Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 905 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Hareshkumar

2017-04-27

A.J.SHASTRI, S.R.BRAHMBHATT

body2017
JUDGMENT : A.J. Shastri, J. 1. The State has preferred present appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 31st March, 2006 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 4, Gandhinagar in Sessions Case No. 50 of 2005. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that Shitalben daughter of one Rameshbhai Soni, developed illicit relations with one Sanjaybhai and inspite of repeated instructions, the behaviour and attitude of the deceased has not changed. On account of this, with a view to done away with Shitalben, Rameshbhai contacted the respondents accused and in that process, it is the case of prosecution that on 9.5.2005, the respondent accused No. 3 - Tiniyo @ Kalubhai Surajsinh Zala told Shitalben that Sanjaybhai is waiting for her at village: Kadjodara and on account of which, Shitalben went to spot and at that time, respondents accused caught deceased Shitalben, wherein, it is the case of prosecution that respondent - accused No. 2 i.e. Rameshbhai Mangaldas Soni, caught the legs of Shitalben and respondent - accused No. 1 i.e. Hareshkumar @ Lankesh, Lakiyo Jitendraprasad Jani, gave knife blow on the neck of Shitalben and on account of which, she succumbed to injuries and died. This incident in question is met subject matter of criminal prosecution, wherein, FIR being I.CR. No. 20 of 2005 for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120B of the IPC along with Section 114 of IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act came to be filed. Pursuant to which, the police has started investigation. The investigating officer, pursuant to registration of offence, has carried out the investigation, has collected the necessary muddamal from spot, has drawn the panchnama of scene of offence, has also undertaken exercise of recording statements and after completion of detailed investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed before learned JMFC, Gandhinagar. Since the case was to be conducted by the Sessions, the same was committed to the Sessions under Section 209 of the IPC, which was registered as Sessions Case No. 50 of 2005 before the learned Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court No. 4, Gandhinagar. 3. Pursuant to said transmission of case, since the accused persons have pleaded not guilty, the charge came to be framed vide Exh. 3. Pursuant to said transmission of case, since the accused persons have pleaded not guilty, the charge came to be framed vide Exh. 5 against respondents accused for offences punishable under Sections 302, 120B and 114 of IPC read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. Said charge appears to have been framed on 10.10.2005. After reading over the charge to the respondents accused, as accused have claimed to be tried, resultantly the statements came to be recorded at Exh. 8, 9 and 10. After recording plea, the prosecution has given an opportunity to lead the evidence with a view to prove the case against respondents accused and in that context, the prosecution has led ocular as well as documentary evidences. To establish the guilt of accused, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses and have also produced 26 documentary evidence to prove the case as under. 4. Following witnesses have been examined by the prosecution to deal with the evidences and following evidences were also produced during the course of trial, which reads as under: LIST OF DOCUMENTS: 5. After said evidence has been led by the prosecution, closure purshis was given and thereafter with a view to grant opportunity to respondents accused, learned Presiding Officer, F.T. Court No. 4 has recorded further statement of accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal procedure and pursuant to which, since the accused persons have denied to have committed the offence, the case was put up for trial. 6. During the course of trial, the depositions have been analyzed by learned Presiding Officer. It appears from the record that at Exh. 83, learned APP on behalf of State has tendered written arguments, whereas, at Exh. 84 and 85, learned advocates appearing for respective sides have filed their written arguments in addition to oral submission. It appears from the record that learned Presiding Officer, FTC has examined the evidence led by the prosecution and stand taken by respondents in detail and after evaluating the evidence and record in detail, was pleased to pass present judgment and order, whereby, in exercise of powers under Section 235(2) of the Cr.P.C., the accused Nos. 1 to 3 are acquitted of the charges under Sections 302, 120B and 114 of the I.P.C. and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 7. 1 to 3 are acquitted of the charges under Sections 302, 120B and 114 of the I.P.C. and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 7. It is this judgment and order, which is made subject matter of challenge in the present Criminal Appeal filed by State. The present Criminal Appeal appears to have been admitted in the month of August, 2008, which came up for final disposal. 8. To represent the State, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Hansa Punani has vehemently contended that serious error is committed by learned Presiding Officer in exercising the jurisdiction for giving benefit of doubt, on the contrary, there appears to be no cogent circumstance which would help learned Judge to give such benefit of doubt in favour of respondents accused. 9. Ms. Punani further submitted that there is a specific assertion and evidence indicating that accused No. 1 has given a knife blow on the neck, whereas, accused No. 2 has caught hold the leg of deceased Shitalben and have committed the crime. Not only that original accused No. 3 has instigated deceased Shitalben to come to the spot where preplanned execution was to be undertaken and therefore, the prosecution has led ample evidence to connect the respondents' act with commission of murder and therefore, when such cogent material is led before the trial Judge, a serious error is committed in appreciating the same. 10. So much so, Ms. Punani, submitted that there is a statement also recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which wrongly has been not considered. Ms. Punani further submitted that learned Judge has not considered the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code in its proper prospective and therefore, the conclusion, which has been arrived at, is completely erroneous and finding based upon it seems to be perverse, requires to be corrected. While contenting this, Ms. Punani, has submitted that from the testimony of prosecution witness No. 1 - Kodarsinh Pathusinh Zala at Exh. 25, who first in point of time, show the dead body at place, has immediately informed the police but from such evidence, since the complaint appears to have been lodged next date of the occurrence, learned Judge has raised an inference against the prosecution. 11. Ms. 25, who first in point of time, show the dead body at place, has immediately informed the police but from such evidence, since the complaint appears to have been lodged next date of the occurrence, learned Judge has raised an inference against the prosecution. 11. Ms. Punani further submitted that looking the testimony of Sanjaysinh Agarsinh Zala as well as Ramsinh Chudsinh Zala, who are P.W.3 and 2 respectively. These testimonies are clearly corroborating the version of prosecution and are connecting the crime with accused persons. The respondent No. 1, who happened to be father has executed the preplanned murder and therefore, there ought to have been serious error by learned Judge in appreciating the evidence and therefore, the learned Judge has committed serious error and coming to erroneous conclusion and therefore, the benefit of doubt which has been granted in favour of accused is unwarranted. 12. Ms. Punani further submitted that looking to testimony of Ramsinh Chundsinh Zala, P.W. -7, who is examined at Exh. 38, has also not though clearly established the case of prosecution but has cogently supported the case of prosecution. Even from the injuries, which are inflicted and described in PM examination, are corroborating the story of prosecution about role which has been played by respondents accused. The medical evidence in form of testimony of P.W.8 at Exh. 49, Dr. Harishkumar Vikramsinh Khubchandani has clearly opined that the injuries which have been caused are sufficient enough to cause death in normal circumstance and injuries, which are inflicted in body of deceased, seems to have caused on account of sharp cutting weapon. This Medical Officer has further opined that injuries, which are inflicted are possible to be caused by knife or such kind of weapon, and therefore the medical evidence in the aforesaid form is clearly not only show the role of accused but also support the testimony of complainant in supporting the case of prosecution. 13. The complainant has clearly narrated the role of each of the accused persons which has been strengthened about the independent corroboration of the testimony of medical officer and therefore, there appears to be a clear consistency between medical evidence and ocular evidence Therefore, in these set of circumstance, when there is clearly consistency in version of prosecution, the benefit of doubt ought not to have been extended to the respondents accused. 14. Ms. 14. Ms. Punani further contended that confessional statement of accused Rameshbhai Mangaldas Soni, recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has clearly established the case beyond reasonable doubt against respondents accused and that recording of statement under Section 164 is in consonance with the procedure requirement as envisaged in the statute and this can be led by JMFC - Hareshkumar Vikramsinh, who was examined as P.W. -11 at Exh. 67 and therefore, in absence of any irregularities even in recording the statement under Section 164 of the Code, there is no such circumstance available with learned Judge to extend the benefit of doubt and by referring all these material on record, ultimate request is made by learned APP to allow the appeal filed by State and inflict appropriate punishment against respondents accused. No other submissions have been made. 15. To oppose the stand taken by learned APP in the present proceedings, learned advocate Shri Yogendra Thakore for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has vehemently contended that State has not established the case against respondents accused. On the contrary, the reasons, which are assigned by learned Judge are cogent and proper and does not require any interference. 16. Mr. Thakore, learned advocate has further contended that the prosecution has made an attempt to support the case of prosecution by recording statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of accused No. 2. He has submitted that unless and until said statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. is taken as per procedure as prescribed under the statute, same is not helpful to the prosecution and also submitted that said requirements are required to be undertaken while recording extra judicial confessional statement. Mr. Thakore also submitted that not only that, the provisions of Section 281 is also have to be taken note of and having not done so, the credential value of such statement called extra judicial confessional, also looses its sanctity. 17. Mr. Thakore further submitted that sub-section (2) of Section 164 of Code of Criminal procedure has clearly indicated that accused persons must be asked and informed that he is not ought to give the statement. The statement recorded under Section 164 is placed on record at Exh. 79, reflected at page-357 of he paper book compilation, clearly established that the provisions of section 164(2) has not been observed. The statement recorded under Section 164 is placed on record at Exh. 79, reflected at page-357 of he paper book compilation, clearly established that the provisions of section 164(2) has not been observed. This being a clear violation of statutory provisions. The said statement has no evidentiary value, on the contrary, mandate of sub-section (2) of Section 164 of Cr.P.C. indicates that question which is put to accused No. 2 is not ought to make statement, having not put to him, and unless and until said procedure is followed, same cannot be helpful to prosecution. 18. Mr. Thakore has further contended that except Section 164 statement material, there is no other stinking material sufficient enough to establish accused with commission of crime. It has been contended that dead body has been seen on 11.5.2005. The complaint came to be lodged on 23.5.2005 and surprisingly said Sanjaysinh Agarsinh Zala, who has illicit relation with deceased, went to Rajkot soon after the incident and all of sudden produced before the learned Magistrate and process has been undertaken. This is a serious infirmity on the part of prosecution to establish guilt against respondents accused. 19. It has further been contended by Mr. Thakore that from the testimony of P.W.1 Kodarsinh Pathusinh Zala, nothing incriminating coming out as he has not supported the case of prosecution. On the contrary, from his examination, nothing has coming out, which can suggest any role to connect the respondents accused with commission of crime. Similarly from the testimony of P.W. 2 Ranjitsinh Chandarsinh Zala, who has not turned hostile but has not supported the case of prosecution and from his testimony, nothing is coming out to connect respondents accused with commission of crime. 20. Mr. Thakore has further contended that medical opinion also has not supported the case of prosecution and the injuries, which have been caused, the same are also of general nature and therefore, when ocular evidence is not able to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of mere medical opinion, no order of conviction is to be passed so as to un-turn the acquittal. The acquittal order has been passed in the year 2006. 21. Mr. Thakore to substantiate his contention, has relied upon the decision delivered by Apex Court in case of Uttam Chakraborty Vs. The acquittal order has been passed in the year 2006. 21. Mr. Thakore to substantiate his contention, has relied upon the decision delivered by Apex Court in case of Uttam Chakraborty Vs. State of Assam, reported in (2010) 14 SCC 518 , dealing with proposition of issue of Section 164 statement. By referring para-8, Mr. Thakore has contended that the sole consideration which is tried to give weightage by the prosecution, has no significance as the same is not a cogent piece of evidence. 22. Mr. Thakore has further contended that from entire evidence, neither any legal infirmity nor any perversity is reflected from the reasoning, which are assigned by learned Judge, more particularly the first person, who saw the dead body is not giving the exact facts to connect respondents accused with commission of crime. 23. The surprising fact is also emerging that the boy, with whom the deceased Shitalben has illicit relation, went to Rajkot soon after the offence and coming back on phone call of the police officer to connect the respondents with crime. This conduct appears to be unnatural, which has caused serious doubt in case of prosecution. Even the testimony which has been considered to rely upon the use of knife - qua sharp cutting substance, nothing has been emerging from any of the testimony or evidence, therefore, circumstantial evidence, which otherwise required a close connecting link is completely missing in the present case and therefore, this being a clear contradictions on record, the order passed by learned trial Judge cannot be said to be unjust or perverse and is not required to be interfered with. In support of this submission, Mr. Thakore, learned advocate has relied upon the decision in case of Uttam Chakraborty Vs. State of Assam, reported in (2010) 14 SCC 518 , and by referring this decision, he has specifically contended that there appears to be no evidence except the very weak piece of evidence being statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., and this being the position, it cannot be said that prosecution has established its case beyond doubt. Yet another decision, which has been relied upon by Mr. Thakore, learned advocate in respect of statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in case of State of Gujarat Vs. Yet another decision, which has been relied upon by Mr. Thakore, learned advocate in respect of statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in case of State of Gujarat Vs. Babubhai Udesing Parmar, reported in 2005 (3) GLH 769 , and by referring to said decision, it is submitted that there is hardly any substance in the case of prosecution, which can un-turn the order of acquittal. 24. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the State and having also heard learned counsel representing the respondents accused and having also gone through the independent evidence and record in the context of appreciation, conclusion and reasons, which are assigned by learned trial Judge, we find following circumstance, which are not to be unseen and have rightly been considered by learned trial Judge while granting benefit of doubt to respondents accused. (i) On perusal of further statement recorded by the Court of respondents accused, more particularly accused No. 1 - Hareshkumar @ Lankesh, Lakiyo Jitendraprasad Jani, in his further statement, he has clearly narrated that the accused No. 2, who gave the statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has not freely given the statement but has given the same on account of pressure by police and therefore, there appears to be a clear violation of provision while recording the statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Now in the context of this examination emerging from further statement under Section 313, after perusal, is to be made of section 164 admission reflected on page-357 of paper book compilation. The questions, which are asked, are not doubt the questions, which are required but requirement of law is otherwise, Sub-section (2) of Section 164 of Code of Criminal procedure has clearly indicated that accused persons must be asked and informed that he is not ought to give the statement. No such question is reflecting from the bare reading of said Section 164 statement. The question and answer were recorded at Exh. 79 at page 357. Therefore, there appears to be violation of procedure, which rightly has been considered by learned trial Judge. (ii) Yet another circumstance, which emerging from page-119 testimony of P.W. -1 - Kodarsinh Pathusinh Zala at Exh. The question and answer were recorded at Exh. 79 at page 357. Therefore, there appears to be violation of procedure, which rightly has been considered by learned trial Judge. (ii) Yet another circumstance, which emerging from page-119 testimony of P.W. -1 - Kodarsinh Pathusinh Zala at Exh. 25, who is the first person, who has seen the dead body, is not generating any confidence, since in the cross-examination, though he was while informing about the declaration of dead body having been found, the same has not been recorded promptly and therefore, this testimony on the contrary is not supporting the case of prosecution. (iii) In addition thereto, testimony of P.W.2 - Ranjitsinh Chandarsinh Zala, recorded at page-131 Ex. 30 has also not supported the case of prosecution and he being declared as hostile, we have undertaken the exercise to find out truth about the incident, but his examination is not revealing which said to have been supporting the case of prosecution. (iv) Similarly the prosecution has examined P.W. -3 - Sanjaysinh Agarsinh Zala at Exh. 34 to prove the case against respondents accused but he has deposed that on account of previous threat, a plea is formed by him that accused persons might have done away deceased Shitalben. His testimony is further revealing that there was no animosity between the respondents-accused and complainant. On the contrary, since about 5 years, they were having cordial relation, which is reflected from his testimony. On the contrary his examination is revealing that there was neither any scuffle nor any hot talk with father of deceased at any point of time and in addition thereto, the knife weapon, which is sought to be relied, to establish the case, is not shown and therefore, this testimony of Sanjaysinh Zala is on the contrary deviating the case of prosecution. (v) Yet another witness, who has been examined as P.W. -5 - Ramsinh Chundsinh Zala, Exh 38, happened to be the Sarpanch of village, but his testimony is not reflecting any further. (vi) The evidence on record further indicates that there is material contradiction revealing from testimony of medical officer - Dr. Harishbhai Vikramdas Khubchandani, examined as P.W. -8. (v) Yet another witness, who has been examined as P.W. -5 - Ramsinh Chundsinh Zala, Exh 38, happened to be the Sarpanch of village, but his testimony is not reflecting any further. (vi) The evidence on record further indicates that there is material contradiction revealing from testimony of medical officer - Dr. Harishbhai Vikramdas Khubchandani, examined as P.W. -8. He has in his deposition stated that the dead body have been brought for PM examination and there appears to be a lady in the age group of 46 years, whereas, the radiological report on the basis of X-ray has opined the age of 17 to 19 years. In furtherance of this, medical officer, in examination, has also admitted that when the complaint was given, the age of lady was shown as 48 years and further cross-examination, has also revealed that in the PM note given by the hospital, there was no seal or round seal of hospital, which raised suspicion about PM note itself. The cross-examination further of this medical officer revealed that dead body was so deteriorated that there was no possibility of noting down the injury and therefore, on the basis of such medical opinion, which is not clearly established the injuries which can corroborate ocular version of prosecution, it may not be safe to un-turn the order of acquittal which is based upon appreciation of entire material on record. (vi) Yet another circumstance, examination of complainant has revealed that whatever conclusion has been arrived at by learned trial Judge is not possible to be dislodged. While recording the statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of accused No. 2, the prosecution has not followed the mandatory requirement of provisions. It has been revealed that the question, which was required to be paused in the statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. is not questioned at all and no such question have been asked which are reflecting on page-351 and 357 to the accused person and therefore, there appears to be a clear procedural lapse on the part of prosecution to establish the case against respondents accused beyond reasonable doubt. 25. We have considered the evidence led by prosecution in detail and on the basis of these material on record, we do not find any reason to dislodge the findings arrived at by learned Presiding Judge, FTC, Court No. 4, Gandhinagar. 26. 25. We have considered the evidence led by prosecution in detail and on the basis of these material on record, we do not find any reason to dislodge the findings arrived at by learned Presiding Judge, FTC, Court No. 4, Gandhinagar. 26. We have carefully gone through the propositions relied upon by Mr. Thakore, learned advocate appearing for respondents - accused. We have also carefully gone through the decision delivered by learned Presiding Officer, FTC, Court No. 4, Gandhinagar and reasons assigned therein and we found no distinguishable extra ordinary circumstance, which may lead us to disturb the order of acquittal passed by learned trial Judge. 27. We are mindful of the fact that the appellate Court has wide power to evaluate and re-appreciate the evidence collected by the prosecution. But at the same time, the scope of appellate jurisdiction is not to review or reanalyze the entire evidence and therefore, the evidence on record of the present case is not substantially supporting the case of prosecution. Considering the scope of appellate jurisdiction, which is well defined by series of decisions, we see no reason to interfere in the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge. 28. To arrive at this conclusion, we are further mindful of the following proposition of law laid down by the apex Court in catena of decisions. We may refer to some of the well defined proposition enunciated by the Supreme Court in respect of exercise of appellate jurisdiction and we deem it proper to incorporate the same in the present judgment which substantiates the conclusion which has been arrived at by us and therefore, same are reproduced hereinafter: 28.1 In another decision delivered by the Supreme Court in case of Sureshkumar V/s. 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. 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. "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. "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). 28.2 In yet another decision in the case of Ramaiah @ Rama Vs. 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. 28.3 In the case of Upendra Pradhan Vs. 30 and 31. 28.3 In the case of Upendra Pradhan Vs. 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 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." 28.4 The decision taken by the Apex Court in the case of V. Sejappa Vs. State, reported in 2016 AIR (SC) 2045, wherein the apex Court in paragraph No. 21 observed thus: 28. "21. State, reported in 2016 AIR (SC) 2045, wherein the apex Court in paragraph No. 21 observed thus: 28. "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 . 29. In view of the above position prevailing on record and in view of the aforesaid proposition of law, we are of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case to interfere with the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, FTC, Court No. 4, Gandhinagar and accordingly appeal filed by the State being merit-less, deserves to be dismissed. 30. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order dated 31.03.2006 passed in Sessions Case No. 50 of 2005 by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 4, Gandhinagar, is hereby confirmed. Bail bonds, if any, shall stand discharged. Records and proceedings be sent back to the trial Court concerned forthwith.