Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 563 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Firozshah Bhikhusha

2017-03-10

A.J.SHASTRI, S.R.BRAHMBHATT

body2017
JUDGMENT : A.J. Shastri, J. 1. The appellant - State has filed the present criminal appeal under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order, dated 21.10.2005, passed in Sessions Case No. 214 of 1995, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 11, Rajkot whereby, the trial court has been pleased to acquit the respondents accused from the charges for which they have been tried. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is summarized as under : 2.1 That on 5.8.1995, at about 6.00 p.m., the complainant was going in his rickshaw towards his house and at that time accused was found near the Fire-bridge and the accused was having in his hand some Lottery Tickets. The complainant asking the accused to stop his activity of sale since because of that activity there were many quarrels. It is further case of prosecution that the accused immediately go to the house of his relative Kashamshah and bring Gupti from that house and accused No. 2 also came out with the accused No. 1 from the house of Kashamshah Jivanshah. The further case of the prosecution is that accused No. 2, throwing the stone towards the complainant and accused caused injury to him and both the accused persons chased the complainant who was running away to save himself. When the complainant reached to the place of offence, deceased and other persons were present there and at that time accused No. 1, caused injury to the deceased Kyumkhan on his chest by Gupti and accused No. 2 caught hold the deceased at that time. It is further case of prosecution that accused No. 2, also caused an injury to the deceased on his head by stone. Both the injured was taken to the Civil Hospital, Rajkot and doctor declared him dead and complainant filed a complaint as stated above before the PSI Vijaysinh Arjunsinhy Rathod. It is further case of prosecution that accused No. 2, also caused an injury to the deceased on his head by stone. Both the injured was taken to the Civil Hospital, Rajkot and doctor declared him dead and complainant filed a complaint as stated above before the PSI Vijaysinh Arjunsinhy Rathod. 2.2 The Investigating Officer, pursuant to the registration of offence, conducted an investigation after recording the statements of witnesses and also executed several steps in furtherance of his investigation by recording statements of relevant witnesses as well as by drawing various panchnamas and the material having been found against the respondents accused, a detailed charge-sheet came to be filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 323 and 114 of the IPC read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 2.3 The learned Magistrate upon receipt of the charge-sheet registered the criminal case but, then, since the same was triable by the court of sessions, in exercise of powers under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the sessions which had come up for consideration before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot and same was registered as Sessions Case No. 214 of 1995. 2.4 Pursuant to the committal order passed by the trial court, the trial court, as stated above, was pleased to frame the charge at Exh. 12 against the respondents accused and their plea has been recorded at Exh. 13 and 14 respectively. But since the respondents accused have denied the offence being committed, the case was put up for further adjudication. 2.5 The record indicates that with a view to prove the case against the respondents accused, the prosecution has led the evidence in the form of oral as well as documentary evidence in the following manner:- Sr. No. PW No. Name Exh. 2.5 The record indicates that with a view to prove the case against the respondents accused, the prosecution has led the evidence in the form of oral as well as documentary evidence in the following manner:- Sr. No. PW No. Name Exh. No. 1 1 Yunuskhan Akbarkhan Pathan, complainant 17 2 2 Yogesh Chhaganbhai Chudasma 32 3 3 Ghanshyam Kanjibhai Pujara 34 4 4 Majidbhai Sulemanbhai Patel 36 5 5 Dr.Ashwinkumar Devrajbhai Tank 37 6 6 Dr.Manmohan Osmanbhai Khebar 43 7 7 Ayubkhan Akbarkhan Pathan 45 8 8 Jaykarbhai Lavjibhai 46 9 9 Dhanabhai Vishabhai 48 10 10 Razakbhai Sultanbhai Multani 49 11 11 Ismailbhai Mohmadbhai 51 12 12 Yunuskhan Jhilusha 52 13 13 Sabana Hasambhai Shaikh 54 14 14 Khatijaben Hasamsha 55 15 15 Ramtej Rampat Shukla, PSI 56 16 16 Ghelubha Panchansinh Jhala 66 17 17 Hasmukhbhai Bhaktiram Gondaliya 67 18 18 V.A.Rathod, PSI 70 19 19 G.B.Kandel, PI 73 Evidence led by prosecution 1 Arrest Panchnama of accused 34 2 Inquest Panchnama 35 3 P.M. Note 38 4 Yadi by PI to Medical Officer for conducting PM 39 5 Police report to be sent along with dead body to the civil surgeon 40 6 Letter by Medical Officer to PI for sending the muddamal to FSL 41 7 Yadi 52 8 Injury certificate of Yunuskhan 44 9 Panchnama of clothes of deceased 47 10 Panchnama of place of offence 50 11 Copy of depute order 57 12 Extract of station diary