JUDGMENT : B.N. KARIA, J. 1. By means of filing this Appeal under Section 378(1) (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“Cr.P.C” for short], the appellant-State seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 11th July 2005 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Valsad in Sessions Case No. 45 of 2004. 2. The broad essential facts which are to be stated for adjudication of this Appeal are that – the first informant Shri Jugalbhai Mohanbhai Rata, who lodged the complaint inter alia stating that his father Shri Mohanbhai Lalbhai Patel had left home at about 9:15 pm on 17th March 2004 stating him that he was going to attend religious ceremony at the house of one Jayesh Patel. However, on 18th March 2004 at about 6:30 am, neighbour of the complainant viz., Natubhai Patel informed him that the dead body of his father was lying in the field of one Dahyabhai Ahir. Hence, the first informant alongwith his brother and other neighbours went there and found that the deceased was lying in a pool of blood, having indiscriminate cause throughout body and turban of the deceased was found to be in a burnt condition, and therefore, the informant lodged a complaint before Vapi Town Police Station, which was registered as C.R No. 88 of 2004. Based on this complaint, Police started investigation and the respondent herein came to be arrested. After collecting evidence against the respondents herein, charge-sheet came to be filed by Police before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pardi, who in turn committed the case under Section 209 Cr.P.C to the Court of Sessions at Valsad, since the offence committed by the accused was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. 3. At trial, the respondent-accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the prosecution examined sixteen witnesses and produced twenty seven documentary evidence in support of the charges levelled against them. However, after hearing both the sides and weighing the evidence available on the record, the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Valsad was pleased to acquit the respondent of the charges levelled against them, and hence, this Appeal. 4. Heard learned APP Mr. Rutvij Oza appearing for appellant-State and learned advocate Mr. Hardik Raval for the respondent. However, after hearing both the sides and weighing the evidence available on the record, the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Valsad was pleased to acquit the respondent of the charges levelled against them, and hence, this Appeal. 4. Heard learned APP Mr. Rutvij Oza appearing for appellant-State and learned advocate Mr. Hardik Raval for the respondent. 4.1 It was vehemently urged by learned APP that the impugned judgment and order dated 11th July 2005 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Valsad in Sessions Case No. 45 of 2004 acquitting the respondent-accused is contrary to law and evidence available on record. The learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate the version of PW-1 Chandubhai Lallubhai, who was examined at Ex. 12, so also that of prosecution witnesses viz., PW-4 Rajeshbhai Rameshbhai (Exh. 20); PW-5 Navinbhai Babubhai Patel (Exh. 22); PW-6 Mukeshbhai Premabhai Patel (Exh. 25); PW-7 Dileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel (Exh. 27); PW-8 Jayeshbhai Bhikhubhai Patel (Exh.28); PW-9 Jugalbhai Mohanbhai Patel (Exh. 31); PW-11 Natubhai Kalidas (Exh. 33); PW-12 Rakeshbhai Radakbhai (Exh. 34); PW-13 Dr. Mahendrabhai Janardan Sinde (Exh. 35); PW-14 Dr. Manishaben Manishbhai Patel (Exh. 36); PW-16 Chandrakant Bachulal Gandhi (Exh. 47) and erroneously come to conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and that there is no link established between the crime and the offender. 4.2 According to learned APP, the prosecution has clearly established its case by leading sufficient evidence as to the old animosity between the accused and the deceased. That, in fact, the respondents-accused were last seen together in a musical party organized by one Jayeshbhai and this fact was duly corroborated by leading documentary evidence in the form of videography and oral evidences. Learned APP emphasized that both the respondents have disclosed discovery of muddamal clothes and the stick with peg (“Lathi”) at their own instance and the blood stain on clothes as well as blood group of the deceased were found to be similar ie., “O” +ve and hence, the conclusion drawn by the learned trial Court is not just and proper. That, the acquittal order of the respondents-accused passed by the learned trial Judge is improper, perverse and bad in law and the same deserves to be quashed and set-aside. That, the acquittal order of the respondents-accused passed by the learned trial Judge is improper, perverse and bad in law and the same deserves to be quashed and set-aside. That, all the prosecution witnesses have clearly supported the prosecution case by giving sufficient evidence to connect the accused with the crime, and therefore also, it was urged by learned APP Mr. Oza appearing for the appellant-State to allow this Appeal by quashing and setting aside the order of acquittal dated 11th July 2005 passed by the learned trial Judge in Sessions Case No. 45 of 2004. 5. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. Hardik Raval appearing for the respondents has produced a copy of Death Certificate dated 30th October 2015 issued by Sub-Registrar, Birth & Death, Taluka-Vapi, District Valsad certifying death of Dipakbhai @ Bako Ramanlal Patel – the respondent no. 2 herein. Therefore, the present Appeal qua him stands abated. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Raval appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment and order of the trial Court and submitted that by acquitting the respondents, the learned trial Judge had neither committed any illegality nor perversity. Vehemently contending that the prosecution has not only failed to prove the charges against the respondents-accused of their animosity with the deceased, but it has miserably failed to establish that by pressurizing on the neck of the deceased by the A2-Dipak, the deceased was done to death. As per the prosecution case, there were two reasons ie., theft of electric wire committed by the accused and jest of a girl named Munni, and therefore, deceased had reprimanded both the accused in past. According to learned advocate, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the animosity between the accused and the deceased for the said reason. That, there were no eye witness in the present case, but the entire case is completely based on circumstantial evidences. That the prosecution was unable to prove the chain of events connecting the accused with the crime. That, medical evidence led by the prosecution is not supporting its case that the blood stain of “O” group found on the clothes of the accused, which is alleged to have been said to be of deceased was a common group, and therefore, no certain conclusion can be arrived by the Court that it was a blood of the deceased. That, medical evidence led by the prosecution is not supporting its case that the blood stain of “O” group found on the clothes of the accused, which is alleged to have been said to be of deceased was a common group, and therefore, no certain conclusion can be arrived by the Court that it was a blood of the deceased. That, it was a joint discovery panchnama made in respect of discovery made from an open place in presence of number of persons. That, such joint discovery cannot be accepted in the eyes of law, and therefore, discovery panchnama is not proved by the prosecution. The prosecution has relied on a video cassette in which it is said that initially deceased came from marriage function, and thereafter, accused were discussing with him in a secret manner and they also left the marriage function. Thereafter, the prosecution is silent on the aspect as to what happened and how and in which manner murder of the deceased was committed. That all the panchas examined by the prosecution are relatives of the deceased and they all are interested witnesses. However, none of the panchnama were proved by the prosecution. From the FSL report, it is found that what ever stick was seized by the prosecution was not of a “Ladder” and therefore, entire case of the prosecution would be fatal. That none of the charges were proved by the prosecution against the accused and therefore, the Appellate Court may not interfere in the impugned judgment unless it is found to be based on complete perversity. Hence, a request was made by learned advocate Mr. Raval appearing for the respondents to dismiss the present Appeal and thereby confirm the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Judge. 7. Having heard learned APP for the appellant-State as well as learned advocate for the respondents and having bestowed our anxious consideration to the material available on the record, first of all, we would like to analyze the legal position. 8. 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. 8. 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. 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.” 