Judgment :- T. Mathivanan, J. 1. Challenging the order of acquittal, dated 03.07.2009 recorded by the learned I additional Sessions Judge (Placed in Full Additional Charge of Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai, this Memorandum of Criminal Appeal has been directed after invoking the provisions of section 378(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The state represented by the Inspector of Police, CBCID, Madurai City is the appellant herein, whereas the Accused 1 and 2 in the case in S.C. No. 169 of 2008 on the file of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai are the respondents. 3. For easy reference, the appellant may hereinafter be referred to as the complainant, whereas the respondents 1 and 2 be referred to as the Accused 1 and 2 wherever the context so require. 4. The Accused 1 and 2 were out on trial to face the following charges: (i) Under section 120B (as against A1 and A2), (ii) Under section 302 of IPC (as against A1), (iii) Under section 201 of PC (as against A1 and A2), Additional Charge: (iv) Under section 302 r/w 109 of IPC (as against A2) 5. In order to buttress the above charges, the prosecution has examined as nearly as 29 witnesses on their part and besides this, the material objects ranging from MOs1 to 6 were marked. The Accused 1 and 2 have also marked 3 documents on their behalf to support their case of defence. 6. On evaluating the evidences, both oral and documentary, the learned trial court had proceeded to find the accused persons not guilty of any of the charges as afore stated and therefore, they were acquitted. 7. Challenging the order of acquittal, dated 03.07.2010, the complainant being the State stands before this court with this appeal. 8. Heard Mr. K.S. Durai Pandian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and Mr. B. Shanmuga Sundaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr. A.K. Manickam and Mr. C.N. Arumugam, learned counsels, who are on record for the Accused 1 and 2 respectively. 9. Before we go into the merits of the case, we would like to say that filing of this criminal appeal is a futile exercise. B. Shanmuga Sundaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr. A.K. Manickam and Mr. C.N. Arumugam, learned counsels, who are on record for the Accused 1 and 2 respectively. 9. Before we go into the merits of the case, we would like to say that filing of this criminal appeal is a futile exercise. Having been known pretty, well that the judgment of acquittal recorded by the court below is not fit to be appealed, the State represented through the Inspector of Police attached to CBCID, Madurai has preferred the present appeal to expose their inefficiency and ugly mechanism, which they have devised to investigate the case. In other words, we can say that the officer, who had taken up the investigation had failed to evince much interest in bringing home the guilt of the accused persons. We, therefore, would say that the investigation in so far as this case is concerned, seems to be a mockery of criminal justice, which ought to have been rendered to the departed soul of the deceased Meenal, who is none other than the wife of A1 and the daughter of A2 and PW1. 10. We do not understand as to how the investigating officer has failed to infer his power, conferred under Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to investigate the congnizable cases and equally, we may also say that they failed to understand the nuances of the procedures envisaged under section 157 of Code of Criminal Procedure, which is exclusively enacted for the purpose of providing certain procedures for investigation. Any laxity in investigation shall not be the reason for the easy escape of the real culprit from the clutches of penal law and the method of investigation shall be designed in such a way to protect the innocent person from being harassed and put the real offender before the court of law. 11. A three Judges Bench of the Apex Court headed by His Lordship Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam, the Chief Justice (as he then was) in Mohd. Haroon and Others v. Union of India and Another (2014) 5 SCC 252 , has given certain directions to the investigating officer regarding the offences including murder. 12. In para 127.1, it is observed that: “Sincere efforts shall be made to apprehend all the accused irrespective of political affiliation and produce them before the appropriate court.” 13. Haroon and Others v. Union of India and Another (2014) 5 SCC 252 , has given certain directions to the investigating officer regarding the offences including murder. 12. In para 127.1, it is observed that: “Sincere efforts shall be made to apprehend all the accused irrespective of political affiliation and produce them before the appropriate court.” 13. In para 127.6 it is observed that: “the investigating authorities should eschew communal bias and proceed against all the offenders irrespective of their caste, community and religion.” 