JUDGMENT : GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, J. 1. The instant criminal leave to appeal has been filed by the complainant appellant against the impugned judgment dated 14.09.02017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur ['the learned trial court' for short] in Sessions Case No. 82 of 2014, whereby the accused respondents have been acquitted of the charges framed against them under Sections 148, 302 read with sections 149 and 120B IPC. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 16.06.2008 complainant Ram Laxman s/o Nathu Lal by caste Dhakad, r/o Kishanpura Kaithoon, Police Station Kaithoon, District Kota submitted a complaint under section 190 Cr.P.C., 1973 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) & Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur, against the accused respondents for the offence under sections 302, 201, 147, 120B, 149, 363 and 366 IPC to this effect that he is resident of Village Kishanpura, Police Station Kaithoon, District Kota. On 18.04.2008 at around 1-1:30 P.M., the accused persons abducted his brother Shivraj and took him in a Maruti Car and his brother was subjected to grievous injuries. The accused inflicted grievous injuries on the head of Shivraj which broke his skull and committed murder. The accused persons ran away putting the dead body of Shivraj at the distance of 2-3 km. from Village Borda, Police Station Chauth Ka Barwada. On seeing the dead body of his brother Shivraj at Police Station Chauth Ka Barwada, he found grievous injuries on head and skull was broken. Earlier on 16.07.2006 at 1:15 P.M. the accused persons inflicted multiple cut injuries to his brother Naresh by sword and 'gandasies'. Thus, there was old enmity in between the complainant and the accused persons. The complainant mentioned that on 08.05.2008 the accused persons threatened him saying that they have committed murder of his brother Shivraj and now it is his turn and if he any report of this incident is made, he would also be killed. On 21.04.2008 autopsy on the dead body of Shivraj was conducted. The complainant mentioned that he had submitted the report but till date no FIR was registered and only proceeding under section 174 Cr.P.C., 1973 has been initiated. 3. The learned Civil Judge (Jr. On 21.04.2008 autopsy on the dead body of Shivraj was conducted. The complainant mentioned that he had submitted the report but till date no FIR was registered and only proceeding under section 174 Cr.P.C., 1973 has been initiated. 3. The learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) & Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur, sent the aforesaid complaint under section 156(3) Cr.P.C, 1973to the Police Station Chauth Ka Barwada, on the basis of which an FIR No.149/2008 (Ex.P2) was registered for the offence under sections 147, 149, 302, 201, 120B and 365 IPC. The police after investigation submitted final/negative report on 22.11.2010. The complainant appellant aggrieved with the filing of the final/negative report by the police, submitted a protest petition before the Court concerned on 07.02.2011. Statements of complainant and witnesses were recorded under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., 1973 Vide order dated 14.06.2012 the learned trial court took cognizance against the accused respondents for the offences under sections 148, 302 and 12B IPC. During the course of trial accused Bunti and Harlal died as a result of which proceedings against them were dropped. The case being triable by the Court of Session, was committed to the learned trial court. 4. The learned trial court framed charges against the accused respondents for the offences under sections 148, 302 read with sections 149 and 120B I.P.C., who denied the charges and claimed to be tried. In support of prosecution case, statements of seventeen witnesses were recorded and fourteen documents were exhibited. Thereafter, the statements of the accused respondents were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 In defence the accused respondents did not produce any evidence. 5. Learned trial court vide impugned Judgment dated 14.09.2017 acquitted the accused respondents for the charges levelled against them. 6. Learned counsel for the complainant appellant argued that the learned trial court has committed serious error of law as well as fact in not properly considering the statements of the prosecution witnesses and erred in acquitting the accused respondents from the offences punishable under sections 148, 302 read with sections 149 and 120B IPC. The prosecution has fully proved the guilt of the accused respondents beyond all reasonable doubt but the learned trial court has wrongly and illegally acquitted the accused respondents without properly appreciating the evidence available on record. The prosecution has fully proved the guilt of the accused respondents beyond all reasonable doubt but the learned trial court has wrongly and illegally acquitted the accused respondents without properly appreciating the evidence available on record. Learned counsel for the complainant appellant submitted that the learned trial court in its Judgment has discussed irrelevant evidence otherwise there is sufficient evidence available on record to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused respondents had committed the murder of Shivraj. Learned counsel for the complainant appellant submitted that the findings arrived at by the learned trial court are vitiated as being misreading and non-reading of the material evidence in support of the appellant as well as on mere surmises and conjectures. The findings arrived at by the learned trial court are further vitiated as no critical appreciation and analysis has been made by the learned trial court. 