JUDGMENT : B.N. Karia, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the State of Gujarat under Section 378 [1] (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ["CrPC" for brevity] against the judgment and order dated 19th January 2005 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, 6th Fast Track Court, Rajkot in Sessions Case No. 100 of 1996, whereby, the respondent herein is acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code ["IPC" for brevity] read with Section 37 [1] of the Bombay Police Act. 2. The facts, in nutshell, as unfolded by the prosecution case are that the complainant-Bhavnaben, daughter of Dharamshibhai was residing at Kotariya village alongwith her parent and doing labour work. Her father-Dharamsibhai who was possessing agricultural land, which is near the agricultural field of one Tapubhai Sakaliya, which approximately about eight months before, as per the statement of Jayaben, her father entered into an agreement for sale of the said land to one Haribhai Govindbhai Patel, owner of Krishna Hotels for a consideration of Rs. 5,00,000/-. At the time of making the said sale deed, her uncle Rajabhai and Sarpanch of the village-Shri Popatbhai were present and at that time, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- in cash was paid and it was promised to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- during Diwali. After that, the complainant and her mother Jayaben were engaged in Krishna Park Hotel doing cleaning work of utensils for the past six years and were being paid Rs. 25/- per day and that is how they came in contact with Haribhai. Whenever there was any delay in completion of work, Haribhai use to drop them at their residence on his scooter. After purchasing the farm land by Haribhai, for the last one and half months, the complainant and her mother Jayaben were receiving Rs. 35/- towards their wages. The said farm was given to one Patel Gordanbhai Togadia for cultivation. Brother of the complainant-Bharatbhai warned the complainant and her mother that they should not go for work in the farm of Haribhai because Bharatbhai had noticed Haribhai's illicit relation with her. Prior to the incident, Haribhai came to the field and said that "today between 8 - 9 O'Clock, he will come to their residence and shall pay the money" and after waiting for sometime, he left the field. Prior to the incident, Haribhai came to the field and said that "today between 8 - 9 O'Clock, he will come to their residence and shall pay the money" and after waiting for sometime, he left the field. After completion of work, she left for home and waited for Haribhai till 12 O’clock in the night, but Haribhai did not turn up. On the next day at about 7 O’clock in the morning, the deceased proceeded towards the field. After about half an hour, the complainant also left towards the field for work. At that time, owner of the farm Shri Haribhai met her on way and asked why her mother did not turn up for work today and to this, she told that her mother had already gone to the farm. Since the complainant had some work in the farm, she left for that and Haribhai also went away smilingly. After that, Gordhanbhai also came to the field and both were engaged in the work of creating mud walls for stopping the flow of water for irrigation purpose. At that time, Gordhanbhai asked her as to why her mother did not come for work and in reply, the complainant told him that her mother had already left for work towards the field. To that, Gordhanbhai told that her mother was not seen in the field. At that time, one matador which was driven by Rasikbhai, a worker employed by Hansrajbhai came to the field to clean the vehicle by drawing water from the tank. At that time, he called Gordhanbhai, to which complainant had also followed him. Rasikbhai had shown the bed sheet and asked to whom it belongs. At that time, the complainant said that the same belongs to her mother and the same was worn by her. Blood was found nearby the area along with chilly power. The complainant stated that her mother was killed. Thereafter, complainant searched her mother nearby the area, but she was not seen anywhere. Gordhanbhai told the complainant to inquire whether her mother had gone to her house. He also told the complainant that this information should not be disclosed to anybody and he proceeded to his uncle's place. Thereafter, Gordhanbhai came at around 11 O'Clock and told the complainant that her mother was not available at her uncle's house. Gordhanbhai told the complainant to inquire whether her mother had gone to her house. He also told the complainant that this information should not be disclosed to anybody and he proceeded to his uncle's place. Thereafter, Gordhanbhai came at around 11 O'Clock and told the complainant that her mother was not available at her uncle's house. He went to call Haribhai and after sometime, Haribhai came there and also seen the blood stains near the Well. Haribhai told the complainant that after making necessary inquiry, he would file a complaint in this regard. Haribhai came back and told the complainant to go to her house and this incident should not be disclosed to anybody. The complainant thereafter reached her house and told the story to her father. As per her father's instructions, complainant went to call Puna kaka who was not available and therefore, she proceeded to call her relative Bhachu, who was also not available and she returned back. At around 3 O'Clock, the complainant alongwith her father and younger sister went to Panchayat Office, which eventually was found closed, however, on their way they met Karanbhai Barwad and disclosed the entire matter to him and he advised to make a complaint to the Police. The complainant also narrated the facts to her neighbour Kishorbhai Lavabhai, who alongwith her, went to the place of his Uncle's son-Ramjibhai and thereafter, they proceeded to Rajkot by walk and reached there at 6 O'Clock where Bharatbhai was present at Ramjibhai's house. Bharatbhai also suggested the complainant to lodge a police complaint, and accordingly, a complaint came to be lodged before Rajkot Taluka Police Station. After due investigation into the matter, Police arrested accused, and thereafter, laid chargesheet before the learned JMFC, Rajkot. Since the offence committed by the respondent was absolutely triable by the Court of Sessions, the matter was committed to the learned Sessions Judge, Rajkot and it was numbered as Sessions Case No. 100 of 1996. 