ORDER : ANANT S. DAVE, J. 1. This application is preferred by the State of Gujarat-applicant-appellant in a proposed appeal under Section 378(1)(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 02.02.2017, recorded by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar, in Sessions Case No. 92 of 2016, whereby at the end of trial, the learned trial Judge has acquitted the respondent for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Certain facts which need our notice are that deceased-Vipul was found dead on 24th April, 2016 and it was informed to father of the deceased-Hirabhai through his relatives that body of his son-Vipul was lying in a injured condition but when it was inquired in detail, he was found dead. Upon taking to the hospital and carrying out the postmortem report, it was found that he was hit by some sharp weapons on the head and that was the cause of death. FIR being C.R No. I-46 of 2016 was registered with Vartej Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. Upon committal of the case to the Sessions Court under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it was registered as Sessions Case No. 92 of 2016 in which 17 oral and 25 documentary evidences were examined by the learned Judge and in absence of proving its case beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution against the accused acquittal was ordered. 3. Mr. K.P Raval, learned APP appearing for the applicant-State has drawn our attention to record of the case, more particularly, depositions of PW-10-Munnabhai Mangabhai, PW-11-Prakashbhai alias Nanu Talshibhai, PW-12-mother and PW-13-sister of the deceased at Exh:26, 27, 28 and 29 respectively and it is submitted that these witnesses have deposed about deceased-Vipul taking bath and went to temple and thereafter body was found and PW-10 and 11 had seen the deceased last together with one Alpesh and thereafter this incident has happened and therefore, link is available about guilt of the accused and even one of the witnesses has in his examination suggested illicit relationship of the deceased with the wife of Alpesh. The above testimonies coupled with the endorsements in the postmortem report about nature of injuries and cause of death and testimonies of doctor-Kishanbhai at Exh:18 have established the case of prosecution and accordingly judgment and order of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Judge needs to be interfered with, for which, this application for leave to appeal be granted as prayed for. 4. We have carefully perused the judgment and order and other testimonies made available by learned APP. In the backdrop of the case of the prosecution, it is admittedly based on circumstantial evidence and no eyewitness is available. No doubt, there were internal injuries of fracture and hematoma but except the cause of death namely, that of hemorrhage and fracture which led to conclusion about homicidal death but for connecting the accused with crime, hardly any circumstance is available. In a case based of circumstantial evidence, duty is caste upon prosecution firstly to show all the circumstances leading to the guilt of the accused and that every circumstance is to be proved to such an extent which may have nexus with other circumstances and if chain of such circumstances rule out involvement of any other person and leading to the guilt of the accused, the Court would conclude about guilt of the accused. 5. In the facts of this case, all witnesses are almost having common knowledge about accused leaving his house to Khodiar temple after taking dinner and even as per the version of the wife of the deceased-PW-13, he had returned around 2:00 a.m and thereafter, went back to the temple where some religious ceremonies were performed. Even theory about last seen together i.e deceased-Vipul with accused-Alpesh, nowhere, leads the case of the prosecution except that 3 or 4 persons in company of which the deceased was present. Other witnesses of panchnama have turned hostile and casual reference about illicit relationship in absence of any witness supporting the case or any material brought on record much less proved, the prosecution fails to point out any such circumstance. Besides even Investigating Officer and his testimony also do not throw any light whereby the Court can take last resort for believing the case of the prosecution. Besides even Investigating Officer and his testimony also do not throw any light whereby the Court can take last resort for believing the case of the prosecution. Collectively, we are in agreement with reasons, findings and conclusions drawn by the learned trial Judge about failure on the part of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and no other elaborate reasoning is necessary as we are satisfied that no case is made out to exercise powers in our appellate jurisdiction under Sections 378 and 383 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No interference is called for by this Court in this judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Judge. 6. In view of the above, leave to appeal is refused. Consequently, the present appeal also stands dismissed.