14. In para 127.7, the Apex Court has also observed that: “In the case of murders, the police must take sincere efforts to identity and arrest the real culprits within a time bound manner preferably within a period of two months and report the same before the jurisdictional court concerned.” 15. Similarly, a Division Bench of the Apex Court in Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another AIR 2013 SC 3794 : (2013) 6 SCC 348 has observed in para Nos. 58.8 and 58.9 as under: “ 58.8. Likewise, in the case on hand, initially CBI took a stand that the third person accompanying Sohrabuddin and Kausarbi was Kalimuddin. However, with the aid of further investigation, it unveiled that the third person was Tulsiram Prajapati. Therefore, only as a result of further investigation, CBI has gathered the information that the third person was Tulsiram Prajapathi. Thus a Second FIR in the given facts and circumstances in unwarranted; instead filing of a supplementary charge-sheet in this regard will suffice the issue. 58.9. Administering criminal justice is a two-end process, where guarding the ensured rights of the accused under the Constitution is as imperative as ensuring justice to the victim. It is definitely a daunting task but equally a compelling responsibility vested on the court of law to protect and shield the rights of both. Thus, a just balance between the fundamental rights of the accused guaranteed under the Constitution and the expansive power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence has to be struck by the court. Accordingly, the sweeping power of investigation does not warrant subjecting a citizen each time to fresh investigation by the police in respect of the same incident, giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. Accordingly, the sweeping power of investigation does not warrant subjecting a citizen each time to fresh investigation by the police in respect of the same incident, giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. As a consequence, in our view, this is a fit case for quashing the second FIR to meet the ends of justice.” 16. In the given case on hand, the entire prosecution story revolving around PW1 Paramasiram, the father of the deceased and A2 Packialakshmi, mother an A1, Rajamanickam, the husband of the deceased. 17. On perusal of the entire materials placed before us, we are able to find that excepting these three persons, no other person from outside could have involved the the commission of crime. 18. We also feel coy to say that the investigating agency i.e. , Crime Branch CBCID, a special branch set up by the Government of Tamil Nadu for the exclusive purpose of investigating the crime is not able to pin the real perpetrator of the crime from the above three persons. 19. That on 02.03.2006 at about 08.00 p.m., PW1 Paramasivam @ Bombay Paramasivam, the father of the deceasd Meenal had appeared before PW27, Sub Inspector of Police, attached to S.S. Colony Police Station, Madurai City and lodged a complaint under Ex. P1, wherein he had stated that his daughter meenal was given in marriage to A1 Rajamanickam, a PWD Contractor and that she had been suffering from acute stomach pain, for which she was given homeopathic treatment. 20. He had also stated that on 02.03.2006 at about 2.00 a.m., his son-in-law viz., Rajamanickam, on his return from Melur, found the outside gate of his house locked and the main entrance door open, that on growing suspicion, he (PW1) and his son-in-law (A1) had broken open the lock of the outside gate and entered the house. While, so they were able to find that his daughter Meenal was found hanging from the ceiling fan by means of saree and thereby, committed suicide due to unbearable stomach pain. 21. On receipt of the complaint under Ex. P1 from PW1, PW27 the Sub Inspector of Police, attached to S.S. Colony Police Station, Madurai City had registered a case in Crime No. 484 of 2006 under section 174 of Cr.P.C. at 08.00 p.m. The printed FIR prepared by PW27 has been marked under Ex. P13. 22. 21. On receipt of the complaint under Ex. P1 from PW1, PW27 the Sub Inspector of Police, attached to S.S. Colony Police Station, Madurai City had registered a case in Crime No. 484 of 2006 under section 174 of Cr.P.C. at 08.00 p.m. The printed FIR prepared by PW27 has been marked under Ex. P13. 22. At about 8.30 p.m. he along with one Suresh, (Police Driver) and one Balu and Constable Chinniah had been to the place of occurrence and examined material persons viz. , PW1 Paramasivam and A1 and A2, who are the husband and mother of the deceased and other relatives and based on the enquiry, he concluded that the deceased Meenal had committed suicide on account of her unbearable stomach pain and thereafter, he had sent the dead body to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, for the purpose of ascertaining the cause of death. He had also prepared an observation mahazar under Ex. P14 and seized certain material objects viz., saree MO5 under Ex. P15. Then, he had also given necessary intimation to his higher police officials and police photographer. From his evidence, it appears that he had taken up the entire investigation, after registration of the case. 23. PW25 Dr. Jaysingh