3. At trial, the respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the charges levelled against her. Therefore, the prosecution examined the complainant and seventeen prosecution witnesses; which includes panchas, etc. The prosecution also placed reliance on documentary evidences in support of ocular evidence. 3. At trial, the respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the charges levelled against her. Therefore, the prosecution examined the complainant and seventeen prosecution witnesses; which includes panchas, etc. The prosecution also placed reliance on documentary evidences in support of ocular evidence. However, the learned trial Judge, after appreciating and evaluating the evidence of the case, was pleased to acquit the respondent herein, giving rise to filing of the present Appeal. 4. Heard learned APP Ms. Moxa Thakker for the appellant-State and learned advocate Mr. Zubin F. Bharda for the respondent-accused. It was submitted by learned APP that the impugned judgment and order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, 6th Fast Track Court, Rajkot in Sessions Case No. 100 of 1996 is contrary to law, proved facts, evidence on record of the case. That, the learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate the facts of the case, evidence on record alongwith settled legal position in a proper perspective, though the prosecution examined seventeen witnesses and relied upon nineteen documentary evidences in support of its case. That the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in appreciating the evidence of prosecution witnesses in proper manner. That, the incident in question took place in an isolated place in the morning hours and at that time, people could not have been present to witness it, and therefore, when the medical evidence has supported the prosecution case, the learned Judge ought to have appreciated the same. She further contended that the learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case and has committed grave error in acquitting the accused. That, presumption in favour of the prosecution should be raised by the trial Court as there are no independent witnesses available to support to case of prosecution, and therefore, the accused ought to have been convicted. That, the prosecution has clearly proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, and therefore also, the accused is wrongly acquitted by the learned trial Judge. She drew attention of this Court to the deposition of the prosecution witnesses who have extended support to the case and also perused the FSL report, particularly pointing out to the weapon "Kapri" which was recovered by the Investigating Officer during the investigation, which reflects blood group "B" of the accused and the clothes of the accused - Shantaben. She drew attention of this Court to the deposition of the prosecution witnesses who have extended support to the case and also perused the FSL report, particularly pointing out to the weapon "Kapri" which was recovered by the Investigating Officer during the investigation, which reflects blood group "B" of the accused and the clothes of the accused - Shantaben. That this blood group clearly indicates involvement of the accused in the offence alleged, and therefore also, it was requested by her to allow this Appeal by quashing and setting aside the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Judge dated 19th January 2005 in Sessions Case No. 100 of 1996 and thereby convict the accused. 5. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Zubin F. Bharda appearing for the respondent vehemently opposed the submissions advanced for and on behalf of the State and contended that the entire case is based on circumstantial evidences and the prosecution has clearly failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, connecting the accused with the crime. That, the burden of proof is always on the prosecution who asserts existence of any fact, which infers legal accountability of the accused. That the best evidence must be adduced, which the nature of the case admits. That, incriminating facts and circumstances must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or guilt of any other person and be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. According to learned advocate for the respondent, when there is no eye witness of an offence committed by the accused, and the Court has to convict the accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be so complete without any missing link or reasonable doubt and each circumstance must be covered by clear and unobjecting evidence by the prosecution. He has further urged that if there is no reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused, he is entitled as of right to be acquitted. That, none of the prosecution witnesses have supported the case of prosecution or prosecution has gravely failed to bring any reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstance to prove from the chain of events to involve the accused and implead her in the crime. That previously Gordhanbhai and Haribhai were arrested by the Police. That, none of the prosecution witnesses have supported the case of prosecution or prosecution has gravely failed to bring any reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstance to prove from the chain of events to involve the accused and implead her in the crime. That previously Gordhanbhai and Haribhai were arrested by the Police. Panchnama of their arrest was prepared. Their clothes were also collected by preparing panchnama, having found blood on their clothes. However, relying on the statement of one accused viz. Haribhai, the present accused was wrongly implicated without any offence having been committed by her. Hence, the prosecution has clearly failed to establish the case against the present accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, it was requested by learned advocate to dismiss the appeal and thereby confirm the judgment and order of acquittal impugned in the present Appeal. 6. Having considered the facts of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel appearing for the respective sides, deposition of prosecution witnesses and documentary evidence produced on the record before the trial Court, before discussing the evidentiary value of the evidence laid by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused, it would be necessary to refer to the legal position on the issue of acquittal, as ordered by the learned trial Judge. 7. In case of Sadhu Saran Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2016) 4 SCC 357 , the Apex Court while discussing scope of interference in appeal against acquittal order, held and observed as under:- "20. Generally, an appeal against acquittal has always been altogether on a different pedestal from that of an appeal against conviction. In an appeal against acquittal where the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced, the appellate court would interfere with the order of acquittal only when there is perversity of fact and law. However, we believe that the paramount consideration of the Court is to do substantial justice and avoid miscarriage of justice which can arise by acquitting the accused who is guilty of an offence. A miscarriage of justice that may occur by the acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. However, we believe that the paramount consideration of the Court is to do substantial justice and avoid miscarriage of justice which can arise by acquitting the accused who is guilty of an offence. A miscarriage of justice that may occur by the acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. This Court, while enunciating the principles with regard to the scope of powers of the appellate court in an appeal against acquittal in Sambasivan v. State of Kerala, (1998) 5 SCC 412 has held: "7. The principles with regard to the scope of the powers of the appellate court in an appeal against acquittal, are well settled. The powers of the appellate court in an appeal against acquittal are no less than in an appeal against conviction. But where on the basis of evidence on record two views are reasonably possible the appellate court cannot substitute its view in the place of that of the trial Court. It is only when the approach of the trial Court in acquitting an accused is found to be clearly erroneous in its consideration of evidence on record and in deducing conclusions therefrom that the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal." 8. From the record, it appears that the prosecution case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. There is no eye witness available to support the prosecution case. Daughter of the deceased had lodged a complaint belatedly, though the alleged incident came to her knowledge in the morning and upto evening, no complaint was filed. Of course, she has tried to explain herself that on instructions issued by Gordhanbhai and Hirabhai not to inform about the incident, or to file any complaint as well as they would lodge the complaint, and therefore, she did not filed complaint immediately which does not appear to be a satisfactory reply. 9. Surprisingly, initially on receiving the complaint from Bhavnaben Dharamsibhai by PW-17 Chandrakantbhai Harjibhai Gajjar, who was serving as a Police Inspector at Rajkot Taluka Police Station on 3rd November 1994, as per his testimony at Exh. 79, complaint was recorded by him and was registered as C.R. No. 550 of 1994 for the offence punishable under Section 302, 201, 34 IPC. As the offence was serious in nature, he informed his officials accordingly. 79, complaint was recorded by him and was registered as C.R. No. 550 of 1994 for the offence punishable under Section 302, 201, 34 IPC. As the offence was serious in nature, he informed his officials accordingly. He managed to call officers from FSL as well as Fire Brigade at the place of offence and other witnesses also went to the place of offence which was shown by the complainant. On arrival of the officers of the Fire Brigade, dead body of the deceased was exhumed from the Well where inquest panchnama was drawn by calling two witnesses and the belongings of the deceased alongwith dead body was sent to Civil Hospital for performing post mortem. Further, on arrival of FSL officials, in presence of two panchas, a panchnama of the scene of offence was prepared. 10. As per the testimony of this witness before the Court, from the place of incident, mud containing blood, bed-sheet, fire bricks, chilli powder were seized and muddamal pavti was issued which was kept with the panchnama. He has further stated that statements of witness Bharat Dharamsibhai; Dharamsibhai Virji; Vala Savji; Savji Parabh; Kishore Lavjibhai; Raja Amba, Vajju Jivrajbhai; Babubhai Manjibhai were recorded. 