any wrong to observe from the evidence on record that there was no evidence that the victim was murdered by the accused persons and thereafter his body was thrown into well and that suspicion, however, strong cannot take the place of proof. 8. He next submits that it is evident from the evidence of the post mortem doctor (P.W.8) that there was water in the lungs. In the larynx there were full of debris to show that the death of the victim was caused by drowning and not by any other means. In this connection he also drew the attention of the court to the evidence of the local witness namely Dilip Kumar Das (P.W.10) who deposed that on the fateful date hearing the noise when he came to the spot he found the parents and other relations and para people of the victim were present there and that all of them told him that the child fell accidentally in the well resulting his unfortunate death. According to him, said witness was not declared hostile by the prosecution, and hence it cannot be said at this stage that he did not depose truthfully. Lastly he submits that a court of appeal in a case of an order of acquittal should be very slow to interfere with said order of acquittal and that it can be interfered only if it can be shown that the trial court arrived at a decision contrary to the evidence or the court’s approach was patently illegal causing miscarriage of justice, or that the judgment was based on an erroneous understanding of law and of the facts of the case. In this connection he refers the case of State of Punjab vs. Madan Mohan Lal Verma reported in 2014 (1) AICLR 96. 9. In this connection he refers the case of State of Punjab vs. Madan Mohan Lal Verma reported in 2014 (1) AICLR 96. 9. The powers and duties of High Court in appeal against acquittal and mode of exercise came up before Privy Council as well as before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on various occasions. It was held in the case of Sheo Swarup and others vs. Emperor reported in 1939 CWN 15 that though the High Court has full power to review at large the evidence upon which the acquittal was founded, but in exercising that power and before reaching its conclusion upon fact, the High Court should and will always give proper weightage and consideration to such matters as (i) the view of the trial court as to the credibility of the witnesses; (ii) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at the trial; (iii) the right of the accused to the benefit of doubt; and (iv) the slowness of an appellate court in disturbing in finding a fact arrived at by a Judge who had the opportunity of seeing the witnesses. Said principle was followed by Supreme Court on several subsequent cases namely Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh and another vs. State of Vindh-Pra. reported in AIR 1954 Supreme Court page 322 etc. In the case of Aher Raja Khima vs. State of Saurashtra reported in AIR 1956 Supreme Court page 217 it was added to said principles that it is not enough for the High Court to take a different view on the evidence, there must also be substantial and compelling reasons for holding that the trial court was wrong. In subsequent case of Ramabhupala Reddy and others vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 1971 SC 460 it was further added that if two reasonable conclusions can be reached on the basis of evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the evidence of the trial court. Now, keeping in mind those principles let us examine the judgment of acquittal passed by learned trial court in the backdrop of the evidence on record. 10. It appears that there was no eye witness of the alleged incident of murder of victim by his father and other relations along with another. Now, keeping in mind those principles let us examine the judgment of acquittal passed by learned trial court in the backdrop of the evidence on record. 10. It appears that there was no eye witness of the alleged incident of murder of victim by his father and other relations along with another. It is rather apprehension of the informant mother that as her minor son was also vocal against the torture meted upon her by her husband on account of her protest over the extra marital relation between husband and her ‘Boudi’ Sarmistha Ganguly the victim was murdered by the accused persons and thereafter he was dropped in the well to give a picture of accidental death. Learned trial court on scrutiny of the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, came to a finding of fact that during the long period of marriage between the informant and accused Moloy Ganguly there was no complaint to police or to local person about the alleged torture and rather it appeared that there was cordial relation between the families of informant’s husband and informant’s father. Learned trial court also relied upon the evidence of the post-mortem doctor (P.W.8) who opined that death of the boy was caused due to asphyxia as a result of drowning. It appears from the evidence of said doctor as well as his post-mortem report (Ext.7) that larynx was full of debris to suggest ante-mortem drowning. According to the doctor water in the lungs was positive sign that the deceased was still alive at the point of submersion and the death was caused due to drowning. In view of said evidence of the doctor there was no question of forwarding the viscera of the victim to the forensic science laboratory for examination and report. 11. Smt. Nupur Ganguly (P.W.9) was a relation of the victim and his parents. She categorically deposed as to how the victim drowned in said well during her examination in chief claiming her to be the eye witness. She was not declared hostile by the prosecution. Rather it appears from her evidence as well as other evidence that on her hue and cry the informant mother and other persons including other accused persons and neighbours assembled at the place of occurrence. She was not declared hostile by the prosecution. Rather it appears from her evidence as well as other evidence that on her hue and cry the informant mother and other persons including other accused persons and neighbours assembled at the place of occurrence. It came out that as the family members and para people failed to retrieve the victim from the well police and fire brigade personnels came there and ultimately the victim was recovered and sent to hospital to be declared brought dead. There is nothing on record to show that at that point of said searching of the victim in the water of the well or recovery of his body from the well the informant or anybody stated about any foul play in the incident. Rather it appears that all of them including the informant declared the unfortunate death of the victim as an accidental drowning. It found ample corroboration in the post-mortem report (Ext.7). Learned trial court rightly held that suspicion, however, strong can not take the place of proof. In order to establish the charge of murder through circumstantial evidence only, there must be a complete chain of evidences which will lead only to one conclusion namely guilt of the accused persons and which will be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused persons. In the case in hand, save and except suspicion there is nothing on record to show that there was any foul play in the matter of the death of the victim or that the accused persons being his father and other close relations had any hand in the same. As such, from whatever angle the evidence on record be viewed it cannot be said that the order of acquittal passed by learned trial court was against the evidence on record or bad in law. 12. Accordingly, we are of opinion, and of considered opinion that there is no sufficient ground for interfering with the impugned judgment of acquittal. 13. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby dismissed summarily under Section 384 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, without admitting the same. 14. Let the lower court records along with a copy of this judgment be urgently forwarded to the court below for information and record. I agree.