Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 659 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Dahyabhai Virabhai Bhatti

2017-03-23

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 30.1.2006, passed in Sessions Case No. 112 of 2001, by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 2, 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 are that the third daughter named Pratibhaben of complainant Ramjibhai was married on 15.2.1989 with Maheshbhai, son of Dahyabhai Bhatti and she was living in her nuptial. Pratibhaben visited her parents frequently after her marriage and she had not told him of any kind of unhappiness in her matrimonial home. The complainant had last met Pratibhaben on Dashera and he himself had dropped Pratibhaben at her matrimonial home and at that time, Pratibhaben had not told him about any quarrels or discord at her home. Thereafter, on 14.10.1989, he was informed in the early morning that his daughter Pratibhaben had hanged herself. Immediately his two sons and his wife had gone to Pratibhaben's house and thereafter, he also had gone there and at that time, a lady social worker was there in Pratibhaben's room. And when the complainant saw the dead body of his daughter, he felt faint. Thereafter, complainant's son-in-law Mahesh had informed him that Pratibhaben was sulking since the previous noon and she had not eaten and in the night also he had taken her dinner in her room and thereafter Pratibhaben had gone to sleep and he was watching a program of young artists going on in front of his home from his terrace with other family members and at about half past one in program, he had gone to sleep and found the door closed. He knocked loudly on the door but Pratibhaben did not reply. Thereafter, after much trying, they opened the window glass and looking from the window, Pratibhaben was found hanging from ceiling fan and therefore, their neighbour Mukundbhai had kicked open the door and Pratibhaben was taken down. Her breathing had stopped and police was informed. Complainant had seen black spot on the neck of Pratibhaben and some greenish spot on her chick and her tongue was bitten. The last rituals of Pratibhaben's body were performed by Pratibhaben's in-laws. Her breathing had stopped and police was informed. Complainant had seen black spot on the neck of Pratibhaben and some greenish spot on her chick and her tongue was bitten. The last rituals of Pratibhaben's body were performed by Pratibhaben's in-laws. As per the complaint, Pratibhaben's father-in-law frequently used bad language and foul words and Pratibhaben's mother-in-law Ujiben also used to taunt and interfere in Pratibhaben's household work and Pratibhaben's husband Mahesh also harassed her at the instigation of his parental aunt Chaturaben and therefore, Pratibhaben's father-in-law, mother-in-law, husband and aunt Chatruaben are responsible for the death of deceased Pratibhaben and in the aforesaid manner, the complaint is filed before the concerned police station. 2.1 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, 306 and 114 of the IPC. 2.2 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 Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 2, Rajkot and same was registered as Sessions Case No. 112 of 2001. 2.3 Pursuant to the committal order passed by the trial court, the trial court, as stated above, was pleased to frame the charge at Exh. 7 against the respondents accused and their plea has also been recorded. But since the respondents accused have denied the offence being committed, the case was put up for further adjudication. 2.4 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:- S. No. PW No. Name Exhibit 1 PW-1 Dr. 2.4 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:- S. No. PW No. Name Exhibit 1 PW-1 Dr. Jyotsnaben Maneklal Pattani 21 2 PW-2 Mahesh Ramjibhai Chavda 37 3 PW-3 Deepakbhai Ramjibhai Chavda 50 4 PW-4 Geetaben Deepakbhai Chavda 56 5 PW-5 Bhanuben Maheshbhai Chavda 57 6 PW-6 Pushpaben Mukundrai Thaker 59 7 PW-7 Bharatbhai Jayantibhai 61 8 PW-8 Dudhiben Ramjibhai Chavda 65 9 PW-9 Induben Kishorchandra 66 10 PW-10 Pradhyumansinh Mahobatsinh 72 11 PW-11 Parsottambhai Ganpatbhai Tadvi 79 12 PW-12 Bahadursinh Bhavsinh Jadeja 105 Evidence led by prosecution:- 1 Certificate of cause of death 22 2 Letter written by PSI of Pradhyuman Nagar Police Station, Rajkot to Medical officer of Civil Hospital, Rajkot for Postmortem. 23 3 Original Postmortem Report 24 4 M.L.C. Case paper 25 5 Police Report for postmortem 26 6 Inquest Panchnama 27 7 Receipt of receiving dead bodies 53 8 Inquest Panchnama 60 9 Panchnama of place of offence 62 10 Station diary entry No. 10 73 11 Station diary entry No. 4 74 12 Depute order of investigation 75 13 Forwarding letter of police 76 14 Special report for serious offence 77 15 Letter written by PSI of Pradhyuman Nagar Police Station to FSL Junagadh. 