entry No.19 58 13 Extract of station diary entry No.10 59 14 Forwarding letter 60 15 Report as to heavy offence 61 16 Extract of station diary entry No.25 62 17 Copy of notification as to prohibition of use of weapon 63 18 Sketch of place of offence 68 19 Yadi for preparing the map 69 20 Original complaint 71 21 Forwarding letter of muddamal to FSL, Junagadh 74 22 Certificate 75 23 Receipt by FSL as to receiving the muddamal 76 24 Yadi for carrying on muddamal 77 25 Muddamal analysis report 78 26 Serological report 79 27 Office copy of yadi written to Medical Officer for treating the accused 80 28 Map of place of offence as shown by Investigating Officer 81 2.6 After the said evidence is led, a closure pursis came to be given by the prosecution and after recording the statement of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the case was put up for trial. The trial court had framed the issues for which adjudication is to take place in sessions case and after considering in detail the evidence led by the prosecution and after considering the further statement, the trial court was pleased to pass an order of acquittal and the respondents accused came to be acquitted from the charges for which they have been tried. It is this judgment and order is made the subject matter of present criminal appeal by the appellant - State. 3. Ms. Hansa Punani, learned APP for the appellant - State has vehemently contended that a serious error is committed by the trial court in passing the order of acquittal. Learned APP further submitted that while coming to the conclusion, the trial court has also not assigned any cogent reasons. In furtherance of her contention, she has specifically contended that prosecution has led the evidence in the form of oral as well documentary, has examined as many as 19 witnesses and submitted 28 documentary evidence which are amply make it clear that the respondents accused are responsible to have committed an offence and therefore, learned APP has submitted that since the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt by leading the evidence in such a voluminous nature, a clear error is committed by the trial court in passing an order of acquittal. 3.1 Ms. Hansa Punani, learned APP has further contended that on the basis of depositions which have been led in the case, even if panchas have become hostile there is no earthly reason why the complaint along with other documentary evidence may not be believed. Learned APP has further submitted that even if the complainant has turned hostile, the medical evidence and other documentary evidence will not become dis-believable and the trial court has committed a serious error in discarding the evidence simply on the ground that the witnesses have turned hostile. 3.2 Learned APP has further drawn the attention of the Court to medical evidence in the form of Dr. Ashwinkumar Devrajbhai Tank, who is examined at Exh. 3.2 Learned APP has further drawn the attention of the Court to medical evidence in the form of Dr. Ashwinkumar Devrajbhai Tank, who is examined at Exh. 37 and in addition thereto, she has further the drawn the attention of the Court to Postmortem note and thereby, submitted that the case has been established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, simply because there appears to be some conflict between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence, the trial court ought not to have disbelieved or discarded the medical evidence and therefore, this is not a fit case in which an order of acquittal could have been passed. Learned APP has further submitted that panch witnesses, though turned hostile, their depositions are corroborated by the testimony of Investigating Officer and therefore, on the basis of the evidence of Investigating Officer, when the case has emerged the specific guilt of respondents accused, there is no earthly reasons why an order of acquittal is passed especially when the person has been done away and therefore, learned APP has requested that there are serious issues which are entangled in the present proceedings and therefore, by brief and laconic order, the case could not have been disposed of in favour of the respondents accused. Learned APP has further drawn the attention of the Court to the reasons which are assigned by the trial court and has contended that the reasons are self-explanatory and same would tantamount to be a non-application of mind on the part of trial court to some of the material evidence forming part of the record and therefore, this being a case the error committed by the trial court deserves to be corrected. Learned APP has further submitted that apart from this, even the conclusion which has been arrived at is not of such a nature which would justify the order of acquittal. On the contrary, voluminous evidences which have been led ought to have been gone into in detail instead of dealing in a cursory manner and therefore, this irregularity in exercising the jurisdiction is required to be corrected by quashing the order impugned in the appeal and by referring to the specific charge at Exh. 12 as well as the evidences which have been led at Exh. 17 and Exh. 12 as well as the evidences which have been led at Exh. 17 and Exh. 37 and the evidence of brother, who is an eye witness to the incident, learned APP has requested that the order deserves to be corrected as it reflects not only the manifest error but, results in miscarriage of justice and therefore, ultimately requested the Court to allow the appeal filed by the State. 