9. We may refer to a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kathi Bharat Vajsur and others v. State of Gujarat & Ors., reported at 2012 (3) GLR 1953, wherein the Apex Court had an occasion to consider as to whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the order of the acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge and for convicting the accused for the offence under section 302 read with section 34 of the IPC or not. The Apex Court in the said decision made observations on the aspect of scope and ambit of the appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal at paragraphs 20, 21, 22 and 23. “20. The circumstances in which an appellate court will interfere with the finding of the Trial Court are now well settled by catena of decisions of this Court. In Dwarka Dass v. State of Haryana (2003) 1 SCC 204 , the dicta of all these decisions has been crystallized thus: “2. While there cannot be any denial of the factum that the power and authority to apprise the evidence in an appeal, either against acquittal or conviction stands out to be very comprehensive and wide, but if two views are reasonably possible, on the state of evidence: one supporting the acquittal and the other indicating conviction, then and in that event the High Court would not be justified in interfering with an order of acquittal, merely because it feels that it, sitting as a trial court, would have taken the other view. While re-appreciating the evidence, the rules of prudence requires that the High Court should give proper weight and consideration to the views of the trial Judge...” 21. In the case of Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2000 Crl. LJ 3462 (SC), this Court has held that the High Court is entitled to re-appreciate the evidence if it is found that the view taken by the acquitting Court was not a possible view or that it was a perverse or infirm or palpably erroneous view or the Trial Court taken into consideration inconsequential circumstances or has acted with material irregularity or has rejected the evidence of eyewitnesses on wrong assumptions.” 10. Prior to dwelling upon the issue whether this Court could entertain an Appeal against an order of acquittal under Section 378 CrPC, let us also refer to a decision of the Apex Court rendered in case of State of Gujarat v. Jayrajbhai Punjabhai Varu, reported in AIR 2016 SC 3218 , wherein it has been held and observed as under :- “13. The burden of proof in criminal law is beyond all reasonable doubt. The burden of proof in criminal law is beyond all reasonable doubt. The prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and it is also the rule of justice in criminal law that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other towards his innocence, the view which is favorable to the accused should be adopted.” 11. In the instant case, it is an undisputed fact that there is no eye witness available with prosecution to prove guilt of the accused. The entire case is based upon circumstantial evidence, and therefore, prosecution is bound to prove all the circumstances serial wise to involve the accused in the offence. PW-9 Jugalbhai Mohanbhai is the complainant and son of the deceased. As per his deposition at Exh. 31, he has stated about grudge of A2-Dipak with his father, since A2-Dipak was enquired in connection with theft of electric wire and during such inquiry, A2 had caught hold collar of his father and even abused him saying that he would see him in future. Not only that, after the said incident, A2 used to abuse his father whenever they met. Another incident shown by the complainant was that before three years’ of the incident, A1 Shailesh made unpleasant gesture towards a girl, and therefore, when parents of the said girl met his father and informed about the incident, A1 was reprimanded by his father, and hence, he too kept grudge against him. But, if we look at the complaint, it is stated that the complainant came to know that on 14th March 2004 (Sunday), there was a marriage of one Nainaben, daughter of Rariya Sukar in the field of Rata Bhagat. In the said marriage function, there was a dispute and quarrel in respect of dance being performed by youngsters, and therefore, father of the complainant tried to pursue the gathering to avoid quarrel in the marriage function. It is apprehended that due to this incident, boys who remained present in the marriage and were fond of dancing were not happy with the father of the complainant, and therefore, they might have committed murder of the deceased. The complainant has created such a doubt in his complaint. It is apprehended that due to this incident, boys who remained present in the marriage and were fond of dancing were not happy with the father of the complainant, and therefore, they might have committed murder of the deceased. The complainant has created such a doubt in his complaint. It is no where stated in the complaint that A1-Shailesh, who made gestures and A2-Dipak, who was enquired about the theft of electric wire, were the accused of the crime. It is for the first time, this fact was disclosed before the Court by the complainant, and therefore, there is material contradiction in the complaint as well as testimony of this witness. Hence, the animosity of the deceased with the accused persons creates a strong doubt in the prosecution theory. Another witness PW-7 Dileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel is second son of the deceased. He has also tried to depose on the same line that these accused were reprimanded by his father, and therefore, they were annoyed. This witness in his cross examination has admitted that in his statement before the Police on 18th March 2004, he has stated that in a marriage function of Nainaben held on Sunday, the 14th March 2004, in the field of one Rata Bhagat, there was a dispute in respect of dance, and therefore, father of this witness had tried to pacify the situation with the boys so that quarrel can be avoided. This intervention by his father led these boys unhappy, and therefore, getting annoyed out of the situation, these boys might have committed murder of his father. He has further admitted that in his statement recorded by the Police on 18th March 2004, names of the accused Shailesh and Dipak were not disclosed by him. From the testimony of this witness also, it appears that in his first statement recorded by the Police on 18th March 2004, no doubt was created by the complainant or by this witness against both these respondents for committing murder of their father-Mohanbhai. This witness in his second statement recored on 20th March 2004 has declared this fact of committal of theft of electric wire by A1. He has not seen A1 committing theft of electric wire nor he deemed fit to lodge complaint in respect of theft before the Police. However, this witness was having knowledge as to who committed theft of electric wire. He has not seen A1 committing theft of electric wire nor he deemed fit to lodge complaint in respect of theft before the Police. However, this witness was having knowledge as to who committed theft of electric wire. The officers of the G.E.B or Wireman were never informed by him nor did he deemed fit and convenient to register a complaint before the Police. When his first statement was recorded by Police on 18th March 2004 by the Police, he was having knowledge of theft of electric wire which belongs to GEB, but it was not deemed fit by him to inform the Police. He was under knowledge that A1 was keeping grudge with his father due to enquiry made by his father in respect of theft of electric wire, but this witness never informed either Police nor given statement dated 18th March 2004. Therefore, it transpires that the complainant and PW-7 Dileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel have suppressed this fact in their statements recorded on 18th March 2004 in respect of existence of animosity with the deceased by both these accused; for the incidents of theft of electric wire as well as that of reprimanding A2, in respect of gesture made to a girl named Munni. Further, the Investigating Officer has not recorded statement of Munni or her mother Chanchalben during the course of investigation. In fact, had their statements would have been recorded, the real facts would have come out. Moreover, no statement of any of the employees of G.E.B were recorded by the Investigating Officer in respect of theft of electric wire. 12. In a case of circumstantial evidence, it is necessary to connect the link of the entire evidences to prove the guilt of the accused, but the prosecution has failed to produce supporting evidences of the alleged animosity of the accused persons with the father of the complainant. As per the prosecution theory, A1-Shailesh produced his clothes viz., Shirt and shoes in presence of panchas. P.W. 3-Shaileshbhai Rameshbhai Patel was examined at Exh. 17. But, it transpires from his deposition that no preliminary panchnama was drawn by the Police. This witness was not declared hostile by the prosecution. If any confusion of the offence or connecting him with the crime, fact is found from the accused version, it must come out in the preliminary panchnama, but that was not found by the prosecution. 17. But, it transpires from his deposition that no preliminary panchnama was drawn by the Police. This witness was not declared hostile by the prosecution. If any confusion of the offence or connecting him with the crime, fact is found from the accused version, it must come out in the preliminary panchnama, but that was not found by the prosecution. This witness has admitted that the signature in the panchnama was not made in the Police Station, but it was made in Rata. Prosecution has accepted that accused have never disclosed any fact connecting them in crime in presence of panchas in the Police Station. Learned PP has urged that it was a recovery panchnama and is proved by the prosecution, but if we look at the testimony of the I.O., it can be said that it was a discovery panchanama (Exh. 19), which is not proved under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Another panchnama at Exh. 24 is produced which is in respect of clothes worn by the accused at the time of offence and which were found at the bank of ‘Khadee’ at village Ratta. P.W. 5-Navinbhai Babubhai Patel at Exh. 22 had deposed that none of the accused have disclosed before the panchas that the said clothes were worn by them at the time of offence in the Police Station. No preliminary panchnama was drawn by the Investigating Officer as required under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, and therefore, it creates a doubt whether clothes worn by the accused at the time of offence were in fact discovered at the instance of the accused persons below a big stone near Khadee. This witness Navinbhai Babubhai Patel had admitted that he had put his signature below the panchnama Exh. 23 & 24 at the bank of Khadee. Learned PP in his arguments has also supported the same thing, and therefore, it can be said that the accused have not stated anything related to the offence before the Police Station but it is established that signature of panchas were secured at Khadee. 