80 16 Receipt of FSL Junagadh 81 17 Report of FSL Junagadh 82 18 Yadi written by PI, CID (Crime) Rajkot to Sub Divisional Magistrate 84 19 Yadi written by PSI of Pradhyuman Nagar Police Station to Sub Divisional Magistrate 85 20 Yadi to photograher of CID office Rajkot 86 21 Police statement of Dahyabhai Virabhai Bhattt 87 22 Police statement of Mukundbhai Kanjibhai 88 23 Police statement of Dudhiben Ramjibhai 89 24 Police statement of Induben Kishorchandra 90 25 Police statement of Suresh Karamshibhai Bhatti 91 26 Police statement of Pushpaben Mukundbhai 92 27 Letter of Maheshbhai Ramjibhai Chavda 93 28 Letter of Maheshbhai Ramjibhai Chavda 94 29 Police statement of Maheshbhai Ramjibhai 95 30 Letter of Maheshbhai Ramjibhai Chavda 96 31 Letter written to PI, Pradhyuman Nagar Police Station, Rajkot by Police Inspector, CID (Crime), Rajkot 97 32 Letter written to PI, Pradhyuman Nagar Police Station, Rajkot by Police Inspector, CID (Crime), Rajkot 98 33 Letter written to PI, Pradhyuman Nagar Police Station, Rajkot by Deputy Commissioner of Police, Rajkot 99 34 Complaint of Ramjibhai Vastabhai Chavda 105-A 2.5 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. Mr. L.R. Poojari, learned APP for the appellant - State has vehemently contended that the judgment and order passed by the trial court is not only erroneous but reflecting clear non-application of mind. It has been contended that despite the fact that detailed evidence at length is adduced before the trial court, still, however, the evidence has not been construed in its true perspective and therefore, such exercise of jurisdiction is uncalled for as the same reflects perversity in analyzing the material on record. Mr. It has been contended that despite the fact that detailed evidence at length is adduced before the trial court, still, however, the evidence has not been construed in its true perspective and therefore, such exercise of jurisdiction is uncalled for as the same reflects perversity in analyzing the material on record. Mr. Poojari has further contended that date of incident is 14.10.1989, whereas the date of marriage of the respondent No. 1 - accused with deceased is 15.2.1989 and therefore, within a span of 8 months only, the incident occurred and therefore, the presumption is to be dislodged by the respondents accused and such responsibility has not been discharged by the respondents accused and therefore, keeping this in mind the trial court ought to have given due weightage to this issue as well. Having not done so, the trial court has committed a clear error in exercise of jurisdiction which deserves to be corrected. Learned APP has further contended that looking to the specific charge as compared to the testimony of various witnesses who have been examined during the course of trial by the prosecution, it clearly suggests that connectivity of the respondents accused with crime is established and that aspect has not been properly dealt with by the trial court which is nothing but a clear error of exercise of jurisdiction material in nature and therefore, same deserves to be corrected. Mr. Poojari, learned APP has further contended that apart from this, the medical evidence is also clearly corroborating the version of the prosecution and in addition thereto, the brother of the deceased has clearly established that in immediate past there was an incident of ill-treatment meted out to her which led to her to commit suicide and therefore, this aspect ought not to have been ignored by the trial court. Apart from this, on the contrary, the testimony of brother is clearly suggesting that not only it is an allegation that deceased has not committed suicide but, she is done away by the respondents accused and there are clinching evidences suggestive of that fact from the testimony of witnesses and therefore, when the prosecution has examined relevant witnesses simply because the same happened to be the relatives, their testimony could not have been discarded and therefore, this is nothing but a clear error on the part of the trial court. Learned APP has further drawn the attention of this Court for asserting that even independent witness has also substantially supported the case of prosecution and the evidences of brothers as well as mother of the deceased coupled with the testimony of neighbour is clearly suggesting that the deceased was done away by the respondents accused. 