JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The revision is directed against the judgment of acquittal rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Koderma in Sessions Trial No. 182 of 1999 dated 9th July 2007 whereby the accused opposite party Nos. 2 to 6 were acquitted of the charges under Sections 302/201/120B of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of benefit of doubt. 3. Prosecution was launched on the ferdbeyan of the informant Bindeshwar Singh dated 23rd August 1998 inter alia alleging that at 10.00 a.m. Langtu Singh, Jitu Singh; Rajesh Singh, Baldeo Yadav, Bhunu Singh, Munshi Yadav and Dhaneshwar Singh came to his residence at Gomoh and took away his elder son Dilip Singh at Babulal Singh's hotel near Mahto Aara under criminal conspiracy. They all ate chicken and drank wine at the distance of 50-60 yards in west side of hotel near bushes. At about 6.00 p.m. Jitu Singh and others assaulted his son Dilip Singh, as a result he died. They threw the dead body near Gomoh Lake - Ranchi Patna Road. The informant on being informed took his son to Holy Family Hospital where he was declared as already dead. 4. Upon completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted under Sections 302, 201, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code against these accused persons. The case was committed to the court of Sessions and on 2nd September 2003 charges were framed under the aforesaid Sections against the accused persons. It was read over and explained to the accused persons in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be thud 5. Prosecution examined 15 witnesses, they are P.W. 1- Vikrant Singh, P.W.2- Kunal Kumar Singh, P.W. 3- Md. Rafique Alam, P.W. 4- Babu Lal Singh. P.W. 5- Arun Kumar Singh, P.W. 6- Arjun Das, P.W. 7- Srikant Singh, P.W. 8- Bajrangi Singh, P.W. 9- Sunil Singh, P.W. 10- Pradeep Kr. Singh, P.W. 11- Shyam Nandan Sao, P.W. 12- Bindeshwar Singh, P.W. 13- Dr. Ranjit Kr. Jamaiar, P.W. 14- Satyendra Singh and P.W. 15- Police No. 247 Sanjeev Kumar. 6. It also adduced the following exhibits as documentary evidences:- Ext. 1 Signature of Bikrant Singh on the/Statement 164 Cr.P.C. Ext. 1/1 Signature of Arun Kr. Singh on the Statement U/s. 164 Cr. P.C. Ext. 1/2 Signature of Arjun Das on his 164 Order Statement. Ext. Jamaiar, P.W. 14- Satyendra Singh and P.W. 15- Police No. 247 Sanjeev Kumar. 6. It also adduced the following exhibits as documentary evidences:- Ext. 1 Signature of Bikrant Singh on the/Statement 164 Cr.P.C. Ext. 1/1 Signature of Arun Kr. Singh on the Statement U/s. 164 Cr. P.C. Ext. 1/2 Signature of Arjun Das on his 164 Order Statement. Ext. 1/3 Signature of Srikant Singh on his Statement U/s. 164 Cr. P.C. 7. As per P.W. 1 the occurrence took place on 23rd August 1998 at about 3.00 p.m. The accused persons and few others arrived at his house and took away his elder brother for having chicken at Babulal Hotel. On the same day at about 8.00 p.m. he learnt that his brother is lying near Mahto Aahar at the flank of road in injured condition whereafter he was taken to Holy Family Hospital and declared dead. According to him, his elder brother was murdered under a criminal conspiracy by the accused persons. He proved statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and identified three accused persons Baldeo Yadav, Jitu Singh and Rajesh Singh in Court. In his cross-examination by accused Md. Mustak Alam @ Chunu, he accepted that the murder was not committed in his presence, rather he had stated on surmise/suspicion. He was not aware of any enmity of his brother and the accused persons nor the accused persons had ever quarreled with him. Accused persons had no business term with his brother. 8. P.W.2 Kunal Kumar Singh in his deposition stated that on 23rd August 1998 the accused persons at about 2.00-2.30 p.m. took away his brother Dilip Singh for having chicken and wine and thereafter committed his murder under a criminal conspiracy and they threw the dead body in order to conceal their crime In his cross-examination by accused Jitu Singh, Surendia Singh @ Munna Singh and Rajesh Singh, he denied inimical terms of his brother with the accused persons He also had not seen the murder. 9. P.W. 3 was declared hostile by the prosecution, so was P.W. 4 In his cross-examination P.W. 4 stated that he had not seen the occurrence 10. P.W. 5 though stated that the deceased was his cousin, but he did not know the reason of death and was declared hostile. He identified his initial on the statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate and proved Exbt. P.W. 5 though stated that the deceased was his cousin, but he did not know the reason of death and was declared hostile. He identified his initial on the statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate and proved Exbt. 1/1, but stated that on the pressure of informant and Police he had given statement under Section 164 Cr.PC. 11. P.W. 6 Arjun Das did not know anything about the occurrence nor did he know as to how Dilip Singh died. He was declared hostile. In his cross-examination, he has stated that while he was sitting at his house Langtu Singh came and stated that Dilip Singh had been murdered. 12. P.W. 7 Srikant Singh in his deposition stated that though he identified his initial on the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and proved Exbt-1/3, but did not know as to when the occurrence took place. He was accordingly declared hostile by the prosecution. He further stated in his cross-examination that he was pressurized by the Police to make such statement before the Judicial Magistrate. 