4. To oppose the stand taken by learned APP, Mr. A.K. Mansuri, learned advocate representing the respondents accused has vehemently contended that the prosecution has not at all proved the case beyond the reasonable doubt and none of the relevant witnesses are supporting the case of prosecution. Mr. Mansuri has further contended that even the complainant himself in the present case has turned hostile and has specifically not supported the case of prosecution. In addition thereto, Mr. Mansuri has further submitted that none of the panchas have supported the case of prosecution and therefore, the evidence which has been led in the documentary form has not been proved at all by the prosecution. Mr. Mansuri has further contended that even if there is a conflict with medical evidence as well as ocular evidence, the medical opinion being merely in the form of opinion cannot have any predominance over the ocular evidence. Here, the medical opinion is not completely ousting the ocular evidence and therefore, it cannot be said that a conviction would lie against the respondents accused on the basis of medical evidence especially when none of the oral testimony recorded by prosecution have been established and it is in this view of the matter, Mr. Mansuri has submitted that the case has not been proved beyond the reasonable doubt. Mr. Mansuri has further contended that in addition thereto, there is a specific case of the respondents accused even in the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. that they have been wrong roped in the 'prosecution. In fact, if incriminating circumstance is not put to the notice of the accused then, that would be a serious lapse on the part of prosecution and therefore in no circumstance it can be justified that any error is committed by the trial court. The trial court, as per the say of Mr. In fact, if incriminating circumstance is not put to the notice of the accused then, that would be a serious lapse on the part of prosecution and therefore in no circumstance it can be justified that any error is committed by the trial court. The trial court, as per the say of Mr. Mansuri, has assigned substantial reasons to justify the order and therefore, in the absence of any irregularity, illegality and perversity, no order of acquittal can be reversed. Mr. Mansuri has further drawn the attention of the Court to the panch witnesses who have turned hostile and has further drawn the attention to the specific evidence of doctor, who opined that muddamal Gupti can cause such injury. But at the same time said muddamal Gupti has not indicated any blood stains over it and for that purpose, not only the said recovery panchnama is established as panchas have not supported but, on the basis of serological report also, there is a clear opinion that at Item No. 1 i.e. Gupti, no blood stain has been found which is referred to on page-173 of paper-book compilation and therefore, Mr. Mansuri has contended that there is no distinguishable factor in favour of prosecution which would justify the reversal of acquittal. Mr. Mansuri has contended that it is a settled position of law that even if two views are possible, the view which has been taken by the trial court is not to be disturbed under normal circumstance unless the conclusion arrived at is very much perverse and therefore, here is not a case of such a nature and hence, Mr. Mansuri has requested the Court that present appeal does not have any merit and same deserves to be dismissed. 5. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record and having independently assessed the evidence and compared the same with the conclusion arrived at by the trial court, following circumstances are not possible to be unnoticed. 5.1 The evidence of prosecution reflects that PW-1 -Yunuskhan Akbarkhan Pathan (complainant), who is examined at Exh. 5.1 The evidence of prosecution reflects that PW-1 -Yunuskhan Akbarkhan Pathan (complainant), who is examined at Exh. 17, has in his chief examination has clearly stated that the case of prosecution that the deceased was given a blow in the chest on left side by Gupti and the accused No. 2 -Jinnatben had thrown the stone on head which resulted into occurrence of a serious crime. But this chief examination recorded on 17.7.2004. However, in July, 2005 in cross-examination this very complainant has clearly deposed in contrast to what has been stated in chief examination. A total "U" turn is taken by this witness in his cross-examination and has distorted the case of prosecution substantially and overall reading of his evidence as a whole would clearly indicate that the complainant has chosen not to support the case of prosecution either on account of settlement which might have taken place