was requested to conduct the postmortem examination on the body of the deceased Meenal and in pursuance of the requisition, he had started conducting of postmortem examination on the dead body at about 10.30 a.m. on 03.03.2006. While so, he had found the following ante mortem injuries on the body: (i) A complete and continuous transverse ligature mark encircling the neck measuring 40 cm x 1 cm. The ligature mark starts 10 cm below the right mastoid passes transversely and crosses the neck in its middle on the thyroid, cartilage 10 cm below the middle of the chin and passes transversely 10 cm below the left mastoid and merges with the starting ligature mark. (ii) On bloodless dissection of the neck: The base of the ligature mark shows extravasation of blood. Underlying tissues found to be bruised. A vertical fracture of thyroid cartilage in its middle and fracture of the both superior cornea of the thyroid cartilage is noted. The surrounding area is bruised. The facture end of the thyroid cartilage is reddish in colour, which is not easily washable. (iii) On dissection of Larynx: (1) Cut section laryngeal muscle contused. Underlying tissues found to be bruised. A vertical fracture of thyroid cartilage in its middle and fracture of the both superior cornea of the thyroid cartilage is noted. The surrounding area is bruised. The facture end of the thyroid cartilage is reddish in colour, which is not easily washable. (iii) On dissection of Larynx: (1) Cut section laryngeal muscle contused. Hyoid bone and cricoid cartilages normal. (2) Three linear crescentic nail marks noted on the right side of the neck at the level of thyroid cartilage 1 cm above to the ligature mark separated by 1 cm each measuring 0.75 cm x linear x skin deep. The nail marks situated 3 cm lateral to the midline. The convexity of the nail marks are upwards and medially. On dissection: Underlying tissues found to be bruised. (iv) Contusion on both lips each measuring 5 x 2 cm in the upper lip and 4 x 2 cm in the lower lip. On dissection: The underlying muscles bruised. (v) Sub conjunctival haematoma noted on both eyes in its laterial aspect each measuring 2 x 1 x 0.5 c.m. Other findings: Peritoneal and pleural cavities – empty. Pericardium – contains 15 ml of straw colour fluid. Heart – right side fluid blood. Left side empty. Coronary vessels – patent. Lungs, liver, spleen and kidneys – cut section congested. Larynx and trachea – Described. Hyoid bone – Described. Stomach – contains 100 ml of partly digested brown small fluid. No specific smell. Mucosa normal small intestine - contains 20 ml of brown colour fluid. No specific smell. Mucosa normal. Bladder – empty. Uterus – normal. Cut section empty. Brain – surface vessel and cut section congested. The deceased would appear to have died of asphyxia due to ligature strangulation 19 to 23 hours prior to autopsy. 24. After completion of the postmortem examination, PW25 Dr. Jeyasingh had issued a certificate to that effect under Ex. P7 wherein he has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of asphyxia due to ligature strangulation 19 to 23 hours prior to autopsy. 25. Prior to the conducting of postmortem examination i.e., 7.00 a.m. on 03.03.2006, PW27 the Sub Inspector of Police had conducted inquest on the body of the deceased at the mortuary of Rajaji Government Hospital, Madurai and prepared an inquest report under Ex. P16. 25. Prior to the conducting of postmortem examination i.e., 7.00 a.m. on 03.03.2006, PW27 the Sub Inspector of Police had conducted inquest on the body of the deceased at the mortuary of Rajaji Government Hospital, Madurai and prepared an inquest report under Ex. P16. Based on the opinion given by PW25, he had altered the section of law into one under section 302 of IPC from section 174 Cr.P.C. and thereafter, the entire records were placed before PW28, the Inspector of Police attached to S.S. Colony Police Station and he in turn had taken up the case for investigation and the alteration report under Ex. P17 was sent to the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 5, Madurai. When he had examined A2 Packialakshmi, on 16.03.2006, she had produced two letters purported to have been written by her to her husband viz., PW1 Paramasivam and those letters were seized under the cover of a seizure Mahazar under Ex. P18 and the seized letters were also marked under Ex. P9. 26. On perusal of the above letters under Ex. P9, we are able to understand that A2 viz. , Packialakshmi had indicted her husband PW1 Paramasivam, as if he is a womanizer and that she was informed by her deceased daughter that he was trying to misbehave with her with sexual advances. 27. Based on the above information, PW28 Balakumar, the Inspector of Police had fixed the father of the deceased Meenal viz. , Paramasivam (PW1) as accused and arrested him on 16.03.2006 and subsequently remanded to judicial custody on the same day at about 5.30 p.m. 28. As it is revealed from the evidence of PW28, he had also, at the instance of PW1, had seized the skipping rope MO6 and lock and key MOs3 and 4 fom the thorny bush lying in front of DSP Nagar. 