13. On the same line, PW-6 Mukesh Prema, who is also a panch witness of recovery of a ladder (Exh. 26) in his deposition has not stated that accused have declared any facts connecting them with the crime before the panchas. No preliminary panchnama was drawn by the Investigating Officer. 13. On the same line, PW-6 Mukesh Prema, who is also a panch witness of recovery of a ladder (Exh. 26) in his deposition has not stated that accused have declared any facts connecting them with the crime before the panchas. No preliminary panchnama was drawn by the Investigating Officer. This panch as well as other panchas examined at Exh. 19, 24 & 26 were not proved by the prosecution, as required under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. From the deposition of Dr. Mahendra J. Sinde, it is clear that it was a homicidal death of the deceased-Mohanbhai. It is found from the record that by a sharp cutting weapon, injury was caused to the deceased-Mohanbhai, but the prosecution has not tried to get any information of the concerned Doctor by showing him the weapon. The prosecution has relied upon a sharp cutting weapon as a Stick with a peg. This stick with a peg was not shown to the Doctor concerned for getting his expert opinion on the issue of injuries caused to the deceased. Therefore, it would be difficult to accept the version of the prosecution that by what sharp cutting weapon, deceased was injured. 14. Prosecution has also relied on the facet recorded at the time of video shooting of Benzo Party organized at the residence of one Jayesh Bhikhubhai. On a request made by prosecution, cassette was examined in presence of learned advocates for both the parties, Investigating Officer Shri Gandhi and prosecution tried to prove that at about 13-33 minute, both the accused were found discussing something in a secret manner. One person from the opposite lane, whose face was not clearly seen, left the decorated square. This person was identified by the Investigating Officer as deceased-Mohanbhai. From the evidence, it transpires that this video cassette was not forwarded to F.S.L for examination. Not only that, the Investigating Officer himself has admitted that the said video cassette can be tampered with. If we accept the prosecution case on this issue, that the person who left the decorated square at about 01-33 hour, when the accused persons were found indulged in some discussion in a secret manner, and thereafter, when the deceased left the said place whether the accused persons followed him and as to what happened thereafter, or what discussion was going on between the accused persons in a secret manner. The prosecution is completely silent on all these subsequent events. 15. PW-Jayeshbhai Bhikhubhai at whose residence video shooting of Benzo Party which was organized in connection with Grah Santak marriage was performed, he says that deceased Mohanbhai was invited in this function which was scheduled from 4 to 11 p.m. As per his statement, Mohan kaka was seen to have left the decorate square and that the accused were found discussing certain issue in a secret manner. It is pertinent to note that the function of Grah Santhak of marriage was scheduled to be held from 4 to 11 pm., while the timing of leaving the decorated square by the deceased was shown as 01:33 hour. Both these facts are quite contrary to each other. It transpires from the deposition of this witness that muddamal Video cassette was handed over by the owner of video center and not by this witness. Muddamal cassette was not handed over to this witness. He has not gone through the muddamal cassette and therefore only aspect that can be proved by the prosecution is that the deceased and accused persons were present in the Benzo party which was arranged in connection with Grah Santhak marriage. However, subsequent chain of events are completely missing. Prosecution had examined Shaileshbhai Jaganbhai at Exh. 32. As per his testimony, in a Grah Santhak function at the residence of Jayeshbhai Bhikhubhai, he had made a photo shoot upto late in night i.e., 2 to 2:30 am. Muddamal article no. 21-Cassette was identified by this witness as well as his signature. It transpires from his deposition that while recovering video cassette, no writing was made by the Police. This witness admits that