7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the complainant appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, perused the impugned Judgment and gone through the entire material made available to us including the record of the case. 8. As per the case of the prosecution, Ram Laxman, (PW1), Mahaveer (PW2) and Naresh (PW3) are brothers of the deceased Shivraj and they are the witnesses of last seen. Complainant Ram Laxman (PW1), brother of deceased Shivraj reiterated the averments made in the complaint, on the basis of which FIR (Ex.P2) was registered. This witness in cross-examination deposed that he did not see the number of the car, the maruti car was of red colour and Shankar took the car. This witness further stated that earlier also his brother was beaten by the accused and due to this reason there was enmity with the accused respondents. This witness deposed that in the complaint (Ex.P9) the names of five persons are mentioned on the basis of doubt. Mahaveer (PW2) in examination-in-chief deposed that on 18.04.2008 at 1-1:30 P.M. he was at his home, Shankar, Jhadli, Ramgopal, Jodhraj, Kripashankar, Hemraj, Bunti and Harlal took Shyoji with them in a maruti car and he saw these persons taking his brother with them. This witness deposed that accused persons committed murder of his brother due to an old enmity. In cross-examination this witness deposed that in which maruti car his brother was taken, he does not remember the number and in car maximum five persons can sit. This witness deposed that accused persons committed murder of his brother due to an old enmity. In cross-examination this witness deposed that in which maruti car his brother was taken, he does not remember the number and in car maximum five persons can sit. Ramgopal has encroached upon the land belonging to him, he does not remember the number of the same. Naresh (PW3) in examination-in-chief deposed that on 18.04.2008 at about 1- 1:30 P.M. when he was at his home, one Maruti Car came and the occupants called Shivraj. When he came outside, he saw Shankar, Gopal, Jodhraj, Hemraj, Khemraj, Kripa Shankar, Harlal and Bunti in the maruti car who abducted his brother with them. He and his brother Mahaveer saw accused persons taking his brother with them. He and his brother Mahaveer went to Police Station Chauth Ka Barwara. On seeing the dead body, Shivraj was badly beaten and due to head injury, skull was broken. These persons committed murder of his brother. In cross-examination this witness deposed that he does not remember the number of said maruti car. Rajesh (PW4), constable, is a witness of written report (Ex.P10) and admits A to B part there bears his signature. Ashok (PW4) is witness of site-plan (Ex.P3). Chandrasen (PW6) did not support the prosecution story and turned hostile. This witness denied the averments made in police statement (Ex.P11). Sitaram (PW7) is witness of information (Ex.P10), site-plan (Ex.P3) and Panchanama (Ex.P12). Badri (PW8) is also a witness of Panchnama (Ex.P12). Bhagwat Singh (PW9) is witness of phard-jabti (Ex.P13) and site-plan (Ex.P4). Dr. Makhan Lal Jat (PW10) and Dr. Rajendra Prasad Gupta (PW11) who conducted autopsy (Ex.P14) on the dead body of the deceased stated that the injuries on the person of Shivraj were ante-mortem in nature and duration is suggestive of just before death. The cause of death is 'coma' as a result of injury to skull and brain and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Hemant (PW12), known of deceased Sheoraj, deposed that after three days of alleged incident Bablu Tiwari made a telephonic call to him and told that in his village, the persons of Shivraj's village have come and they are telling that Shivraj has been murdered. Hemant (PW12), known of deceased Sheoraj, deposed that after three days of alleged incident Bablu Tiwari made a telephonic call to him and told that in his village, the persons of Shivraj's village have come and they are telling that Shivraj has been murdered. Smt. Muli Bai (PW13), 'bhabhi' of deceased in examination-in-chief deposed that at 8-9 years ago at 9:00 A.M., when she, her husband and her 'Devraj' Sheoraj were at home then Shankar Lal came at home and took with him Sheoraj to Kaithoon in red colour vehicle for bringing the electricity articles. Thereafter, after three days, they received an information from Chauth Ka Barwada that Sheoraj has been murdered and his dead body is lying near Railway Phatak, Chauth Ka Barwada. This witness in cross-examination admitted that at that time at home, except her, her husband and her 'devar', no-one was there. Sheoraj was taken by Shanker from the home and not from 'chauraha'. Purshottam (PW14) is a witness who investigated into the inquest report. Naraindan (PW15), deposed that during the course of investigation, he recorded the statements of witnesses. Bharmal (PW16) is a witness of Panchnama. Bhim Singh (PW17), deposed that on 20.04.2008 he was posted as S.H.O., Police Station Chauth Ka Barwada. After investigation, he submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons. 9. Written report is Ex.P10, which was submitted by Sitaram (PW7) on 20.04.2008 before Bhim Singh (PW17) in connection with lying of dead body of an unknown man in a field situated at Kakad of Borda Ekda. On the basis of aforesaid written report, inquest report No.3/08 was registered under section 174 Cr.P.C., 1973 Complainant Ramlaxman (PW1) submitted the complaint under section 190 Cr.P.C., 1973 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) & Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur against eight accused persons for the offences under sections 302, 201, 147, 120B, 149, 363 and 366 IPC on 16.06.2008 after a lapse of about two months on the basis of which FIR (Ex.P2) was registered on 02.07.2008. Thus, FIR was lodged after a great gap of approx. two months. 