29. In the interregnum, it appears from the records that A1 Rajamanickam, who is the husband of the deceased Meenal had moved this court and obtained an order on 14.12.2006 and made in Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 9251 of 2006 and thereby, the investigation of the case was ordered to be transferred to the file of the CB CID, Madurai City, who is the complainant herein. In pursuant to the above said order, PW29 was deputed to take up the case for investigation. O.P. (MD) No. 9251 of 2006 and thereby, the investigation of the case was ordered to be transferred to the file of the CB CID, Madurai City, who is the complainant herein. In pursuant to the above said order, PW29 was deputed to take up the case for investigation. Since, PW28, Balakumar, the Inspector of Police and other witnesses had given contradictory statements and since, PW29 grew suspicion on their statements, he had filed an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 6, Madurai on 25.05.2007 and took up PW1 Paramasivam into the police custody (He then was remanded to judicial custody) and made an application to the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 6, Madurai, requesting to record his statement under section 164 of Cr.P.C. 30. Then PW29, on the materials gathered from the statements of the witnesses, who were examined by him, had unearthed the illegal intimacy existed between A1 and his mother in law A2 Packialakshmi. After the completion of the investigation, he had laid a final report as afore stated before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 5, Madurai on 05.01.2011 as against A1 and A2, wherein he has started that they had illicit sexual relationship and as such, they detested the existence of the deceased Meenal (wife of A1 and daughter of A2). 31. The illicit intimacy between A1 and A2 also informed by the deceased to the witnesses, particularly one Marimuthu, who is the father of A1 and in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy, A1 being the husband and A2 being the mother were having common intention to murder the deceased Meenal, as she proved to be an irritant to the continuance of their extra marital relationship and in furtherance of the common intention, A1 on 02.03.2006, at about 1.00 p.m. had entered into his house and taking advantage of the loveliness of the deceased meenal, had committed the murder by strangulating her with the skipping rope MO6. Thereafter, A2 in pursuant to the criminal conspiracy, had arrived at the place of occurrence on her return from Melur at about 3.00 p.m. and entered the house along with A1 after unlocking the lock and placing the lock in the same (unlocking) position on the door. Subsequently, they had successfully implicated PW1 as an accused and thereby screened themselves from the offence. 32. Subsequently, they had successfully implicated PW1 as an accused and thereby screened themselves from the offence. 32. When the incriminating circumstances arising out of the prosecution, witnesses were put to A1 and A2, they had emphatically denied their complicity in the alleged offence and also produced D1 to D3 on their part. 33. The learned trial Judge, on evaluation the evidence, had ultimately found A1 and A2 not guilt, under any of the charges levelled against them by the prosecuting agency and therefore, they were acquitted. 34. We have with due care and caution made an analytical approach with the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses available on record, including the documentary evidences and found nothing wrong in the judgment delivered by the trial court. 35. The prosecution witnesses are not able to give vivid account about the involvement of A1 and A2. Even the evidence of PW1 also appeared to be unclear and besides this, PW2, PW4 and PW5 have not supported the case of prosecution as their testimonies are not in consonance with their statement given before the Investigating Officer under section 161(3) Cr.P.C. The testimonies of PW3, PW6 to PW18 are also not lending assurance to the case of prosecution. 36. It is very relevant to note here that PW27, being the Sub Inspector of Police, happened to register the case based on the complaint lodged by PW1. But his conduct itself seems to be unnatural, because, he being the Sub Inspector of Police, without informing to PW28, the Inspector of Police, had gone to the place of occurrence, inspected the same and taken up the investigation. 