this cassette can be re-recorded. No seal was applied or affixed on the muddamal “video cassette” nor any signatures taken of the panchas. This witness has seen the video cassette in the Police Station. From the deposition of these two witnesses, it transpires that this video cassette was not seized by the Police in presence of panchas nor any seal was affixed on it. Moreover, this muddamal article was also not forwarded to FSL for verifying its originality by the Investigating agency. Prosecution witnesses Natubhai Kalidas and Rakeshbhai Radkabhai in their depositions at Exh. 33 & 34 respectively have not stated anything materially fruitful to the prosecution. Dr. Manishben M. Patel in her deposition at Exh. Moreover, this muddamal article was also not forwarded to FSL for verifying its originality by the Investigating agency. Prosecution witnesses Natubhai Kalidas and Rakeshbhai Radkabhai in their depositions at Exh. 33 & 34 respectively have not stated anything materially fruitful to the prosecution. Dr. Manishben M. Patel in her deposition at Exh. 36 has stated that she had collected blood sample of the accused. PW-Natubhai Balubhai in his deposition at Exh. 39 has stated that this incident took place between 13 and 14 hours on 18th March 2004. He has stated that Mohankaka left residence of marriage at about 1:30 am and has stayed there upto 02:00 am. When he was at his residence, he found that somebody was sleeping in the backside of his residence and something was being burnt, but this witness has not stated before the Police that he had seen the deceased-Mohanbhai leaving the residence of marriage at around 01:30 a.m. Thus, this witness has not created any doubt against the accused or any other person. Investigating Officer Shri Chandrakant Bachhulal Gandhi in his deposition at Exh. 47 has tried to disclose the manner in which he carried out the investigation, arresting the accused, recovering the clothes and shoes of the accused, drawing panchnama in respect of the muddamal stick and others, forwarding them to FSL and making correspondence in this regard. He has produced certain documents at Exh. 68 to 72. Medical Officer – Dr. Mahendra J. Sinde has stated that there were no internal injuries found by him on the person of the deceased; except the one found on his neck, during the post mortem of the deceased. He has opined that it was not a case of strangulation by pressurizing on the neck of the deceased. The injuries nos. 1 to 9, and 12 & 13 found on the person of deceased-Mohanbhai were inflicted by a sharp cutting weapon, and these injuries were sufficient to cause death. From this evidence, the prosecution has proved that the death of the deceased Mohanbhai was caused due to multiple injuries on his body which were inflicted with a sharp cutting weapon, however, no where from the entire set of evidence, it can be gathered that such injuries were inflicted by the accused persons. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the circumstances connecting the accused with the crime by producing cogent and supporting evidence. 16. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the circumstances connecting the accused with the crime by producing cogent and supporting evidence. 16. Except strained relationship between the respondents and the deceased and a minor scuffle between A1 and the deceased may not be sufficient to convict the accused. Whatever circumstances have been stated to be proved against the accused are not sufficient to form a complete chain of events leading to their guilt. Moreover, case of the prosecution is entirely based on the circumstantial evidence. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete, forming a chain and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further, proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused totally inconsistent with his evidence. In the case in hand, there is no eyewitness of the occurrence and the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. The normal principle in a case based on circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; that those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; that the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused and they should be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with their innocence. 17. For the reasons, as discussed above, we are of the view that the chain of circumstances brought on record is not complete to prove charge of offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 & 114 IPC, and hence, the learned trial Judge has rightly given benefit of doubt to the respondents and thereby acquitted them. Besides, while dealing with an appeal against order of acquittal, we have to be cautious. Unless the order of acquittal is perverse, it cannot be overturned. We find the impugned judgment to be well reasoned and legally sound. It is not perverse. The appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.