or on account of some unforeseen circumstance. Nonetheless, the deposition has clearly ousted the case of prosecution from its inception. Similar is the case with PW-2 - Yogesh Chhaganbhai Chudasma, who is examined at Exh. 32, who has turned hostile and has clearly suggested that it is true that recovery has not taken place of muddamal in his presence and has also clearly admitted in his testimony that he has not gone anywhere with the police and therefore, this witness has clearly not supported the case of prosecution. Similar is the case with PW-3 - Ghanshyam Kanjibhai Pujara, who is examined at Exh. 34. On going through the testimony of this witness, it is culled out that he has not seen what has been written in the panchnama and therefore, substantially the case has not been established by ocular evidence. 5.2 The Court has then after made an endeavor to examine the case from the angle of medical evidence and try to find out the truth whether there appears to be any substance in the case of prosecution independently. But in that examination, it has been found that thought the injuries which are reflected in Column No. 17 of postmortem examination which is produced at Pg.95 of the paper-book compilation vide Exh. 38, has reflected that the death is caused due to cardiac respiratory arrest on account of injuries. But in that examination, it has been found that thought the injuries which are reflected in Column No. 17 of postmortem examination which is produced at Pg.95 of the paper-book compilation vide Exh. 38, has reflected that the death is caused due to cardiac respiratory arrest on account of injuries. Now, the basic case of prosecution is that the accused has given the Gupti blow and another accused has given the blow by stone. Now, correspondingly if the main weapon which is used in commission of crime is Gupti, now that muddamal recovery is not established by the prosecution. So much so that no doubt the Gupti is recovered and for the moment it be taken confidently as well then also, if the weapon is to be viewed from its serological report then, the serologist has clearly opined that nothing has been found on the Gupti i.e. the blood of the deceased and therefore, when the blood itself has not been found and the ocular evidence is not establishing the guilt of the respondents accused, simply because the injuries are reflecting on the body of the deceased, on that circumstance alone, no order of conviction can sustain and therefore, on the basis of this kind of evidence, the trial court has ultimately concluded that the case has not been travelled beyond the reasonable doubt by the prosecution. 6. In the context of aforesaid situation which is prevailing on record, we have independently gone through the evidence as stated hereinabove and upon going through, we have also examined the reasons which are assigned by the trial court in which it is found that not only the witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution but, FSL report is also not in favour of the prosecution. The blood has not been found on the Gupti and therefore, the blood stained clothes are not travelling the case of the prosecution beyond the reasonable doubt as this incriminating circumstance appears to have not been put to the accused in Section 313 further statement and therefore also, there is hardly any cogent material available to the court to connect the accused directly with commission of crime. Yet another reasons which are reflecting in Para.19 of the judgment in which after going through the aforesaid piece of evidence, it is established that no case is made out. Yet another reasons which are reflecting in Para.19 of the judgment in which after going through the aforesaid piece of evidence, it is established that no case is made out. That finding is not possible to be dislodged by this Court because the trial court had an occasion to see the demeanour of the witnesses, who have deposed before it and therefore, had there been any case with particular piece of evidence touching to the root of the matter has not been considered at all then, possibly the Court would have tried to analyze the entire material afresh. But here it is not a case in which the trial court has omitted any part of evidence to be considered and therefore, we found no error committed by the trial court in passing an order of acquittal. 7. The case if not substantially supported by ocular evidence then each circumstance is required to be proved to have direct nexus with the respondents accused to hold them guilty. Now the entire chain in the present case is not getting established and therefore, circumstantial evidences are also not improving the case in any manner and therefore, even independent look at the evidence, no factor is emerging which would permit us to take a different view and therefore, since the Court is dealing with an order of acquittal and that being an appellate jurisdiction, we are mindful of some of the settled proposition of law propounded while dealing with an order of acquittal and therefore, considering the settled propositions also, we are of the considered opinion that no case appears to have been made out by prosecution and therefore, no error is reflecting from the judgment and order of the trial court. 