37. It is significant to note here that since, suspicion was prevailing over the death of the deceased and a case was registered under section 174 Cr.P.C., PW27, the Sub Inspector of Police, being the officer in charge of the police station, should have given an information to the nearest Executive Magistrate viz. , the Thasildar empowered to hold inquest. But he had not done so. The failure on the part of PW27 to follow the procedures enunciated under section 174 of Cr.P.C. is one of the reasons for the unsuccessful of the prosecution case. 38. , the Thasildar empowered to hold inquest. But he had not done so. The failure on the part of PW27 to follow the procedures enunciated under section 174 of Cr.P.C. is one of the reasons for the unsuccessful of the prosecution case. 38. Section 174(1) Cr.P.C. enacts as follows: “When the officer-in-charge of a police station or some other police officer specially empowered by the State Government in that behalf receives information that a person has committed suicide, or has been killed by another or by an animal or by machinery or by an accident, or has died under circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that some other person has committed an offence, he shall immediately give intimation thereof to the nearest Executive Magistrate empowered to hold inquests, and unless otherwise directed by any rule prescribed by the State Government, or by any general or special order of the District or Sub Divisional Magistrate, shall proceed to the place where the body of such deceased person is, and there, in the presence of two or more, respectable inhabitants of the neighbourhood, shall make an investigation, and draw up a report of the apparent cause of death, describing such wounds, fractures, bruises, and other marks of injury as may be found on the body, and stating in what manner, or by what weapon or instrument (if any) such marks appear to have been inflicted.” 39. Section 174(3) (v) contemplates as under: “ (v) The police officer for any other reason considers it expedient so to do, he shall subject to such rules as the Statement Government may prescribe in this behalf, forward the body, with a view to its being examined, to the nearest Civil Surgeon, or other qualified medical man appointed in this behalf by the Statement Government, if the state of the weather and the distance admit of its being so forwarded without risk of such putrefaction on the road as would render such examination useless.” 40. Section 174(4) envisages that: “The following magistrates are empowered to hold inquests, namely any District Magistrate or Sub divisional Magistrate and any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered in this behalf by the Statement Government or the District Magistrate.” 41. Section 174(4) envisages that: “The following magistrates are empowered to hold inquests, namely any District Magistrate or Sub divisional Magistrate and any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered in this behalf by the Statement Government or the District Magistrate.” 41. But in the instant case on hand, PW27 being the Sub Inspector of Polic, himself had conductd the inquest on the dead body that too in the mortuary of the Rajaji Government Hospital, Madurai and not even in the place of occurrence. 42. In this connection, we would like to have reference to the Police Standing Order 583 , which contemplates the unnatural and sudden death : “ PSO583, Unnatural and sudden deaths: (1) (a) Under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Officers in charge of Police Stations or any other Police Officer specially empowered by the State Government may in that behalf and in their absence, village headman are required to make an investigation as to the apparent cause of death in cases when they receive information that a person, (i) has committed suicide, or (ii) has been killed by another, or by animal or machinery or by an accident, or (iii) has died under circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that some other person has committed an offence. (G.O. Ms. No. 176, Judicial 13, May 1927) (b) These officers are not required to hold an inquest as this can be done by the Magistrate specified in Section 174(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (c) As soon as an intimation of a death under suspicious circumstances is received in a Police Station the Police Officer empowered to make an investigation should proceed to inspect the body and must first note such wounds, fractures, bruises and other marks of injury as may be found on the body, as also the manner in which or the weapon or instrument (if any) with which such marks appear to have been inflicted. (d) (i) If there is any doubt regarding the cause of death, of if for any other reason the Police Officer making the investigation considers it expedient so to do, he should send the body immediately for postmortem examination to the nearest civil surgeon or other qualified man appointed by the State Government in this behalf, unless it is necessary that the body should be kept for identification, in which case it should be kept only as long as is necessary for that purpose. Bodies sent for postmortem examination should be accompanied with a memorandum in Form No. 80. (ii) It is specially important that no time should be lost in the despatch of the dead body to the Medical Officer as every hour’s delay means further de-composition and therefore, additional difficulty in detecting the cause of death. (iii) The investigation which a Police Officer is required to make under Section 174(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the framing of a report in Form No. 79 may be done after the completion of the preliminary investigation as to