13. P.W8 Bajrangi Singh was also declared hostile. He in his cross-examination has stated that he did not know as to how Dilip Singh breathed his last and on the alleged date of occurrence, he was not present at his shop. 14. P.W. 9 Sunil Singh also was declared hostile. In his cross-examination he stated that he was unable to say as date of death of Dilip Singh. P.W. 10 Pradeep Kumar Singh though stated that Dilip Singh had died 3-4 years ago, but he did not know where his dead body was recovered and he had not given any statement before the Police. He was also declared hostile. 15. P.W. 11 Shyam Nandan Sao was also declared hostile as he did not support the case of the prosecution. P.W. 12 father of the deceased Bindeshwar Singh stated that the occurrence took place on 23rd August 1998 while this witness was at home. The accused persons took away his son Dilip Singh and at about 6.30 p.m. he learnt that his son was murdered and his dead body was lying near Mahto Aahar Lake. He learnt from the villagers that under criminal conspiracy the accused persons murdered his son He took the dead body to Holy Family Hospital where doctor declared him as already dead. He learnt from the villagers that under criminal conspiracy the accused persons murdered his son He took the dead body to Holy Family Hospital where doctor declared him as already dead. In his cross-examination he stated that he had not seen the alleged occurrence. He further stated that when the deceased was called by the accused persons, he did not disclose the matter to nearby people. His son suffered death not by accident. 16. P.W. 13 is Dr. Ranjit Kumar Jamaiar who has conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased and following injuries were found :- "Rigor mortis was present all over body, eye closed mouth closed. Anti-mortem injuries:- 1. Abrasion 2" x 1" right side of forehead, fracture of left parietal bone. 2. Abrasion 1 1/2" x 1" on right temporal region. 3. Lacerated wound 1 1/2" x 1/2" x 1/2" muscle deep on left perietal region blood cloth on left ear and both nostrils. 4. Lacerated would 1/2" x 1/4" - 1" x 1/2" left side of lower lip. 5. Bruise 4" x 2" -1" x 1" 1/2" x 1/2" 1" x 1/2" 1" x 1". 6. Abrasion 14" x 3" on right arm 7. Abrasion 14" x 14" on right index finger 8. Fracture of right 2, 3, 4 & 5th ribs 9. Fracture of left 3, 4, 5 & 6 ribs and cause of death due to shock and haemorrhage due to above injuries." He has proved the post-mortem report. 17. P.W. 14 Satyendra Singh in his cross-examination stated that he heard about the death of deceased at his Sasural at Koderma. 18. P.W. 15 Police No. 246 proved Exbt. 3 being the handwriting of R.B. Mandal, Sub Inspector. In his cross-examination he stated that though it was not written in his presence, but he has rightly recognized it. 19. Learned trial court analysed the entire material evidence brought on record during trial and came to the opinion that the evidence of so many prosecution witnesses only showed that the deceased left his house with the accused persons who were friendly to him. According to the prosecution witnesses, he had no inimical term with any of the accused persons and they went to Babulal Hotel where they took chicken and wine and at about 6.30 p.m. the dead body was found near Mahto Aahar Talab on the Ranchi-Patna Road. According to the prosecution witnesses, he had no inimical term with any of the accused persons and they went to Babulal Hotel where they took chicken and wine and at about 6.30 p.m. the dead body was found near Mahto Aahar Talab on the Ranchi-Patna Road. The three witnesses have stated that though they have not seen the accused persons assaulting the deceased and have no knowledge about any quarrel between them, but they have committed the murder. The learned trial court opined that conspiracy angle has not been proved by the witnesses against the accused persons. 20. During investigation the prosecution had recorded the statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of some of the witnesses. However, P.W. 5 was declared hostile by the prosecution as during his examination he denied having seen the occurrence though his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was marked as Exbt. 1/1. Likewise P.W. 6 though identified his initial as Exbt. 1/2 on the statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. but was declared hostile during trial. P.W. 7 also denied his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. proved as Exbt. 1/3. These hostile witnesses have also given another chain of story that they had seen Dilip Singh on 407 Tata vehicle along with Munna Singh going from Gomoh to Telaiya and subsequently his dead body was found on the road. P.W. 10 was also declared hostile though he had stated that he had seen Dilip Singh boarding on 407 motor vehicle which moved towards Gomoh-Telaiya. Learned trial court found that evidences of these hostile witnesses even if they denied their statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C, only went on to show that Dilip- Singh had gone along with the accused persons on 407 vehicle or that some of them had heard that Dilip Singh has been done to death by accused persons. Learned trial court, therefore, came to a considered finding that the chain of circumstances were not complete to come to a conclusion that the accused persons had enmity with the deceased or any business rivalry or partnership which could be the motive of murder of the deceased. The prosecution story had left many doubts. Another hypothesis which was built up during the course of statement of the witnesses was in relation to the cause of death due to the accident while riding 407 Tata bus by the deceased Dilip Singh. The prosecution story had left many doubts. Another hypothesis which was built up during the course of statement of the witnesses was in relation to the cause of death due to the accident while riding 407 Tata bus by the deceased Dilip Singh. However, these were only doubts which remained unsubstantiated. In the light of the aforesaid material evidence on record, learned trial court gave the benefit of doubt to the accused persons and acquitted them from the charges. 21. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken us to the findings of the learned trial court and submitted that this is a case of last seen The deceased was last seen in the custody of accused persons even as per the statements of the informant and after a gap of 6 hours he was found dead. The accused persons had not been able to provide any explanation for the death though the deceased was in their company during the last phase of his life. The doctor had found injuries on the body of the deceased which showed assault and the cause of death was as a result of shock and haemorrhage due to these injuries. In such circumstances the finding of learned trial court are vitiated. The case is fit to be remanded for retrial. 22. Learned counsel for the accused/opposite parties herein has defended the findings of the learned court below. He submits that suspicion howsoever strong cannot replace the requirement of proof. The learned trial court had enough reasons to doubt the prosecution story as almost all the prosecution witnesses, even those who had earlier made statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C, turned hostile. Merely on the basis of last seen theory the accused persons could not have been convicted of a serious charge of murder of son of the informant against whom there were no evidence to show enmity, business rivalry or any quarrel. The findings rendered by the learned trial court are proper after due appreciation of the material evidence on record. Even if there's a possibility of two views assumingly on the basis of evidence on record, in such a case the view that favours the accused should be accepted. There is a presumption of double innocence in favour of the opposite parties after having been acquitted by the learned trial court after a full dress trial. Even if there's a possibility of two views assumingly on the basis of evidence on record, in such a case the view that favours the accused should be accepted. There is a presumption of double innocence in favour of the opposite parties after having been acquitted by the learned trial court after a full dress trial. Therefore, there is no infirmity or perversity in appreciation of the evidences which warrants interference in revision. He has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of State of Jharkhand v. Manjar Hussain & Ors. reported in 2003(2) East Criminal Cases 546 (Jhr) in support of his submission. 23. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned judgment containing material discussions and the evidence on record. 24. The instant petition seeks exercise of revisional power of this Court against a judgment of acquittal of the accused persons. The salient principles which have emerged on the contours of the powers of the appellate court in matters arising out of acquittal as rendered by the Apex Court from time to time are proper to be delineated hereunder before entering into any forensic analysis of findings of the learned trial court leading to acquittal of the accused persons We may usefully reproduce the opinion of the Apex Court as rendered in the case of Khekli Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in (2018) 1 SCC page-202. Paragraph-16 of the report is quoted hereunder :- "16. This Court while reflecting on the scope of the power of the High Court under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short hereafter referred to as "the Code") in dealing with an order of acquittal referred amongst others to an extract from its earlier verdict in Murugesan v. State. The legal proposition as enunciated in para 21 of the said ruling, as quoted hereunder, was noted: (Prem Singh case, SCC p.91, para-7) "7. ... 21. A concise statement of the law on the issue that had emerged after over half a century of evolution since Sheo Swarup is to be found in para 42 of the Report in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka. The same may, therefore, be usefully noticed below: (SCC p.432) "42. ... 21. A concise statement of the law on the issue that had emerged after over half a century of evolution since Sheo Swarup is to be found in para 42 of the Report in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka. The same may, therefore, be usefully noticed below: (SCC p.432) "42. From, the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: (1) An appellate court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and compelling reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong circumstances', 'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of language' to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court " (Murugesan case, SCC pp. 393-94) " (Emphasis in original) 25. 393-94) " (Emphasis in original) 25. The scope of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court against a judgment of acquittal has been delineated by the Apex Court in the case of Venkatesan v. Rani & Anr: reported in (2013)14 SCC 207 relying upon the observation made by it earlier in the case of Vimal Singh v. Khuman Singh reported in (1998) 7 SCC 223 , Paragraph-9 containing the extract of the observations made in the case of Vimal Singh (supra) and paragraph-10 of the report are being quoted hereunder :- "9. The observations in para 9 in Vimal Singh v. Khuman Singh would also be apt for recapitulation and, therefore, are being extracted below: (SCC pp. 226-27) "9. Coming to the ambit of power of the High Court under Section 401 of the Code, the High Court in its revisional power does not ordinarily interfere with judgments of acquittal passed by the trial court unless there has been manifest error of law or procedure. The interference with the order of acquittal passed by the trial court is limited only to exceptional cases when it is found that the order under revision suffers from glaring illegality or has caused miscarriage of justice or when