3.1 In addition thereto, Mr. L.R. Poojari, learned APP has further drawn the attention to panchnama of scene of offence for contending that the story put up by the prosecution is well founded and defence has no say to claim innocence since measurement of bed and the measurement of length of an is clearly suggesting that it is not possible for a lady having a height of 5.1 ft. can commit a suicide and therefore, there are all chances that the respondents accused have done away the deceased and then, created a story with the aid and assistance of neighbours to seek innocence. On the contrary, such defence is not possible to be believed as even the saree which is said to have been used for committing suicide has no sign of stretch which otherwise normally to be found if it has been used and therefore, all these eventualities are leading towards the guilt of the respondents accused and therefore, it is not possible to believe the defence of the respondents accused. Learned APP, in addition thereto, has further contended that it was obligatory on the part of respondents to explain cogently their defence when their further statement has been recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. A bare reading of the said further statement is clearly indicating that burden is otherwise to have been discharged is not even remotely discharged and therefore, by virtue of Section 113 of the Evidence Act, the case could have been said to have established by the prosecution. This error committed by the trial court ought not to have been committed and therefore, in such a situation the order and conclusion which has been arrived at is not just and proper and can be safely stated to be a perverse finding and therefore, on this ground alone, the impugned judgment and order is required to be quashed and set aside. By pointing out the evidence, inquest panchnama, P.M. Examination and testimony of witnesses, leaned APP has prayed the Court to allow the appeal by setting aside the order of acquittal and requested to award appropriate, suitable and adequate punishment to the respondents accused. 4. To oppose the stand taken by learned APP, Mr. Zubin Bharda, learned counsel representing the respondents accused has contended specifically that a detailed order is passed by the trial court in which there appears to be a strong application of mind. Not only it has been contended that each and every evidence has been dealt with by the trial court and then, arrived at a particular conclusion. It has also been pointed out that the conclusion which has been arrived at is just and proper in view of the fact that the trial court had an opportunity to see the demeanor of witnesses and therefore, requested not to interfere with the order of acquittal. 4.1 Mr. Bharda, learned counsel has further drawn the attention to the testimony of PW-1 Dr. Jyotsnaben Pattani as well as P.M. Examination report in corelation with the inquest panchnama and then, has taken us to the testimony of brother and mother of the deceased and by referring to this testimony, it has been contended that no case is made out against the respondents accused so cogently which would visit the conviction and therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the trial court is just and proper. It has also been contended that even the panchnama of scene of offence is also clearly indicating the fact that the door was closed from inside. Had it been a case of doing anything this position would not have been on the place of offence. Further, it has also been pointed out that looking to the measurement of ceiling and the fan as well as bed from scene of offence, it is quite clear that there was a gap of 5.6 ft. height and height of the deceased as 5.1 inch and in addition thereto, there is a clear medical opinion that in such a situation if strangulation is taking place and the weight is of 3 kg. and more, such kind of ligature marks are possible and therefore, same having been clearly mentioned in the postmortem examination, the case has rightly been not believed by the trial court. and more, such kind of ligature marks are possible and therefore, same having been clearly mentioned in the postmortem examination, the case has rightly been not believed by the trial court. There appears to be no error in passing the judgment and order and therefore, it is desirable in the interest of justice not allow the appeal filed by the State. 5. Having heard the learned counsel 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 charge which has been framed against the respondents accused is that on 14.10.1989 at about 2.00 O'clock the deceased committed suicide by strangulating herself and alternate charge is that the respondents accused have committed murder and therefore, the charge came to be framed on 17.12.2002 is either the case is of offence of Section 302 is committed or of Section 306 r/w Section 114 of the IPC. Now, in the context of this charge, first of all the testimony of PW-1 - Dr. Jyotsnaben Pattani is examined by this Court. From the reading of the said testimony, nothing much turns out but, said witness has opined that there was no visible fatal injury nor there was any detection of poison from the body and therefore, the said witness has opined that cause of death appears to be a strangulation. In this, it has also been clearly mentioned that if the head and body can stretch having burden of more than 3 kg. Weight then also, the death can occur out of strangulation and therefore, according to testimony of this witness, it was possible that cause of death is the result of strangulation. 