Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 917 (BOM)

State v. Srikar Naik Kurade

2014-04-08

F.M.REIS, R.S.DALVI

body2014
Judgment : F.M. Reis, J. 1. The above Appeal challenges the Judgment dated 10.07.2003 passed in Sessions Case no.18/2000, whereby, Respondent nos. 1, 3 and 4 were given the benefit of doubt and, consequently, acquitted from charges under Section 120-B, 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act and a non-bailable warrant was issued against the Respondent no. 2. 2. It was the case of the Appellants/Prosecution that on 23.11.1999 at 21.30 hours, Shri Prakash Ramchandra Pujari resident of Davorlim, lodged a complaint that on 23.11.1999 at about 20.15 hours, at Khareaband, Margao, his brother in law Guru Pujari, whilst standing near his car, two unknown persons came on a Yamaha motorcycle and fired shots by pistol and fled with the said Yamaha motorcycle; that his said brother in law Gurudas Pujari, collapsed sustaining bleeding injuries and was shifted to the Hospicio Hospital, Margao, where he was declared dead before admission. Accordingly, an offence was registered under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act and further Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code was added as criminal conspiracy came to light to kill the deceased. It is further the case of the Appellant that after investigations were carried out, a chargesheet was filed on 22.02.2000 under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The charge came to be framed by the learned Sessions Judge on 30.11.2000 and thereafter the trial proceeded. In support of the case of the prosecution/Appellants, 55 witnesses were examined out of which 12 witnesses turned hostile. The learned Sessions Judge after conducting the trial and proceeding under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., passed the impugned Judgment acquitting the said Respondents of the said charge. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment, the Appellants/State has filed the present Appeal. 3. Shri S. R. Rivonkar, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the Appellant, has pointed out that the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that the Respondents have committed offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The learned Public Prosecutor further pointed out that the fact that the deceased expired on account of a homicide has been duly established on the basis of the medical evidence on record. The learned Public Prosecutor further pointed out that the fact that the deceased expired on account of a homicide has been duly established on the basis of the medical evidence on record. The learned Public Prosecutor further pointed out that though 12 of the witnesses examined by the prosecution turned hostile, nevertheless, there was sufficient evidence on record to establish that the Respondents had committed the said crime. The learned Public Prosecutor further pointed out that though there were no eye witnesses to the incident, but, however, the circumstantial evidence proved by the prosecution clearly establishes the chain pointing out that the Respondents have committed the offence. The learned Public Prosecutor further points out that the circumstantial evidence which has been established by the prosecution proved that the deceased and the Respondent no. 1 were matka agents in Margao city. He has further submitted that the prosecution has also established that there was rivalry between the deceased Gurudas and the Accused-Respondent no. 1 on account of such gambling business. The next circumstance according to the prosecution which has been established is that the gada of the deceased was burnt at Khareaband where the deceased was conducting his said business. Learned Public Prosecutor further pointed out that the prosecution has also established the fact that the deceased was receiving threats to his life prior to the incident and that the Respondent no. 1-Accused hatched a criminal conspiracy with the Respondent no. 2 to kill the deceased. The learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the Respondent no. 2 contacted the Respondent no. 3 to kill the deceased for a price and that the Respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 visited the locality where the incident had occurred on different occasions prior to the said incident. Learned Public Prosecutor also pointed out that the deceased was killed by the Respondent no. 3 with the help of the Respondent no. 4 by firing shots from the revolver and then fled away on a motorcycle. Learned Public Prosecutor further pointed out that there were extra judicial confessions by the Respondent no. 3 to Pw.2 who was his friend. The learned Public Prosecutor also pointed out that the prosecution has also established recovery of the weapon and life bullets which were used in the commissioning of the crime. Learned Public Prosecutor further pointed out that there were extra judicial confessions by the Respondent no. 3 to Pw.2 who was his friend. The learned Public Prosecutor also pointed out that the prosecution has also established recovery of the weapon and life bullets which were used in the commissioning of the crime. He has further pointed out that the post mortem report and the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and the panchanamas and the reports produced by the Appellants further establish that the Respondents have committed the said crime. The learned Public Prosecutor further pointed out that the motive of the crime has been duly proved by the Appellants and, as such, the learned Sessions Judge was not justified to acquit the said accused. The learned Public Prosecutor has thereafter taken us through the Judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge and pointed out that the learned Judge has totally misconstrued the evidence on record whilst giving a benefit of doubt to the Respondents. The learned Public Prosecutor further pointed out that the learned Sessions Judge has been carried away by the alleged discrepancies in the evidence on record which are not at all material and in any way do not affect the case of the prosecution which has been duly established beyond reasonable doubt. Learned Public Prosecutor further pointed out that even the fact that the Respondent no. 3 had fired from the pistol and thereafter fled along with the Respondent no. 4, has been duly established by the witnesses examined by the prosecution. The Learned Public Prosecutor further pointed out that the learned Sessions Judge was not justified to pass the impugned Judgment and, as such, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and the said Respondents be convicted for committing offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act. 4. On the other hand, Shri S. G. Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondents, has supported the impugned Judgment. The learned Senior Counsel pointed out that the prosecution is trying to establish their case on the basis of inadmissible evidence. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that there is no material on record to even remotely connect any of the Respondents with the commissioning of the crime. The learned Senior Counsel pointed out that the prosecution is trying to establish their case on the basis of inadmissible evidence. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that there is no material on record to even remotely connect any of the Respondents with the commissioning of the crime. Learned Senior Counsel has thereafter taken us minutely through the evidence on record and the depositions of the witnesses and highlighted that the discrepancies therein, by no stretch of imagination, makes a complete chain to implicate the Respondents and nobody else for committing the crime. Learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that the prosecution is relying upon the evidence of hostile witnesses which is not at all permissible and in any event even in the cross examination of such witnesses, there is nothing brought on record by the prosecution to implicate the Respondents in the commissioning of the crime. The learned Senior Counsel has thereafter taken us through each of the alleged circumstances pointed out by learned Public Prosecutor and submitted that there is no cogent and reliable evidence adduced by the prosecution to hold that any of such circumstances have been established by the prosecution. Learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that even if all the alleged circumstances are established, by no stretch of imagination do any of those so called circumstances complete a chain to implicate the Respondents in the commissioning of the crime. Learned Senior Counsel has thereafter taken us minutely through the impugned Judgment and pointed out that the learned Senior Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge framed against the said Respondents. Learned Senior Counsel as such pointed out that there is no case made out for any interference in the impugned Judgment and, as such, the Appeal deserves to e rejected. 5. The law with regard to the interference in an Appeal against an acquittal is now well settled. The Apex Court in a Judgment reported in (2012) 4 SCC 722 , in the case of Govindarajualias Govinda vs. State & anr., has observed at paras 13, 14 and 15 thus: “13. Under the scheme of CrPC, acquittal confers rights on an accused that of a free citizen. The Apex Court in a Judgment reported in (2012) 4 SCC 722 , in the case of Govindarajualias Govinda vs. State & anr., has observed at paras 13, 14 and 15 thus: “13. Under the scheme of CrPC, acquittal confers rights on an accused that of a free citizen. A benefit that has accrued to an accused by the judgment of acquittal can be taken away and he can be convicted on appeal, only when the judgment of the trial court is perverse on facts or law. Upon examination of the evidence before it, the appellate court should be fully convinced that the findings returned by the trial court are really erroneous and contrary to the settled principles of criminal law. 14. In State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram3, a Bench of this Court, of which one of us (Swatanter Kumar, J.) was a member, took the view that there may be no grave distinction between an appeal against acquittal and an appeal against conviction but the court has to keep in mind the value of the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused duly endorsed by order of the court while the court exercises its appellate jurisdiction. In this very case, the Court also examined various judgments of this Court dealing with the principles which may guide the exercise of jurisdiction by the appellate court in an appeal against a judgment of acquittal. 