it is found that the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case or where the trial court has illegally shut out the evidence which otherwise ought to have been considered or where the material evidence which clinches the issue has been overlooked. These are the instances where the High Court would be justified in interfering with the order of acquittal. Sub-section (3) of Section 401 mandates that the High Court shall not convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. Thus, the High Court would not be justified in substituting an order of acquittal into one of conviction even if it is convinced that the accused deserves conviction. No doubt, the High Court in exercise of its revisional power can set aside an order of acquittal if it comes within the ambit of exceptional cases enumerated above, but it cannot convert an order of acquittal into an order of conviction. The only course left to the High Court in such exceptional cases is to order retrial." 10. No doubt, the High Court in exercise of its revisional power can set aside an order of acquittal if it comes within the ambit of exceptional cases enumerated above, but it cannot convert an order of acquittal into an order of conviction. The only course left to the High Court in such exceptional cases is to order retrial." 10. The above consideration would go to show that the revisional jurisdiction of the High Courts while examining an order of acquittal is extremely narrow and ought to be exercised only in cases where the trial court had committed a manifest error of law or procedure or had overlooked and ignored relevant and material evidence thereby causing miscarriage of justice. The reappreciation of evidence is an exercise that the High Court must refrain from while examining an order of acquittal in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under the Code. Needless to say, if within the limited parameters, interference of the High Court is justified the only course of action that can be adopted is to order a retrial after setting aside the acquittal. As the language of Section 401 of the Code makes it amply clear there is no power vested in the High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction." 26. It is apparent therefrom that the interference with the order of acquittal passed by learned trial court is limited only to exceptional cases where it is found that the order under revision suffers from glaring illegality and has caused miscarriage of justice and when it is found that the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case or where the trial court has illegally shut out the evidence which otherwise ought to have been considered or where the material evidence which clinches the issue has been overlooked. The re-appreciation of the evidence is an exercise that the High Court must refrain from while examining an order of acquittal in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under the Code. 27. We are conscious that the contours of powers under revision are in fact much more limited compared to that of an appellate court examining the acquittal of the accused persons in a trial. We are to also bear in mind that in case of acquittal there is a double presumption in favour of the accused. 27. We are conscious that the contours of powers under revision are in fact much more limited compared to that of an appellate court examining the acquittal of the accused persons in a trial. We are to also bear in mind that in case of acquittal there is a double presumption in favour of the accused. The first presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty. Secondly the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. 28. In the light of these salutary principles, when we examine the material evidence on record and the analysis of the learned trial court thereupon, we find that the prosecution had miserably failed to establish its case beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts. In fact, several prosecution witnesses who had earlier made statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in support of the prosecution, turned hostile during their examination in trial. They denied having seen the occurrence. In fact none of the prosecution witnesses claimed to have seen the occurrence. There is a gap of about 6/4 hours from the time when the informant alleged that the accused persons had taken his son along with them to have chicken and wine at a particular hotel. The informant or any other prosecution witnesses denied the existence of enmity or business rivalry or quarrel between the accused and the deceased. In fact the statements of some of the prosecution witnesses who turned hostile pointed out to a different hypothesis of accident from 407 Tata bus on the Patna-Ranchi Highways. These material evidences, therefore, were not at all convincing to enable the learned trial court to come to a finding of guilt They did not even provide a complete chain of circumstances to come to the conclusion that it is the accused persons alone who had caused murder of the son of the informant. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the evidence should be such which completes the chain of circumstances and leads to the only hypothesis pointing towards the guilt of the accused and no other. 29. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the evidence should be such which completes the chain of circumstances and leads to the only hypothesis pointing towards the guilt of the accused and no other. 29. In the absence of such a cogent evidence on record, the findings of the learned trial court can hardly be said to be suffering from glaring illegality or perversity or manifest error of law or procedure We, therefore, do not find any merit in the instant revision petition seeking interference in the judgment of acquittal. Accordingly the instant petition is dismissed.