5.2 Now, this testimony if further can be visualized from the postmortem examination, in column No. 17, the ligature marks on front of neck found and the size thereof has also been mentioned and the cause of death is asphyxia resulting from hanging. Now, these injuries which are reflecting in the body of postmortem examination are also similar to that which have been mentioned in the inquest panchnama and therefore, looking to this corelation of the injuries with the opinion of doctor, one thing found to be certain that the death has occurred on account of strangulation. Now, these injuries which are reflecting in the body of postmortem examination are also similar to that which have been mentioned in the inquest panchnama and therefore, looking to this corelation of the injuries with the opinion of doctor, one thing found to be certain that the death has occurred on account of strangulation. 5.3 While going through the record further, the prosecution has relied upon mainly 3 to 4 witnesses; (i) PW-2 - Maheshbhai Chavda, who is examined at Exh. 37 and who happened to be the brother of the deceased. Said witness in his deposition has made an attempt to arraign the respondents accused in commission of crime. But, his statement appears to have been recorded at a later point of time and one Superintendent of Police has recorded on 17.10.1989 i.e. after almost a period of 3 days. Now, similar is the case of testimony of another PW-3 - Deepakbhai Ramjibhai Chavda, who is examined at Exh. 50. Said witness has also deposed on the similar line before the trial court. The prosecution has also examined PW-6 - Pushpaben Mukundrai Thaker at Exh. 59 but, her version is, on the contrary, dislodged clearly the testimony of brothers and mother. The cross-examination of this witness is clearly indicative of the fact that not only there was no ill-treatment of any nature but, even there was no quarrel taking place between the husband and wife and this can sound more probable in view of the fact that marriage span was only 8 to 9 months and therefore, background of this examination is indicating that the ill-treatment and the torture posed by the interested witness is no longer getting substantiated. On the contrary, this witness, who can be said to be an independent witness, is neither related nor interested and who is simply a neighbour, whose husband has on the contrary went inside to help. The entire narration of this cross-examination is indicating that on the contrary, the deceased was happy till about 4.00 p.m. on the day of incident. But then, when hue and cry was found, this witness with her husband went to the house of respondents accused and by breaking upon the door, deceased was brought down and therefore, this independent witness is clearly raising suspicion serious in nature in the story put up by prosecution. But then, when hue and cry was found, this witness with her husband went to the house of respondents accused and by breaking upon the door, deceased was brought down and therefore, this independent witness is clearly raising suspicion serious in nature in the story put up by prosecution. 5.4 To have further examination whether the conclusion arrived at by the trial court is just and proper, we have gone through the documentary evidence as well. The scene of panchnama which can be said to be important piece of evidence so far as this controversy is concerned, the same in detail has been examined by us wherein, it is revealed that the ceiling height of the room was 8 ft. and 10 inch and if the said height is to be curtailed by covering the length of the fan as well as bed, a clear left out portion remained is 5 ft. and 6 inch and if this is to be compared with the height of the deceased i.e. 5 ft. and 1 inch, the version of committing suicide on her own can be possible. This is in addition to consideration of the other cogent material that Viscera report has indicated that no poisonous substance is found from the body nor detected and the injuries which are reflected in PM note in column No. 17, except ligature mark on the neck no other injuries are found from the body and therefore, the respondents have done away the deceased, the same is not probable to digest and therefore, the possibility of attracting the provisions of Section 302 is ruled out and even not believed by the trial court. Now, in the context