15. We may usefully refer to the following paragraphs of that judgment: (Shera Ram case3, SCC pp. 608-12, paras 8-13) “8. The penal laws in India are primarily based upon certain fundamental procedural values, which are right to fair trial and presumption of innocence. A person is presumed to be innocent till proven guilty and once held to be not guilty of a criminal charge, he enjoys the benefit of such presumption which could be interfered with only for valid and proper reasons. An appeal against acquittal has always been differentiated from a normal appeal against conviction. Wherever there is perversity of facts and/or law appearing in the judgment, the appellate court would be within its jurisdiction to interfere with the judgment of acquittal, but otherwise such interference is not called for. 9. An appeal against acquittal has always been differentiated from a normal appeal against conviction. Wherever there is perversity of facts and/or law appearing in the judgment, the appellate court would be within its jurisdiction to interfere with the judgment of acquittal, but otherwise such interference is not called for. 9. We may refer to a recent judgment of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Abdul Mannand, wherein this Court discussed the limitation upon the powers of the appellate court to interfere with the judgment of acquittal and reverse the same. This Court referred to its various judgments and held as under: (SCC pp. 70-73, paras 12-17) 12. As is evident from the above recorded findings, the judgment of conviction was converted to a judgment of acquittal by the High Court. Thus, the first and foremost question that we need to consider is, in what circumstances this Court should interfere with the judgment of acquittal. Against an order of acquittal, an appeal by the State is maintainable to this Court only with the leave of the Court. On the contrary, if the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court is set aside by the High Court, and the accused is sentenced to death, or life imprisonment or imprisonment for more than 10 years, then the right of appeal of the accused is treated as an absolute right subject to the provisions of Articles 134(1)(a) and 134(1) (b) of the Constitution of India and Section 379 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In light of this, it is obvious that an appeal against acquittal is considered on slightly different parameters compared to an ordinary appeal preferred to this Court. 13. When an accused is acquitted of a criminal charge, a right vests in him to be a free citizen and this Court is very cautious in taking away that right. The presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by the fact of acquittal of the accused under our criminal jurisprudence. The courts have held that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, then the one favourable to the accused, may be adopted by the court. However, this principle must be applied keeping in view the facts and circumstances of a case and the thumb rule is that whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. However, this principle must be applied keeping in view the facts and circumstances of a case and the thumb rule is that whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. If the prosecution has succeeded in discharging its onus, and the error in appreciation of evidence is apparent on the face of the record then the court can interfere in the judgment of acquittal to ensure that the ends of justice are met. This is the linchpin around which the administration of criminal justice revolves. 14. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the burden of proof lies on the prosecution and it has to prove a charge beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence and the right to fair trial are twin safeguards available to the accused under our criminal justice system but once the prosecution has proved its case and the evidence led by the prosecution, in conjunction with the chain of events as are stated to have occurred, if, points irresistibly to the conclusion that the accused is guilty then the court can interfere even with the judgment of acquittal. The judgment of acquittal might be based upon misappreciation of evidence or apparent violation of settled canons of criminal jurisprudence. ….. 17. Reference can also be usefully made to the judgment of this Court in Suman Sood v. State of Rajasthan18, where this Court reiterated with approval the principles stated by the Court in earlier cases, particularly, Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka19. Emphasising that expressions like “substantial and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtail the extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal, the Court stated that such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with the acquittal. Thus, where it is possible to take only one view i.e. the prosecution evidence points to the guilt of the accused and the judgment is on the face of it perverse, then the Court may interfere with an order of acquittal.’ 6. Thus, we shall proceed to examine the material on record and the impugned Judgment passed by the learned Judge in the light of the well settled principles laid down by the Apex Court. Thus, we shall proceed to examine the material on record and the impugned Judgment passed by the learned Judge in the light of the well settled principles laid down by the Apex Court. Merely because a different view on the evidence on record is possible if the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is reasonable or a possible one, it will not call for interference by this Court in the Judgment of acquittal. 7. We shall now proceed to examine whether the Appellants/Prosecution have established all the circumstances alleged by the learned Public Prosecutor by which one could conclude that the incriminating circumstances are such as to lead to the hypothesis of the guilt of the said Respondents-Accused only and reasonably exclude every possibility of innocence of the Accused. 