8. 8. We have also examined the entire order in correlation with the evidence on record and we found that there is no perversity nor any illegality reflecting which would warrant interference by this Court and there also appears to be no manifest error which has resulted into miscarriage of justice and therefore, all parameters which are prescribed by catena of decisions to deal with and consider an order of acquittal, keeping that factors in mind, we are of the definite opinion that case cannot be said to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, in view of following propositions of law, we are unable to dislodge the finding arrived at by the trial court. 8.1 In the case of M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani v. State of Kerala & Anr., (2006) 6 SCC 39 , the Apex Court has narrated the powers of High Court in appeal against the order of acquittal. In para 54 of the decision, the Apex Court has observed as under: "54. In any event the High Court entertained an appeal treating to be an appeal against acquittal, it was in fact exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Even while exercising an appellate power against a judgment of acquittal, the High Court should have borne in mind the well-settled principles of law that where two view are possible, the appellate Court should not interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded by the Court below." 8.2 In another decision delivered by the Supreme Court in case of Sureshkumar v. State of Haryana, reported in (2013) 16 SCC 353 , it was observed that if two views are possible, the High Court should hold in favour of the accused and should not interfere with an order of acquittal. The relevant observations of the decision are reflected in Para.55, 56 and 57 which read as under : "55. The second contention is that the High Court ought not to have interfered in the acquittal by the Trial Court. It was submitted that if two views are possible, the High Court should lean in favour of the accused and should not interfere with an acquittal. 56. The second contention is that the High Court ought not to have interfered in the acquittal by the Trial Court. It was submitted that if two views are possible, the High Court should lean in favour of the accused and should not interfere with an acquittal. 56. A few years ago, the law on the subject was culled out from a large number of decisions and summed up in Ghurey Lal v. State of U.P., (2008) 10 SCC 450 : AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 1318 : 2008 AIR SCW 6598 as follows: "1. The appellate court may review the evidence in appeals against acquittal under Sections 378 and 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Its power of reviewing evidence is wide and the appellate court can reappreciate the entire evidence on record. It can review the trial court's conclusion with respect to both facts and law. 2. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The accused possessed this presumption when he was before the trial court. The trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is innocent. 3. Due or proper weight and consideration must be given to the trial court's decision. This is especially true when a witness' credibility is at issue. It is not enough for the High Court to take a different view of the evidence. There must also be substantial and compelling reasons for holding that the trial court was wrong. In light of the above, the High Court and other appellate courts should follow the well-settled principles crystallised by number of judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal: 1. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so. A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have "very substantial and compelling reasons" to discard the trial court's decision. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so. A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have "very substantial and compelling reasons" to discard the trial court's decision. "Very substantial and compelling reasons" exist when: (i) The trial court's conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong; (ii) The trial court's decision was based on an erroneous view of law; (iii) The trial court's judgment is likely to result in "grave miscarriage of justice"; (iv) The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal; (v) The trial court's judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable; (vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations/report of the ballistic expert, etc. (vii) This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive." 57. Learned counsel for Suresh Kumar referred to S. Anil Kumar v. State of Karnataka, (2013) 7 SCC 219 : 2013 AIR SCW 6180 particularly paragraph 14 of the Report wherein reliance was placed on Rohtash v. State of Haryana, (2012) 6 SCC 589 : AIR 2012 SC 2297 : 2012 AIR SCW 3318 to conclude that it is "only in exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances and where the judgment in appeal is found to be perverse, can the High Court interfere with the order of acquittal." In Rohtash it was further observed: "The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption of innocence. Interference in a routine manner where the other view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference. (Vide State of Rajasthan v. Talevar, (2011) 11 SCC 666 : AIR 2011 SC 2271 : 2011 AIR SCW 3889 Govindaraju v. State, (2012) 4 SCC 722 : AIR 2012 SC 1292 : 2012 AIR SCW 1994)." 