of this, the other evidences are not cogent enough to substantiate any role being played even remotely by the respondents for attracting offence of Section 302 r/w Section 114 of the IPC as well. 5.5 The evidence on record indicates that there is no ill-treatment meted out to the deceased and except interested witnesses, that too after some time, are deposing but, the same is completely distorted by independent witness in her cross-examination and therefore, it is not probable looking to this evidence on record to believe that a chain of circumstance is getting the link with commission of crime of the respondents accused. Had there been any cogent circumstance available, possibly even a lean inference could have been raised but, even that seem to be not possible looking to the material on record and therefore, the aforesaid analysis suggesting that there is connectivity so cogent enough against the respondents accused. 5.6 The independent analysis of evidence is suggesting that there seem to be no cogent material to connect the respondents accused beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, this analysis has been undertaken in consonance with the conclusion arrived at by the trial court which indicates that the reasons assigned by the trial court appearing to be not preverse which may justify the guilt of the respondents accused. The entire circumstance appears to have been examined in detail by the trial court and by assigning cogent reasons, the judgment and order came to be passed which requires no interference more particularly when the Court is dealing with an appeal against the order of acquittal. 6. While coming to this conclusion, we have also considered the well recognized proposition of law propounded by catena of decisions that even if possible view is emerging then also, in the absence of any cogent corroboration or perversity or legal infirmity, the conclusion of acquittal arrived at by the trial court cannot be disturbed and this is because of the fact that the trial court had an advantage of not only analyzing the evidence as a whole but, has also advantage of seeing the demeanor of witnesses and therefore, such kind of conclusion in the absence of any perversity normally cannot be interfered with. The following propositions laid down by the decisions delivered by the Apex Court which we worth to take note of and reproduce hereinafter. 6.1 In the decision delivered by the Supreme Court in case of Sureshkumar v. State of Haryana, (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. 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. 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 re-appreciate 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 crystallized 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 and Govindaraju v. State, (2012) 4 SCC 722 : AIR 2012 SC 1292 : 2012 AIR SCW 1994)." 6.2 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 as observed in paragraph Nos. 30 and 31. 6.3 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. 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 mistery 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." 6.4 The decision taken by the Apex Court in the case of V. Sejappa v. State, 2016 AIR (SC) 2045, wherein the apex Court in paragraph No. 21 observed thus: "21. If the evaluation of the evidence and the findings recorded by the trial court does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and the grounds on which the trial court has based its conclusion are reasonable and plausible, the High Court should not disturb the order of acquittal if another view is possible. Merely because the appellate court on re- appreciation and re-evaluation of the evidence is inclined to take a different view, interference with the judgment of acquittal is not justified if the view taken by the trial court is a possible view. In State through Inspector of Police, A.P. v. K. Narasimhachary, (2005) 8 SCC 364 , this Court reiterated the well settled principle that if two views are possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the acquittal by the lower court and that only where the material on record leads to an inescapable conclusion of guilt of the accused, the judgment of acquittal will call for interference by the appellate court. The same view was reiterated in T. Subramanian v. State of T.N. (2006) 1 SCC 401 ." 7. 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. 8. In view of above, the present appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order, dated 30.1.2006, passed in Sessions Case No. 112 of 2001, by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 2, Rajkot, is hereby confirmed. Bail bonds, if any, shall stand discharged. Record and Proceedings be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith. Appeal Dismissed.