11. On 5th November 1994, further statement of complainant was recorded alongwith statements of other witnesses viz., Praffulbhai Amrutlal, Ilaben, Daxaben and Shantaben Dharamsibhai. He has further stated that the accused namely Haribhai Govindbhai Patel and Gordhanbhai Kesabhai were arrested and the clothes which were worn by them on the day of incident came to be seized under a panchnama. On 6th November 1994, accused persons were produced before the Court alongwith a remand report and their remand was granted by the learned Magistrate upto 10th November 1994. 12. On interrogation, it was revealed by these accused persons that Shantaben Dharamsibhai and minor Daxaben d/o. Dharamsibhai were involved in the crime, and therefore, they were summoned by the Police. Upon their having confessed to have committed an offence, two panchas were called and in their presence, as per the instructions of Shantaben and minor Daxaben, muddamal was recovered from the sim of village Kotharia and thereafter, blood sample of new accused persons were taken and forwarded to the Civil Hospital. Upon ascertaining the age of Daxaben and as she being a minor, her case was committed to the Juvenile Court. Upon ascertaining the age of Daxaben and as she being a minor, her case was committed to the Juvenile Court. As there was no evidence against the previously arraigned accused persons viz., Haribhai Govindbhai and Gordhanbhai Kesabhai, a report under Section 169 Cr.P.C. was submitted before the Court. This witness has admitted that during the course of investigation of this offence, though the complainant and the prosecution witnesses have a strong link created out involving Haribhai and Gordhanbhai as an accused, that however, report under Section 169 CrPC was prepared favouring them and was submitted before the Court. It emerges from the record that land of the deceased Jayaben was purchased by Haribhai Govindbhai Patel for a consideration of Rs. 5 lakhs, out of which a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs were paid by him to the husband of the deceased-Jayaben. As he had no vision, the rest of the amount of Rs. 3 lakhs which were due were to be paid to the deceased Jayaben by the said Haribhai Govindbhai Patel. Deceased Jayaben and her daughter were serving with Haribhai Govindbhai and the remaining amount due towards the land was to be paid by Haribhai Govindbhai before Diwali and this incident occurred on the previous day of the auspicious day i.e., Kali chaudas. 13. It also emerges from the record that a complaint was lodged by the daughter of the deceased i.e., Bhavnaben on 3rd November 1994 against Haribhai Govindbhai Patel and Gordhanbhai Kesabhai declaring that when she reached at Vadi, Haribhai met her on way at the Sedha of Wadi and enquired about her mother to which she replied that her mother had already left for Wadi and when she moved ahead, the said Haribhai left the place with a smiling gesture. It is also declared by the complainant that there was illicit relationship of her mother with the said Haribhai. As per the say of the complainant, a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs were due and payable by the said Haribhai to the complainant side, and therefore, her mother was killed by him. This apprehension of the complainant was based on the fact that Haribhai had a revolver and he might have killed her mother, coupled with the fact that in the morning when she met Haribhai and Govindbhai, they assured her not to lodge any complaint before the Police. This apprehension of the complainant was based on the fact that Haribhai had a revolver and he might have killed her mother, coupled with the fact that in the morning when she met Haribhai and Govindbhai, they assured her not to lodge any complaint before the Police. Based on this suspicion, the Police arrested them, recovered and seized a revolver from the possession of Haribhai and their clothes were sent to FSL. However, on the basis of information revealed during the custodial interrogation of these accused persons, name of the present accused was disclosed. However, no attempt appears to have been made by the Investigating Officer to verify and find out as to how the present accused was connected in committing murder of deceased Jayaben. In his entire testimony, his attempt is that on the basis of statement made by Haribhai Govindbhai, she was arrested. 14. It is impressed upon this Court that PI Shri Chandrakantbhai has tried to help the previously arraigned accused persons viz., Haribhai Govindbhai Patel and Gordhanbhai. It also emerges from the record that on the previous day of the incident, Haribhai was to come at the residence of the deceased to clear the dues by paying a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs towards the land purchased by him and execute sale deed, he assured the deceased that he would come at the residence of the complainant to pay remaining amount of Rs. 3 lakhs, but he did not visit the residence of the complainant. As per the allegations made by the complainant, on the very next day, deceased went for her work at Vadi [farm] in the morning at 7:00 am where she came to know that her mother was murdered by both the accused namely Haribhai Govindbhai Patel and Gordhanbhai Kesabhai and her dead body was thrown in a Well. The complainant has categorically stated in her complaint that her mother had illicit relationship with Haribhai and Gordhanbhai, and therefore, her mother was killed by them. PW-10 Dr. Mohmmad Ismailbhai Kebar in his deposition at Exh. 56 