JUDGMENT Per: Alok Singh, J (Oral) 1. For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, we are satisfied that delay has been explained properly, therefore, 65 days’ delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Delay condonation application no. 1448 of 2015 stands disposed of accordingly. Leave to Appeal No. 154 of 2015 2. Present appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 21.03.2015 passed by Sessions Judge, Almora in Sessions Trial No. 04 of 2014 whereby accused / respondent, herein, was acquitted of the charge under Section 302 IPC. 3. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that PW1 Manju Arya, daughter of deceased Khagi Ram, PW2 Jasuli Devi, wife of the deceased Khagi Ram and PW3 Umesh Lal, son of deceased Khagi Ram, while appearing in the witness box, have stated that they all were present in their house in village Katarmal, post office Kosi, Tehsil and District Almora in the evening of 08.05.2013; accused – respondent, herein, came to their house and called Khagi Ram; thereafter, Khagi Ram has left the hosue in the company of accused – respondent, herein; on 09.05.2013, dead body of Khagi Ram was recovered from the forest area; postmortem was conducted on the dead body of Khagi Ram on 09.05.2013 itself and cause of death was opined as due to burn injuries. 4. It is important to mention here that for the first time, FIR was got registered on 01.06.2013 with the averment that accused – respondent, herein, was suspected to have killed deceased. 5. At the risk of repetition, we would like to observe that Khagi Ram (deceased) had left the house in the evening of 08.05.2013 and his dead body was got recovered on the very next date i.e. on 09.05.2013 while FIR was got registered on 01.06.2013 and there is absolutely no explanation as to why FIR was lodged with undue delay. 6. It is further important to mention herein that there is absolutely no other evidence on record whereby it can be said that accused - respondent, herein, was seen going towards the forest area along Khagi Ram (deceased) or accused – respondent, herein, was seen coming out from the forest area. 7. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Khahaiya Lal Vs. 7. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Khahaiya Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2014 (2) SCC (Cri.) 413 has held as under: “The theory of last seen - the appellant having gone with the deceased in the manner noticed hereinbefore, is the singular piece of circumstantial evidence available against him. The conviction of the appellant cannot be maintained merely on suspicion, however, strong it may be, or on his conduct. These facts assume further importance on account of absence of proof of motive particularly when it is proved that there was cordial relationship between the accused and deceased for a long time” 8. As per dictum of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kanhaiya Lal (supra), theory of singular last seen evidence is not sufficient to convict the accused. It has further been held that suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot be basis of conviction. 9. We are conscious about the legal position of law that in an appeal against the judgment of acquittal, ordinarily, the view taken by the learned trial court should not be disturbed, on the same set of evidence, even if, two views are possible. Judgment of acquittal may be reversed only when same is found to be totally perverse or against the material available on record or prosecution is able to point out that important piece of evidence was left to be considered, which could have resulted into conviction of the accused. 10. In the present case, no such evidence has been pointed by the prosecution, which could have resulted into conviction of accused – respondent. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served in granting the leave to appeal. Consequently, leave to appeal is declined. 11. In the result, government appeal is also dismissed.