8. In support of their case, the prosecution has first examined Pw.1, Shri Prakash Pujari. On perusal of his evidence, we find that the said witness has narrated the fact that he saw the deceased going to enter his parked vehicle and thereafter he heard the gun shot sound. He further stated that he thereafter ran to the place of the incident and saw the deceased fallen down and he accordingly took him to the Hospicio Hospital. He has also stated that Respondent no. 1 was carrying out matka business and that the Respondent no. 1 and the deceased were good friends as the deceased was passing heavy bets to the Respondents no.1. He has further stated that in the month of March, the deceased had closed all business connections with the Respondent no.1 as he was abused about some payments. He has also stated that the deceased thereafter contacted some party in Mumbai and was placing heavy bets and that the gada of Pw.1 was burnt. He has also stated that there were some threats from the Respondent no. 1 to kill the deceased. He has also stated that he had also seen one Taliba, Zacarias Respondent no.2 and Respondent no. 1 along with another person were going about the area of Khareaband. He has also narrated the fact that his gada was burnt. In the cross examination, he has stated that his gada was raided by the police on two or three occasions. He has also admitted that he was arrested once and on two other occasions the persons who were in the gada were arrested. He has also narrated the fact that his gada was burnt. In the cross examination, he has stated that his gada was raided by the police on two or three occasions. He has also admitted that he was arrested once and on two other occasions the persons who were in the gada were arrested. The said witness was extensively cross examined with regard to the names he had disclosed in his complaint at exhibit 54 as well as the person he had not named though he could identify them. He has also stated that he had not identified such person to the prosecution. He was also confronted with his statement where it was not recorded that he had told the police that Kurade was threatening the deceased Guru over the phone. He was also confronted with his statement that he had not told the police that Kurade had engaged Zacarias to finish the deceased. The said witness has also stated that he had not told the police in his statement that Kurade had phoned Guru that Rs.29 lakhs were kept to kill him. Another witness examined by the prosecution is Pw.10 Bhima Gauns who is the accountant of the deceased. He had stated that the relationship between the Respondent no. 1 and the deceased was strained and thereafter the Respondent no. 1 was phoning the deceased office and started threatening him that he would kill him and that he would not leave him. He has further stated that it was Guru who had told him about the said phone messages. He was also confronted where it was not recorded that he had told the police about Kurade's phone calls had come to the deceased. 9. Another witness examined by the Appellants to show the business of the deceased is Pw.12, who has stated that he was working with the deceased as a matka slip collector since 1987 till his death. He further stated that the deceased had told him that the Respondent no. 2 was threatening him. He has further stated that he did not remember whether he had told the police in his statement that he did not know who were the real accused in murdering the deceased and he was confronted with his previous statement where it was so recorded. 10. Pw.16, has totally resciled from his statement to the police as well as to the Magistrate. 10. Pw.16, has totally resciled from his statement to the police as well as to the Magistrate. On perusal of his evidence in any event it does not in any way assist the prosecution to implicate the said Respondents in the crime. Pw.17, who was otherwise a person who had gone to meet the accused no. 2/Respondent no. 2 herein, has totally refused to accept the story that he had proceeded along with Pw.16 to the residence of Respondent no. 2. Pw.19, Sanju Dharwadkar, has also refused to accept that Respondent nos. 1 and 2 had met one another. 11. Pw.3, who is the widow of the deceased, has stated that Respondent no. 1 used to visit their house for the last three years and that he had become his enemy because the deceased started matka business. She has also stated that the deceased had told her that Respondent no. 1 threatened him that he would murder him and that he kept Rs. 29 lakhs for such purpose. She has also stated that her husband was in tension out of fear for about five to six months prior to his death though he had not complained to the police during the said period. She has also stated that her husband had not informed the police about the burning of the gada. She has also stated in the cross examination that she was not present to listen to the conversation between the Respondent no. 1 and the said Guru as she used to be in the kitchen. She has also stated that the deceased had not told anybody else about the threats of Respondent no. 1. 12. The aforesaid witnesses have been examined by the Appellants essentially to establish the enmity between the deceased and the Respondent no. 1 and the association of Respondent no. 1 with the other accused. As pointed out herein above, many of the important witnesses to establish the said circumstances, have shown total hostility to the case of the prosecution. Even on perusal of the evidence of the said witnesses, we cannot find anything which can support the case of the Appellants to establish that the Respondent no. 1 had engaged the other Respondents, to commission the crime. Apart from that, the witnesses have tried to improve their versions during their depositions in the Court. Even on perusal of the evidence of the said witnesses, we cannot find anything which can support the case of the Appellants to establish that the Respondent no. 1 had engaged the other Respondents, to commission the crime. Apart from that, the witnesses have tried to improve their versions during their depositions in the Court. Even on perusal of the FIR, we find that there is nothing to show that the fact that the Respondent no. 1 had threatened the deceased or that