10. After analyzing the facts on the point of last seen and recovery it appears that there is a gap between the circumstances tried to be relied upon to hold the accused respondents as guilty. Thus, FIR was lodged after a great gap of approx. two months. 10. After analyzing the facts on the point of last seen and recovery it appears that there is a gap between the circumstances tried to be relied upon to hold the accused respondents as guilty. However, there is no other evidence which indicates or establishes that the accused respondents were present near the place of crime. 11. Law is very settled that the prosecution must complete chain of circumstances to arrive at a conclusion that the offence has only been committed by the accused and by none else. 12. We have no eye-witness version in the instant case and the entire case rests upon the circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is evidence of relevant facts from which, one can, by process of reasoning, infer about the existence of facts in issue or factum probandum. In Hanumant, son of Govind Nargundkar v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1952 SC 343 , this Court held as follows: "It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance, be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypotheses of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances would be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused." Each and every incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form a chain of events from which the only irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the accused can be safely drawn and no other hypothesis against the guilt is possible. Even when there is no eye-witness to support the criminal charge, but prosecution has been able to establish the chain of circumstances which is complete leading to inference of guilt of accused and circumstances taken collectively are incapable of explanation on any reasonable hypothesis save of guilt sought to be proved, accused may be convicted on the basis of such circumstantial evidence. Last seen 13. In the case in hand, the prosecution on the basis of reliable evidence failed to establish that a missing person was seen in the company of the accused and was never seen thereafter. As regards place of occurrence, there is material contradiction in evidence of prosecution witnesses. The complaint against the accused respondents was filed in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur with regard to an incident of abduction taken place on 08.04.2008 and the accused respondents were named only on the basis of suspicion due to enmity between accused and the deceased. However, postmortem report (Ex.P14) dated 21.04.2008 reveals that autopsy was conducted at 12.30 P.M. on 21.04.2008 and it was opined that death occurred almost 48 hours prior to postmortem. Therefore, prosecution has failed to establish that accused and deceased were seen together on day of incident of murder. 14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Rambraksh @ Jalim v. State of Chhattisgarh, in Criminal Appeal No. 462 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1962 of 2015) decided on 12.05.2016 has held ad-infra:- "It is trite that a conviction cannot be recorded against the accused merely on the ground that the accused was last seen with the deceased. In other words, a conviction cannot be based on the only circumstance of last seen together. Normally, last seen theory comes into play where the time gap, between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead, is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the perpetrator of the crime becomes impossible. To record a conviction, the last seen together itself would not be sufficient and the prosecution has to complete the chain of circumstances to bring home the guilt of the accused." 15. To record a conviction, the last seen together itself would not be sufficient and the prosecution has to complete the chain of circumstances to bring home the guilt of the accused." 15. It is mandatory on the part of the prosecution to establish and prove the criminal culpability beyond reasonable doubt to fasten guilt but the afore-discussed evidence reflects that prosecution has miserably failed to adduce material and reliable evidence against the respondent. Nothing is positive in the evidence of the prosecution to connect the accused with the alleged crime. 16. In the case of Sukliya v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2010) 16 SCC 745, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under :- "6. The settled position of law regarding the powers to be exercised by the High Court in an appeal against the order of acquittal is that though the High Court has full powers to review the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based, it will not interfere with an order of acquittal because with the passing of an order of acquittal the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced. The High Court should be slow in disturbing the finding of the fact arrived at by the trial court. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal case is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other therefore his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted". 17. In the aforesaid scenario, we are of the considered view that prosecution has not succeeded in establishing its case beyond contours of reasonable doubt, so we do not find any reason to disturb the findings of the trial court. Therefore, the criminal leave to appeal filed by the complainant appellant against acquittal is devoid of any merit, hence the same is dismissed.