8.3 In yet another decision in the case of Ramaiah @ Rama v. State of Karnataka, 2014(9) SCC 365 , it has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced and the one favourable to the accused has been taken by the trial court, it should not be disturbed. It has been observed in paragraph Nos. It has been observed in paragraph Nos. 30 and 31 as under: "30. This very principle of law was formulated by the Court in M. Madhusudhan Rao (supra) in the following manner: "13. There is no embargo on the appellate court to review, reappreciate or reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. Yet, generally, the order of acquittal is not interfered with because the presumption of innocence, which is otherwise available to an accused under the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a court of law, gets further reinforced and strengthened by his acquittal. It is also trite that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case and the one favourable to the accused has been taken by the trial court, it should not be disturbed. Nevertheless, where the approach of the lower court in considering the evidence in the case is vitiated by some manifest illegality or the conclusion recorded by the court below is such which by some manifest illegality or the conclusion recorded by the court below is such which could not have been possibly arrived at by any court acting reasonably and judiciously and is, therefore, liable to the characterised as perverse, then, to prevent miscarriage of justice, the appellate court is obliged to interfere. 14. All these principles have been succinctly culled out by one of us (C.K. Thakker, J.) in Chandrappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 : AIR 2007 SC (Supp) 111 : 2007 AIR SCW 1850". 31. In Chandrappa (supra), which was followed in the aforesaid case, the Court had observed: "44. In our view, if in the light of above circumstances, the trial court felt that the accused could get benefit of doubt, the said view cannot be held to be illegal, improper or contrary to law. Hence, even though we are of the opinion that in an appeal against acquittal, powers of the appellate court are as wide as that of the trial court and it can review, reappreciate and reconsider the entire evidence brought on record by the parties and can come to its own conclusion on fact as well as on law, in the present case, the view taken by the trial court for acquitting the accused was possible and plausible. On the basis of evidence, therefore, at the most, it can be said that the other view was equally possible. But it is well established that if two views are possible on the basis of evidence on record and one favourable to the accused has been taken by the trial court, it ought not to be disturbed by the appellate court. In this case, a possible view on the evidence of prosecution had been taken by the trial court which ought not to have been disturbed by the appellate court. The decision of the appellate court (the High Court), therefore, is liable to be set aside"." 8.4 In the case of Upendra Pradhan v. State of Orissa, 2015(5) Scale 634 , it has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court that when there are two views culled out from the perusal of evidence and application of law, the view which favours the accused should be taken. Paragraph No. 10 of the said decision reads thus: "10. Taking the First question for consideration, we are of the view that in case there are two views which can be culled out from the perusal of evidence and application of law, the view which favours the accused should be taken. It has been recognized as a human right by this Court. In Narendra Singh and another v. State of M.P., (2004) 10 SCC 699 : AIR 2004 SC 3249 , this Court has recognized presumption of innocence as a human right and has gone on to say that: "30. It is now well settled that benefit of doubt belonged to the accused. It is further trite that suspicion, however grave may be, cannot take place of a proof. It is equally well settled that there is a long distance between 'may be' and 'must be'. 