has stated that he received dead body of the deceased Jayaben on 4th November 1994, when he was on duty as a Medical Officer in Civil Hospital at Rajkot. While examining the dead body, he found total twenty three external injuries as well as some internal injuries on her body. Mohmmad Ismailbhai Kebar in his deposition at Exh. 56 has stated that he received dead body of the deceased Jayaben on 4th November 1994, when he was on duty as a Medical Officer in Civil Hospital at Rajkot. While examining the dead body, he found total twenty three external injuries as well as some internal injuries on her body. According to him, these injuries were sufficient to cause death. He further opined that injury found at serial No. 2 to 10 and 19 to 22 were possible by a round sharp weapon and other injuries were possible due to hit by a hard and blunt substance. The external injuries were caused before throwing the deceased into a well and there was possibility of survival of the deceased had she not been thrown into the well. Son of the deceased viz., Bharatkumar Meghjibhai Kayada was examined as PW-11 at Exh. 66, and whereas, daughter of the deceased viz., Jashodaben Jadavbhai Akbari was examined by the prosecution as PW-9 at Exh. 54. They have also stated in their respective testimonies before the Court that in connection with the land sold to Haribhai Govindbhai Patel, remaining amount was to be paid by him to the deceased before Diwali, and that father of this witness has informed Haribhai Patel that remaining dues must be cleared by him on the day of Diwali, otherwise, he would return back the possession of the land and the mother as well as witness were called in a Wadi by the said Haribhai Patel and nearby the place of the offence, chilly powder was found. When the complainant was going toward Wadi in the morning, the said Haribhai met her on way and enquired about her mother and in response to the reply given by the complainant that her mother had already went to Wadi in the morning, the said Haribhai left the place with a smiling gesture. When the complainant reached at Wadi and upon intense search for her mother, she found dead body of her mother from the Well. A bed sheet worn by her mother containing blood stains was also found nearby the place of offence. Other witnesses viz., Kishorbhai Lavjibhai Boot [PW-12: Exh. 67]; Bharatbhai Meghjibhai [PW-11: Exh. 66]; Bharatbhai Dharamsibhai Patel [PW-13: Exh. 68]; Amrutlal Pragjibhai Sakaria [PW-14: Exh. 72]; Mehmoodbhai Gulambhai Sama [PW-15: Exh. 76]; Mahmadbhai Sulemanbhai Saiyed [PW-16: Exh. A bed sheet worn by her mother containing blood stains was also found nearby the place of offence. Other witnesses viz., Kishorbhai Lavjibhai Boot [PW-12: Exh. 67]; Bharatbhai Meghjibhai [PW-11: Exh. 66]; Bharatbhai Dharamsibhai Patel [PW-13: Exh. 68]; Amrutlal Pragjibhai Sakaria [PW-14: Exh. 72]; Mehmoodbhai Gulambhai Sama [PW-15: Exh. 76]; Mahmadbhai Sulemanbhai Saiyed [PW-16: Exh. 77] have also tried to support the prosecution case in their oral testimonies given before the trial Court, but none of them have any exact idea as to how the present accused is involved in the crime. Moreover, from their testimony, it is found that they have no knowledge in respect of the involvement of the accused, though they have strong suspicion against Haribhai and Gordhanbhai, hence, there is no circumstance connecting the accused. 15. Supreme Court in case of Ram Singh v. Sonia, reported in [2007] 3 SCC 1, has cited in para 13, a passage from Sir Alfred Will's Book "Wills' Circumstantial Evidence" [Chapter VI] containing rules as to evaluation of Circumstantial Evidence as under: (1) the facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference must be clearly proved and beyond reasonable doubt connected with the factum probandum; (2) the burden of proof is always on the party who asserts the existence of any fact, which infers legal accountability; (3) in all cases, whether of direct or circumstantial evidence, the best evidence must be adduced which the nature of the case admits; (4) in order to justify the inference of guilt, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation, upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt; (5) if there be any reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, he is entitled as of right to be acquitted." 16. In case of Anant v. State of Bombay, reported in AIR 1960 SC 500 , speaking for the Bench, Justice Hidayatullah observed that, "circumstantial evidence in this context means a combination of facts creating a network through which there is no escape from the accused, because the facts taken as a whole do not admit of any inference but of his guilt." By quoting the words of Baron Parke, J. in Towell's case, the Bench further observed that, "the circumstances may often be so clearly proved, so closely connected with it, or leading to one result in conclusion, that the mind may be as well convinced as if it were proved by eye witnesses". 17. Thus, considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the prosecution has failed to complete the chain of circumstances for establishing the guilt of the accused. Therefore, accused cannot be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidences, if there is apparently missing link in the chain of events. In the instant case, there is a missing link; as mentioned above, which ought to have been satisfactorily established by evidence, and therefore, the learned trial Judge has not committed any error in acquitting the respondent of the charges. Since there being no illegality or perversity committed by the trial Court in ordering acquittal of the respondent, the present Appeal fails and the same is dismissed.