he had kept Rs.29 lakhs ready for such purpose, was stated therein. Besides, to establish the enmity between the Respondent no. 1 and the deceased, the witnesses examined by the prosecution/Appellants are either close relatives of the deceased or his employees. Admittedly, one of the important witness of the Appellants namely Mahammad Padyal, was eliminated during the course of the trial and all the witnesses examined by the Appellants have shown hostility to the case of the Appellants. The material on record also suggests that there was a compromise between the deceased and the Respondent no. 1 and the fact as to when such threats were given have not been established by the Appellants. There is no material to take any inference that the Respondent no. 1 had engaged the Respondent no. 2 to finish the said deceased Guru. No doubt, the evidence may suggest that after the compromise between the Respondent no. 1 and the deceased, as the deceased started doing independent business, there is some enmity between them. There is no conclusive material on record to establish the involvement of Respondent no. 1 in the commissioning of the crime which led to the death of the deceased Guru. The fact that Respondent no. 1 had engaged the services of Respondent no. 2 and that they were moving around the place of the incident has not been established by any conclusive evidence on record. Considering the inconsistency of the evidence of the said witnesses, the contention of the Appellants that there was a conspiracy to commit the crime has not been established by any cogent evidence on record. 13. It is the contention of the prosecution/Appellants that the Respondent no. 4 was seen immediately after the shooting incident of the deceased by Pw. 14 and 15. 13. It is the contention of the prosecution/Appellants that the Respondent no. 4 was seen immediately after the shooting incident of the deceased by Pw. 14 and 15. There are discrepancies in the depositions by Pw.15, Deepak Dessai and there was every probability that the allegation that he had seen Respondent no. 4 when he came out from the Lucky Bar, is doubtful. Considering the position of the said bar and the position of the motorcycle, the said allegation that he could see Respondent no. 4, does not appear to be sound. It is also the contention of the Appellants that he had heard the sound and a lot of people had gathered around the deceased but none of them came forward to identify the Respondent no. 4 which also creates a doubt to believe that the said witnesses had seen the Respondent no. 4 at the site at the relevant time. The visibility at the relevant time also appears to be bad which also creates a doubt in the evidence of the said witnesses. The witnesses have also stated that after the incident, they were in the city and the prosecution had also not contacted them. All these factors lead to the conclusion that the learned Judge has rightly disbelieved the said circumstance which has not been established by the Appellant by any cogent and reliable evidence. The learned Judge in the impugned Judgment has minutely examined the evidence of the said two witnesses. In connection with the said aspect, the learned Judge has also examined the evidence of Pw. 50. The learned Judge has examined the identification of Respondent no. 4 and found that such evidence was not acceptable. The learned Judge has taken note of the discrepancies in the evidence whilst coming to such conclusion. We find no error committed by the learned Sessions Judge to discard the identification of Respondent no. 4 by the said witnesses. The learned Judge also noted the involvement of Pw.55, Shri Gaonkar, in the identification parade to doubt its veracity. The learned Judge also took note of the fact that Respondent no. 4 was arrested on 14.02.2000 and the identification parade was held only on 27.02.2000. In such circumstances, we find that the learned Judge has rightly discarded the evidence of identification of Respondent no. 4 by Pw. 14 and 15. 14. The learned Judge also took note of the fact that Respondent no. 4 was arrested on 14.02.2000 and the identification parade was held only on 27.02.2000. In such circumstances, we find that the learned Judge has rightly discarded the evidence of identification of Respondent no. 4 by Pw. 14 and 15. 14. It is the case of the prosecution that a car loan was arranged by the Respondent no. 1 to the Respondent no. 2 Zacarias, wherein the Respondent no. 1 had stood as a guarantor. The witness examined to establish the said aspect Pw.33, Raghvendra Naik, who has also stated that on account of default, the repayment of the instalment was defaulted and the car was sought to be attached when they came to know that it was seized by the Margao Police. The said witness was thereafter not found when summons were issued to him for cross examination. Though the evidence of the said witness can be considered nevertheless, reading the evidence as a whole it would not establish any conspiracy as claimed by the prosecution. This can be examined in the context that the cheques towards instalments given by the accused/Zacarias had bounced which would suggest that the story put forward by the prosecution that it was a reward given by the accused no. 1, cannot be accepted. The material relied by the learned Judge to come to such conclusion has been minutely examined by us and we find no infirmity in such conclusion. The Appellant/prosecution contended that after the incident, the Respondent nos. 3 and 4 had taken the motorcycle and abandoned it near the house of Roberty Vales, Pw.22, but, however, we have gone through the evidence of the witnesses examined by the Appellants and we find that the fact that the motorcycle was in fact brought by the said Accused to the said place has not been established by any reliable evidence. Apart from that, on minutely going through the evidence of Pw.34, no doubt, he tried to support the case of the Appellant/Prosecution but however, the learned Judge has rightly found that his evidence can only create suspicion and nothing beyond that. Apart from that, on minutely going through the evidence of Pw.34, no doubt, he tried to support the case of the Appellant/Prosecution but however, the learned Judge has rightly found that his evidence can only create suspicion and nothing beyond that. The learned Judge after going through the evidence of the said witnesses, has found that Pw.2/Robert was not only extremely reluctant to identify the Respondent no.4 and had also refused to identify the said Respondent as the person who had accompanied the Respondent no. 3 on the relevant date. The learned Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that such evidence was not sufficient to establish the said aspect. The contention of the Appellant that there was an extra judicial confession of Pw.22, Robert, has been rightly rejected by the learned Judge. The learned Judge has examined the evidence of Pw.22, and taken note of the fact that he and his brother Agnelo were even arrested and thereafter released on bail. The learned Judge has also taken note of the fact that the reason why the investigation was followed in this manner has not been explained by the Investigating officer and he had also stated that he had not even paid attention whether the said Accused Respondent no. 3 had stated “ekbatli udaya”. It is also alleged by the prosecution that Respondent nos. 3 and 4 proceeded to Kankavli from Mapusa on a Trax vehicle. Pw. 26, Ishwar Shettigar, was the person who had driven Accused no. 3 from Mapusa to Kankavli but, however, the said witness has totally resciled from his statement nor any part of his statement recorded can be availed to support the case of the prosecution, though Pw. 8 has stated that said Ishwar had come and taken the Trax vehicle to take someone at Banda. Pw. 27, who has a Billiards Pool Table at Mapusa and also knows Respondent no. 3 who was his customer, has turned hostile. The statement recorded does not lead to any inference that the Accused could be implicated in the crime. Pw. 36, is another person who has identified Accused no. 3 that he used to come to his hotel in Mapusa where there was a Billiards Pool Table. 15. The learned Judge has rightly accepted the evidence of Pw. 46 Dr. Abraham. The statement recorded does not lead to any inference that the Accused could be implicated in the crime. Pw. 36, is another person who has identified Accused no. 3 that he used to come to his hotel in Mapusa where there was a Billiards Pool Table. 15. The learned Judge has rightly accepted the evidence of Pw. 46 Dr. Abraham. The evidence establishes that the bullets which were recovered from the body of the deceased, match the revolver which was used in commissioning the offence but, however, there is serious doubt that such revolver was attached in the manner claimed by the Investigating Officer Pw.55. Considering that the Appellants have failed to establish by any cogent and conclusive material on record, the circumstances referred to herein above, we find that as the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence it was incumbent upon the Appellants to prove each and every circumstance so as to arrive at a conclusion that the guilt of the said Respondents could be drawn, in such circumstances that it would link together so as to form a chain so complete so as to exclude any other hypothesis except of proving the guilt of the Accused. 16. We have already pointed out herein above that the prosecution has failed to discharge the burden cast on them and as such the learned Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence on record to come to the conclusion that the Respondent no. 1-S. Kurade, Respondent no. 3-Glenn Peters and Respondent no. 4-Felix Fernandes, be given benefit of doubt and thereby acquitted of the offences for which charges were framed against them. 17. The judgment reported in 2013 ALL SCR 1754 in the case of Sahib Hussain @ Sahib Jan V/s State of Rajasthan relied upon by the learned Public Prosecutor is not applicable to the facts of the present case as the alleged extra judicial confession has not been established by the appellant as already referred to herein above. The Judgment reported in (2013) 10 SCC 414 in the case of State of M. P. V/s Mansingh and others relied upon by the learned Public Prosecutor is also not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case, as the statements of the concerned witnesses could not be relied upon for the reasons stated herein above. The Judgment reported in (2013) 10 SCC 414 in the case of State of M. P. V/s Mansingh and others relied upon by the learned Public Prosecutor is also not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case, as the statements of the concerned witnesses could not be relied upon for the reasons stated herein above. The judgment reported in (2002) 7 SCC 543 in the case of BaluSonba Shinde V/s State of Maharashtra relied upon by the learned Public Prosecutor is also not applicable to the facts of the present case as pointed out in the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court, the evidence of the hostile witnesses even on consideration of such evidence there is no advantage which can be drawn to establish the circumstances alleged by the appellant – prosecution. The judgment reported in (2000) 8 SCC 203 in the case of State of Kerala V/s P. Sugathan and another relied upon by the learned Public Prosecutor also would not assist the appellant to advance their contention as for the reasons already recorded herein above the conspiracy alleged has not been established by the appellant on the basis of any reliable and cogent evidence on record. 18. No doubt, it is unfortunate that a gruesome crime has not been properly investigated and the cruel murder should go unpunished. It would be relevant to note the observations of the Apex Court in the Judgment reported in AIR 1957 S. C. 637 in the case of SarwanSingh Rattan Singh vs. State of Punjab, wherein it has been observed at para 12 thus: “12. ….. It is no doubt a matter of regret that a foul cold-blooded and cruel murder like the present should go unpunished. It may be as Mr. Gopal Singh strenuously urged before us that there is an element of truth in the prosecution story against both the appellants. Mr. Gopal Singh contended that, considered as a whole, the prosecution story may be true; but between 'may be true' and 'must be true' there is inevitably a long distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be covered by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence.” 19. The Apex Court in another Judgment reported in 1991 Supp(1) SCC 39 in the case of Chandran@ Surendran & anr. vs. State of Kerala, wherein it has been observed at para 13 thus: “13. The Apex Court in another Judgment reported in 1991 Supp(1) SCC 39 in the case of Chandran@ Surendran & anr. vs. State of Kerala, wherein it has been observed at para 13 thus: “13. As the appellants are awarded the extreme penalty of law only on the above two pieces of evidence, we have to scrutinise these two circumstantial pieces of evidence in a very careful, cautious and meticulous way and see whether this evidence can be accepted and acted upon to mulct these appellants with this dastardly crime. The fact that these two murders which are cruel and revolting had been perpetrated in a very shocking nature should not be allowed in any way to influence the mind of the court while examining the alleged involvement of the appellants. It is worthwhile to recall an obsrvation of this Court in Dattar Singh vs. State of Punjab articulating that (SCC p. 275, para 3) “Courts of justice cannot be swayed by sentiment or prejudice against a person accused of the very reprehensible crime ….” 20. Considering the observations of the Apex Court and for the reasons stated herein above, we find that the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the Appellants was unable to point out any material which has not been examined or taken note of by the learned Judge whilst coming to the conclusion that the said Respondents are entitled for the benefit of doubt. There is nothing pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor which would lead us to hold that the circumstances which have been alleged by the Appellants have been duly established or that they would lead to the guilt of the said Respondents. 21. It is very disturbing that the prosecution has not efficiently pursued the trial to bring forward enough material to establish the charges framed against the said Respondents. The cold-blooded murder has gone unpunished. Homicide investigation is a highly professional and specialized undertaking which requires years of practical experience coupled with a process of continual education and training. Successful homicide investigation often depends on the initial action taken by concerned officers responding to any given scene. The basic principles involved in the initiation of an effective homicide investigation is rapid response to the homicide crime scene by patrol officers. This is imperative in order to protect evidentiary materials before they are destroyed, altered, or lost. Successful homicide investigation often depends on the initial action taken by concerned officers responding to any given scene. The basic principles involved in the initiation of an effective homicide investigation is rapid response to the homicide crime scene by patrol officers. This is imperative in order to protect evidentiary materials before they are destroyed, altered, or lost. Anything and everything should be considered as evidence. Whether this evidence is physical or testimonial, it must be preserved, noted, and brought to the attention of the investigators. The only evidence collected at this point of the investigation is eyewitness accounts or spontaneous statements of a suspect at the scene. After the scene is secured, immediate and appropriate notification must be made to the homicide investigators. The importance of preserving the homicide crime scene and conducting an intelligent examination at the scene cannot be overemphasized. If a murder case ends in failure or an officer is embarrassed in Court, the primary reason may very well be an inadequate examination of the homicide scene or a failure to implement good basic crime scene procedures as outlined in this text. 22. Considering the manner in which the investigation has been carried out by the prosecution, we find that such preservation of the homicide crime scene is found wanting by the prosecution. We hope the investigations in future would be more efficient to investigate such crimes in a more competent manner to bring forth reliable material to establish the guilt of the accused involved in the crimes. 23. Considering the parameters to interfere in the Judgments of acquittal, as stated herein above, we find that there is no case made out by the Appellants for any interference in the impugned Judgment passed by the learned Judge. We do not find any infirmity in any of the findings arrived at by the learned Judge in the impugned Judgment, which has very meticulously and minutely examined each and every piece of evidence produced by the Appellant to come to the conclusion that the said Respondents are entitled for benefit of doubt. 24. In view of the above, the Appeal stands dismissed.