31. It is also well known that even in a case where a plea of alibi is raised, the burden of proof remains on the prosecution. Presumption of innocence is a human right. Such presumption gets stronger when a judgment of acquittal is passed. This Court in a number of decisions has set out the legal principle for reversing the judgment of acquittal by a Higher Court (see Dhanna v. State of M.P., Mahabir Singh v. State of Haryana and Shailendra Pratap v. State of U.P.) which had not been adhered to by the High Court. This Court in a number of decisions has set out the legal principle for reversing the judgment of acquittal by a Higher Court (see Dhanna v. State of M.P., Mahabir Singh v. State of Haryana and Shailendra Pratap v. State of U.P.) which had not been adhered to by the High Court. Xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 33. We, thus, having regard to the post-mortem report, are of the opinion that the cause of death of Bimla Bai although is shrouded in mystery but benefit thereof must go to the appellants as in the event of there being two possible views, the one supporting the accused should be upheld." 8.5 The decision taken by this Court in the aforementioned case, has been further reiterated in State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram, reported in (2003) 8 SCC 180 : AIR 2003 SC 3601 , wherein this Court observed thus: "7. Generally the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate court to reappreciate the evidence in a case where the accused has been acquitted, or the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused committed any offence or not. (see Bhagwan Singh v. State of M.P.) The principle to be followed by the appellate court considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable, it is a compelling reason for interference." (Emphasis Supplied). 16. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the High Court has erred in reversing the acquittal of accused appellant, stands good. If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable, it is a compelling reason for interference." (Emphasis Supplied). 16. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the High Court has erred in reversing the acquittal of accused appellant, stands good. The Additional Sessions Judge was right in granting him benefit of doubt. The view which favours the accused/appellant has to be considered and we discard the opposite view which indicates his guilt. 17. We are also of the view that the High Court should not have interfered with the decision taken by the Additional Session Judge, as the judgment passed was not manifestly illegal, perverse, and did not cause miscarriage of justice. On the scope of High Court's revisional jurisdiction, this Court has held in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, (2002) 6 SCC 650 : AIR 2002 SC 2907 , "that in absence of any manifest illegality, perversity and miscarriage of justice, High Court would not be justified interfering with the concurrent finding of acquittal of the accused merely because on re-appreciation of evidence it found the testimony of PWs. to be reliable whereas the trial Court had taken an opposite view." This happens to be the situation in the matter before us and we are of the view that the High Court was wrong in interfering with the order of acquittal of Upendra Pradhan passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. 18. The Second ground pleaded before us by the counsel for the accused appellant, that the testimonies of P.W. 1 and P.W.7 should not have been considered, as they were interested witnesses, holds no teeth. We are of the opinion that the testimonies of interested witnesses are of great importance and weightage. No man would be willing to spare the real culprit and frame an innocent person. This view has been supplemented by the decision of this Court in Mohd. Ishaque v. State of West Bengal, (2013) 14 SCC 581 . * * * 22. Therefore, in the light of the above discussion, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. The appellant has been released on bail vide this Court's order dated 15.04.2014. His bail bonds are discharged." 9. Ishaque v. State of West Bengal, (2013) 14 SCC 581 . * * * 22. Therefore, in the light of the above discussion, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. The appellant has been released on bail vide this Court's order dated 15.04.2014. His bail bonds are discharged." 9. In the premise aforesaid, we have given our anxious thought to the entire material on record, compared the same with the finding arrived at by the trial court and upon close scrutiny and reassessment of the evidence, we are of the considered opinion that chain is not connecting completely to hold the respondents accused as guilty of an offence beyond reasonable doubt and in such a suspicious circumstance, it is not just and proper for the appellate court to substitute the finding and hold them guilty. Perversity is not getting reflected and manifest error is not appearing which may turn out to be a miscarriage of justice and therefore, in the absence of such element, we are unable to accept the contentions raised by learned APP and accordingly, we find no error committed by the trial court and therefore, the appeal filed by the State being meritless deserves to be dismissed. 10. The present appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order, dated 21.10.2005, passed in Sessions Case No. 214 of 1995, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 11, Rajkot, is hereby confirmed. Bail bonds, if any, shall stand discharged. Record and Proceedings be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith.