JUDGMENT : Alok Aradhe, J. In this criminal acquittal appeal, the appellant has assailed the validity of the judgment dated 22.08.2003, passed by the Trial Court by which respondent had been acquitted in respect of the offence under Section 302 RPC. 2. The case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that on 29.01.1995, a telephonic information was received by Police Station, Doda from Medical Officer on duty in District Hosptial, Doda that a person, namely, Ghulam Hassan has been brought in the hospital in an unconscious state and he is on the verge of death. The Medical Officer requested the police authorities for action in the matter. On receipt of the information, SHO, Police Station, Doda along with Head Constable, Om Prakash and some other police personnel went to District Hospital, Doda and found that the aforesaid Ghulam Hassan was already dead and his dead body was kept in Mortuary. Thereafter, the post-mortem of the deceased was conducted on 30.01.1995 at District Hospital, Doda. The SHO, Police Station, Doda recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of the code of criminal procedure and site map was prepared and the report of the post-mortem of the deceased was obtained from the Doda District Hospital. In the post-mortem examination, it was opined that death of the deceased was caused due to strangulation. Thereupon, the first information report vide FIR No.17/1995 for an offence under Section 302 of the RPC was registered and the investigation commenced. 3. The investigating officer during the course of the investigation recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of the code of criminal procedure. From the investigation, it was revealed that accused Mohd. Shafi whose father-in-law Mohd Ramzan, Head Constable, Police who was involved in a case under Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and was lodged in Sub-Jail, Bhaderwah and in connection with the bail application of the said Mohd. Ramzan, at about 6 p.m. in the evening, Mohd Ramzan brought the deceased Ghulam Hassan reluctantly from his home to District Hospital Doda to inquire on telephone about the bail application filed by his father-in-law. However, the telephone call could not mature and thereafter wireless message was flashed. Thereafter, the accused along with deceased Ghulam Hassan left for home who were seen by some security force personnel at Bus Stand Doda. However, the telephone call could not mature and thereafter wireless message was flashed. Thereafter, the accused along with deceased Ghulam Hassan left for home who were seen by some security force personnel at Bus Stand Doda. The accused after 15 minutes brought the deceased to Hospital by lifting him on his shoulders. It was further found in the investigation that while returning from wireless headquarters, the accused Mohd. Shafi demanded liquor from the deceased which the deceased could not provide. Thereupon, some altercation took place between the two and the accused felt offended and vowed to finish the deceased by killing him. The accused with the criminal intention to eliminate the deceased, killed the deceased by strangulating him to death. After conclusion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed. The trial court thereafter, framed the charge under Section 302 of RPC against the respondent. The prosecution has cited 16 witnesses, out of whom only 9 were examined. 4. PW-1 Mst. Hajra, namely the widow of the deceased has deposed that the accused took her husband at 6 p.m. from her house for making the telephone call. It was further stated by her that she told the accused that her husband is a little coward and, therefore, he should not be taken out at this point of time. However, the accused told her that he is a police officer and there is no danger to her husband. The father of the deceased was also not willing in favour of taking the deceased as the period of curfew was about to start. She has further deposed that after some time, the accused came back and told that the deceased was run over by the army vehicle. When a query was put by her to the accused, the accused told her that the deceased was alive and has been brought to the hospital. In the hospital, she saw the deceased kept behind the door of the hospital and was informed that her husband has expired. 5. PW-2 Gulzar has stated that accused Mohd. Shafi came to the house and told the deceased to accompany him for making a call to Bhaderwah from telephone exchange. The deceased told him that he would not go out of the house after six, as the situation is not conducive. 5. PW-2 Gulzar has stated that accused Mohd. Shafi came to the house and told the deceased to accompany him for making a call to Bhaderwah from telephone exchange. The deceased told him that he would not go out of the house after six, as the situation is not conducive. He also tried to stop the accused but the accused did not agree and took away the deceased. It was further stated that the accused Mohd. Shafi had taken Rs. 25,00/- from the deceased for grant of bail of Ramzan, namely, his father-in-law. It was further deposed by the aforesaid witness that accused Mohd. Shafi and deceased left the home at 6 in the evening and about approximately between 8 to 8.30, accused Mohd. Shafi came back alone and shouted at the top of the voice and informed that deceased was run over by the army vehicle and is still alive. 6. PW-5 Nizam-ul-Din has deposed that one Nazir Ahmed and Mohd. Shafi came to his residence and told that dead body of the deceased Ghulam Hassan is lying in the Doda Hospital. Thereupon, he visited the hospital. PW-7- Juma Sheikh, who is a witness to the seizure memo of the clothes worn by the deceased at the time of the incident. PW-10 Mohd. Ashraf has deposed that on 29.01.1995, he was on casuality duty in District Hospital Doda and there was a call from outside that there is an emergency and he came out and saw the deceased Ghulam Hassan and the accused. Thereupon, he learnt that Ghulam Hassan has suffered giddiness and is in a state of unconsciousness. He was laid on the bed and Dr. Majid examined him and who informed that deceased has died. 7. PW-11, Amar Chand deposed that he is posted as Safaiwala in District Hospital, Doda and he has no knowledge as to how deceased died. PW-12- Dr. Abdul Majid Malik, Assistant Surgeon, District Hospital, Doda who conducted the post portem has stated that he found the following injuries on the body of the deceased: 1. One CM Transverse abrasion over the middle of the chin with circular echymosis around it. 2. One and half square bruise on the larynx and 4 x 1 cm echymosis extending from larynx on the right side of neck along mandiable (parallel to mandibal). 3. One CM Transverse abrasion over the middle of the chin with circular echymosis around it. 2. One and half square bruise on the larynx and 4 x 1 cm echymosis extending from larynx on the right side of neck along mandiable (parallel to mandibal). 3. 2 cm x 1 cm bruise in the supra sternal notch of neck. 4. Irregular abrasion above the right supra clavicular region. 5. Multiple abrasions over the darsum of the left hand and right hand including fingers. 6. An abrasion on upper third of medial side of left leg. Internal injuries: I. Blood extraavasation underneath the muscles of larynx. II. Fracture of right greayer corno of hyoid bone. Thereafter, he opined as follows: Opinion: By conducting external as well as internal postmortem they were of the opinion that the death in this case is due to cardio respiratory arrest due to vagal inhibition caused by throatning (strangulation). The time interval between the postmortem and death is around 12 hours. 8. PW-15, Om Prakash, I/c Head Constable has stated that he conducted the proceedings under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and took possession of the dead body and prepared the seizure memo and got conducted the post mortem of the dead body. PW-16, Jagtar Singh, Inspector has stated that he was posted at the time of the incident as SHO, Police Station, Doda and proceedings under Section 174 of the CrPC were conducted by Head Constable, Om Prakash and during the said proceedings, FIR No.17/1995 was registered in the Police Station, Doda and the investigation of the case was handed over to him. He carried out the investigation and seized the clothes of the deceased. 9. The respondent in his statement denied that he took away the deceased from his house for making a telephone call. In support of his case, he examined two witnesses, namely, Mehal-ul-din and Ghulam Rasool. DW-Mehal-ul-din has deposed that Ghulam Hasan was a patient of epilepsy for past more than 15 years and used to suffer epileptic shock at any time. DW- Ghulam Rasool has stated in his deposition that he met the accused in the hospital who told that the deceased was found in the temple street lying in a drain and was lifted to the hospital by the accused in the unconscious condition. 10. DW- Ghulam Rasool has stated in his deposition that he met the accused in the hospital who told that the deceased was found in the temple street lying in a drain and was lifted to the hospital by the accused in the unconscious condition. 10. The Trial Court on the basis of the meticulous appreciation of evidence on record vide impugned judgment has acquitted the respondent in respect of the aforesaid offence and has inter alia held that the prosecution has not been able to prove the chain of circumstantial evidence and has not been able to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed. 11. Mrs. Seema Shekhar, learned Senior Additional Advocate General for the appellant submitted that the quality of evidence instead of quantity of evidence is required to be seen and every prosecution witness who has been examined has pointed out towards the culpability of the accused. It is further submitted that from the evidence of the widow of the deceased, namely, Hajra and father Gulzar, remains un-rebutted in cross examination and from the evidence of Dr. Abdul Majid Malik, who was an independent witness, the factum of last seen was established beyond any shadow of doubt. It is further submitted that the Trial Court ought to have appreciated that the motive for the murder was established as the accused had taken Rs.2500/- from the deceased. It is also submitted that the accused had taken Rs.2500/- for grant of bail and had only paid Rs.400/- to the counsel and an altercation had taken place between them and therefore, the motive for commission of the crime was fully established. It is further submitted that from the post-mortem, it is evident that the death was homicidal in nature, as the same has been caused on account of strangulation and the delay in lodging first information report was properly explained. It is also submitted that the Trial Court has failed to view the evidence on record in its correct perspective which has resulted in erroneous findings and consequent judgment. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that even though prosecution has listed witnesses with regard to last seen, however, they were not examined by the prosecution. It is also submitted that the Trial Court has failed to view the evidence on record in its correct perspective which has resulted in erroneous findings and consequent judgment. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that even though prosecution has listed witnesses with regard to last seen, however, they were not examined by the prosecution. It is also submitted that the next door neighbours of the deceased were examined as defence witnesses, who have stated that the deceased was a patient of epilepsy. It is also submitted that the Investigating Officer, namely, Jagtar Singh has stated in his evidence that the deceased was brought to the hospital in unconscious condition and was alive. It was also submitted that the Trial Court after meticulous appreciation of evidence on record has recorded a finding which by no stretch of imagination can be said either perverse or based on no evidence. 13. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. It is pertinent to mention here that prosecution had cited 16 witnesses. However, out of 16 witnesses, only 9 witnesses were produced before the Trial Court. It is also pertinent to mention here that PW-Mst. Hajra is the widow of the deceased, PW-Gulzar is the father of the deceased and PW-Nizam ul Din is the brother-in-law of the deceased and thus, all are the close relatives of the deceased. Therefore, their evidence has to be subjected to strict scrutiny. PW- Juma Sheikh is the witness to the seizure memo of clothes and he has stated that he has no knowledge about the case. PW-Mohd. Ashraf is the Chowkidar of District Hospital, Doda who called Dr. Majid, who examined and declared the deceased dead. PW-Amar Chand stated that he has no knowledge as to how deceased died. PW-Abdul Majid is one of the members of the doctors conducting the post-mortem of the deceased and stated that the deceased was brought in the hospital between 8.00 to 8.30 p.m. and one attendant, who brought the deceased, was Mohd. Shafi and he does not know whether he is the accused in this case or not. He has also stated that the deceased Ghulam Hassan and accused Mohd. Shafi and he does not know whether he is the accused in this case or not. He has also stated that the deceased Ghulam Hassan and accused Mohd. Shafi came in the duty room at around 7.50 p.m. and had to ring up someone and since the telephone was out of order, therefore, they told that they were going to Police Station. PW- Om Prakash, Incharge Head Constable had conducted the proceedings under Section 174 Cr.PC. He has not stated that when the post mortem report has been obtained. PW-Jagtar Singh, is the Inspector, who conducted the investigation of the case. From perusal of evidence of Mst. Hajra, the widow, PW-Gulzar, father of the deceased and other witnesses have not fully supported the prosecution story. PW- Hajra and PW-Gulzar are not the eye-witnesses of the occurrence and deposed about the circumstances of the case. They are not eye-witnesses to the incident in question and the entire case of the prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidence. 14. It is also pertinent to note that though the incident took place on 29.01.1995, yet the first information report was lodged on 01.02.1995. It is also pertinent to note that there are contradictory statements regarding the post mortem report in the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC. The Investigating Officer, Jagtar Singh has stated in his cross examination that he went to the hospital at about 9 pm in the evening and the post mortem report of the deceased was conducted during the night, whereas Dr. Abdul Majid stated that post mortem was conducted on the next date at 8 a.m.. The date and hour of the autopsy mentioned in the post mortem is 30.01.1995 at 8 a.m. and the post mortem was prepared on 01.02.1995 and the same was forwarded to the Magistrate on 02.02.1995 at 4.20 p.m. It is also worth mentioning that as per the evidence led by the prosecution and in particular PW-Hajra and Gulzar, the accused had taken the deceased along with him at 6 p.m.. Later on, as per the case of the prosecution, the accused along with deceased had gone to wireless headquarters for giving wireless message to Bhaderwah, since the telephone line was out of order. It is also pertinent to mention here that duty personnels, who were on duty at wireless headquarters have not been cited as witnesses. Later on, as per the case of the prosecution, the accused along with deceased had gone to wireless headquarters for giving wireless message to Bhaderwah, since the telephone line was out of order. It is also pertinent to mention here that duty personnels, who were on duty at wireless headquarters have not been cited as witnesses. Since there was a curfew imposed at the relevant time in the town, the accused and the deceased could not have been seen by any other person except security personnels. However the aforesaid security personnels, who were cited as witnesses have been held back and have not been examined by the prosecution. The prosecution has also not examined the cited prosecution witnesses, namely, Mst. Fattah, Nazir Ahmed, Faquir Mohd, Kashi Ram, Dr. Z I Mughal, Dr. Lalit Angotra. PW-Faquir Mohd and Kanshi Ram who have been cited as witnesses to the last seen circumstances. However, none of the aforesaid witnesses has been examined by the prosecution. Dr. Abdul Majid has stated that the accused and deceased were seen by him in the hospital, as they had to ring someone and the telephone of the hospital was out of order. The presence of the deceased in the hospital is not unusual as the deceased was the employee of the District Hospital, Doda as per the statement of PW-Nizam-ul-din when PW-Hajra met him at 4 pm on 29.01.1995, he enquired from Mst. Hajra about deceased Ghulam Hasan and she told that the deceased was on duty. The prosecution has also not been able to prove the motive for commission of crime. PW-Hajra and PW-Gulzar and PW-Nizam-ul-din on the other hand, have stated that the accused and deceased had cordial relations. The Trial Court has found that though the post mortem report suggests that death of the deceased was homicidal in nature, yet there is no material on record to connect the respondent with the alleged offence. 15. The Trial Court has recorded the findings, which are based on meticulous appreciation of evidence available on record. The Trial Court has found that though the post mortem report suggests that death of the deceased was homicidal in nature, yet there is no material on record to connect the respondent with the alleged offence. 15. The Trial Court has recorded the findings, which are based on meticulous appreciation of evidence available on record. It is well settled in law that this Court while hearing an acquittal appeal can re-appreciate the evidence, however, it should not interfere with the order of acquittal if the view taken by the Trial Court is also a reasonable view of the evidence on record and the findings recorded by the Trial Court are not manifestly erroneous, contrary to the evidence on record or perverse. (See Ram Swaroop and others. Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 13 SCC 134, Vijay Kumar v. State by Inspector General, (2009) 12 SCC 629 and Upendra Pradhan vs. State of Orissa (2015) 11 SCC 124 . 16. From perusal of the judgment of the Trial Court, we find that the findings recorded by the Trial Court can neither be termed as perverse, contrary to the evidence or erroneous, therefore, no case for interference in this acquittal appeal is made out. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.