the apparent cause of death and after it has been decided whether a postmortem investigation should be held or not. (iv) After the inquest is over and the dead body is disposed off, the Officer who held the inquest, shall within 12 hours after the disposal of the body, intimate to the executive authority of the Municipality or Panchayat Board within the jurisdiction of the Police Station, the particulars of the deceased the cause and nature of death etc. , in Form No. 79 as per Rule 6 of the Registration of Births and Deaths framed under section 286 of the Madras District Municipalities Act 1920, in the case of district and under section 327 and 347(1) of the Madras City Municipal Act, 1919 in the case of Madras City.” 43. It is well settled principle of law that in a case of this nature, the burden rests upon the prosecution to prove their case beyond all reasonable doubts. 44. The phrase “Beyond all reasonable Doubts”: “ 1. Beyond Reasonable Doubt”, the well known principle of Common Law has acted like a saviour for the guilty. Anybody who is capable of hiring a witty lawyer can go scot-free just by raising a smallest possible doubt. 2. Man is a rational being. Due to this “Rationality” everyone differs drastically from others. The phrase “Beyond all reasonable Doubts”: “ 1. Beyond Reasonable Doubt”, the well known principle of Common Law has acted like a saviour for the guilty. Anybody who is capable of hiring a witty lawyer can go scot-free just by raising a smallest possible doubt. 2. Man is a rational being. Due to this “Rationality” everyone differs drastically from others. It may be true that the reasonability of his thoughts and consequently his decisions cannot be measured as there is non-availability of standard scale. Maximum Criminal Justice Systems of the world follow the principle that the guilt of an accused should be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Indian Criminal Justice System also works on the same lines and it is for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed an offence with requisite mens rea. 3. There is no straight jacket formula on the basis of which the guilt of the accused is said to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is, therefore, depending solely on the Judge to say as to whether he is convinced by the arguments of the prosecution or that there still remains a degree of reasonable doubt, so as to impart the judgment in favour of the defence.” 45. No doubt in a criminal case the burden of proof is always on the prosecution and the benefit of reasonable doubt is belonged to the accused. 46. In Vijayee Singh v. State of U.P. AIR 1990 SC 1459 : (1990) 3 SCC 190 : 1990 Crl.L.J. 1510 : (1990) 1 MLJ (Crl) 456, it has been pointed out that “the phrase ‘burden of proof’ is not defined in the Act. In respect of criminal cases, it is an accepted principle of criminal jurisprudence that the burden is always on the prosecution and never shifts. This flows from the cardinal principle that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty by the prosecution and the accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt. ” 47. In respect of criminal cases, it is an accepted principle of criminal jurisprudence that the burden is always on the prosecution and never shifts. This flows from the cardinal principle that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty by the prosecution and the accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt. ” 47. With reference to Sections 101 to 103 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Apex Court in A. Raghavamma and Another v. A. Chenchemma and Another AIR 1964 SC 136 (V.51 C 10), has made a distinction between the phrase ‘burden of proof’ and onus of proof; burden of proof lies upon the person who has to prove a fact and it never shifts, but the onus of proof shifts. Such a shifting of onus is a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence. In paragraph-12, it has been observed as under: “ 12. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. There is an essential distinction between burden of proof and onus of proof; burden of proof lies upon the person who has to prove a fact and it never shifts, but the onus of proof shifts. Such a shifting of onus is a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence.” 48. From the overall assessment of the evidences on record, we find that the prosecution viz. , the complainant has failed to prove the complicity of the accused 1 and 2 in the criminality through the unassailable and unimpeachable evidences. The entire prosecution case appears to be in the state of confusion. The investigating officers had not only confused themselves, but they were also trying to confuse the Court. On account of inefficiency in investigation and insufficiency in evidence, the entire prosecution case fails, for which the investigating officers viz. , PW27, PW28 and PW29 are responsible and answerable. We, therefore, find no merit in the criminal appeal and hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 49. In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.