JUDGMENT : Pritinker Diwaker, J. 1. Both the criminal appeal and the revision arise out of impugned judgment and order dated 30.11.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Kanpur Dehat in Sessions Trial No. 114 of 2008 (State v. Neeraj Mishra and others), convicting the appellant Neeraj Mishra under Section 302 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life, with a fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in default thereof, two years imprisonment and acquitting accused Ramesh Mishra under Sections 302, 498-A of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. In the present case, there are two deceased, namely, Smt. Shikha Mishra and Km. Abha (aged about five years), wife and daughter of accused appellant Neeraj Mishra. Marriage of deceased Smt. Shikha was solemnized with the appellant on 04.02.1999 and she died after sustaining 100% burn injury in her matrimonial house on 22.09.2007. According to prosecution case, deceased Smt. Shikha was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry and the appellant Neeraj used to suspect her chastity, he had a doubt in his mind that second deceased Km. Abha was not his daughter and she may have born with some one else. On 22.09.2007, at about 2.00 p.m., he committed murder of both the deceased after pouring kerosene oil on them and then setting them ablazed. On 22.09.2007 itself, at 5.10 p.m., on the basis of written report Ex. Ka. 1, FIR Ex. Ka.6 was lodged by Uma Shankar Dixit (PW-1), father of the deceased against appellant Neeraj Mishra, his father Ramesh Mishra (acquitted accused) and his mother Sushma Mishra, under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. Inquest on the dead body of deceased Km. Abha was conducted on 22.09.2007, vide Ex. Ka.3 and the body was sent for postmortem, which was conducted on 23.09.2007, vide Ex. Ka.5, by Dr. Anoop Kumar (PW-5), whereas inquest on the dead body of deceased Smt. Shikha Mishra was conducted on 22.09.2007, vide Ex. Ka.4 and the body was sent for post-mortem, which was conducted on 23.09.2007, vide Ex. Ka. 12, by Dr. Ramesh Kumar (PW-8). As per Autopsy Surgeons, following injuries were found on the bodies of the deceased Smt. Shikha Mishra and Km. Abha:-- Injuries on the body of Smt. Shikha Mishra 1. Superficial to deep burn present all over the body. Ka.4 and the body was sent for post-mortem, which was conducted on 23.09.2007, vide Ex. Ka. 12, by Dr. Ramesh Kumar (PW-8). As per Autopsy Surgeons, following injuries were found on the bodies of the deceased Smt. Shikha Mishra and Km. Abha:-- Injuries on the body of Smt. Shikha Mishra 1. Superficial to deep burn present all over the body. 2. Singeing of hair present. 3. Smell of kerosene oil present. 4. Line of redness present. 5. Pugilestic posture present. The cause of death of the deceased was 'asphyxia due to ante mortem burn injury'. Injuries on the body of Km. Abha: 1. Pugilestic posture present. 2. Superficial to deep burn present all over the body. 3. Line of redness present, seen on (L) Lower limb. 4. Smell of kerosene oil present on burnt body. 5. Intestine comes out due to burst of abdomen. 6. Left hand absent 10 cm below the (L) elbow joint. The cause of death of the deceased was 'asphyxia due to antemortem burn injury'. 4. After investigation, charge sheet was filed only against Neeraj Mishra and his father Ramesh Mishra and while framing charge, the trial Judge has framed charge against them under Sections 498-A and 302/34 of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 5. So as to hold accused persons guilty, prosecution has examined eleven witnesses, whereas five defence witnesses have also been examined. Statements of accused persons were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which, they pleaded their innocence and false implication. 6. By the impugned judgment, the trial Judge has convicted the accused-appellant as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment, however, it has acquitted accused Ramesh Mishra of all the offences. Hence, this Criminal Appeal No. 8153 of 2009 by the appellant Neeraj Mishra, whereas assailing the acquittal of Ramesh Mishra, Criminal Revision No. 711 of 2010 has been preferred by the complainant. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits:-- (i) that there is no eye-witness account to the incident and the appellant has been convicted solely on the basis of weak circumstantial evidence. (ii) that from the initial days of her marriage, deceased Shikha was not happy as before marriage she was residing in Kanpur City, whereas appellant Neeraj Mishra was residing in a rural area Shivli, a village of Kanpur Dehat. (ii) that from the initial days of her marriage, deceased Shikha was not happy as before marriage she was residing in Kanpur City, whereas appellant Neeraj Mishra was residing in a rural area Shivli, a village of Kanpur Dehat. (iii) that so called demand of dowry and alleged cruelty meted out to the deceased Shikha have not been proved by the prosecution and as per register, Ex. Ka.2, the said cruelty, if at all, was till 2004 and not thereafter. (iv) that there are material contradictions in the statement of Nitu Dixit (PW-2) and Dev Narayan Vajpaye (PW-3) and PW-3 appears to be a created witness. (v) that defence witnesses have categorically stated that at the time of incident, the accused persons were not present at the place of occurrence. (vi) that deceased Shikha appears to have committed suicide along with her daughter Abha as she was a short tempered lady. (vii) that even if the entire prosecution case is taken as it is, at best, appellant is liable to be convicted under Section 306 of IPC. Learned counsel submits that the appellant is in jail since last 11-1/2 years and, therefore, he has already served the maximum sentence provided under Section 306 of IPC. 8. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment, in relation to conviction of appellant Neeraj Mishra, it has been argued by State Counsel and counsel for the complainant: (i) that conviction of the appellant is in accordance with law and there is no infirmity in the same. (ii) that no probable/acceptable explanation has been given by accused Neeraj Mishra and in a case of house murder, it is to be presumed that it is the appellant who has killed the deceased. 9. Assailing the acquittal of Ramesh Mishra, learned counsel for the complainant submits that on the basis of same set of evidence, once accused Neeraj Mishra has been convicted, court below ought to have convicted Ramesh Mishra as well. 10. We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 11. Uma Shanker Dixit (PW-1) is the father of deceased Shikha and the informant. He has stated that the marriage of deceased Shikha was solemnised with accused-appellant Neeraj Mishra on 4.2.1999 and in the marriage, articles worth Rs. 3,00,000/- (three lakhs) were given to the accused. 10. We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 11. Uma Shanker Dixit (PW-1) is the father of deceased Shikha and the informant. He has stated that the marriage of deceased Shikha was solemnised with accused-appellant Neeraj Mishra on 4.2.1999 and in the marriage, articles worth Rs. 3,00,000/- (three lakhs) were given to the accused. He states that sufficient ornaments were also given to the appellant and likewise cash amount was also given. He has stated that accused-appellant Neeraj Mishra, his father Ramesh Mishra and mother Shushma used to harass the deceased for bringing insufficient dowry and this fact was informed to him by the deceased. He further states that a day prior to the date of incident, deceased was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry and threat was extended that if the demand of dowry is not fulfilled, deceased would be killed. He states that his daughter was killed by the accused persons and as the incident might have been witnessed by her granddaughter Abha, she was also done to death by the accused persons. He further states that he received information about the incident from Dev Narayan Vajpaye (PW-3) and when he reached to the house of his daughter, number of villagers and police personnel were present but the accused persons were not there. He states that he had four daughters and a son and the deceased Shikha was his youngest daughter. He further states that acquitted accused Ramesh Mishra i.e. father of appellant Neeraj Mishra was known to him previously as he was his close friend. He admits that he had not made any complaint to the police regarding demand of dowry being made by accused persons but he also states that a register was found in the room of the deceased which was written by her. He further states that he had not read the entire register. It is relevant to mention here that one register has been seized by the police, vide Ex. Ka.2, allegedly written by the deceased wherein certain entries have been made disclosing the fact that the deceased was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry. The last entry in this register is dated 13.07.2004, whereas incident occurred on 22.09.2007. It is relevant to mention here that one register has been seized by the police, vide Ex. Ka.2, allegedly written by the deceased wherein certain entries have been made disclosing the fact that the deceased was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry. The last entry in this register is dated 13.07.2004, whereas incident occurred on 22.09.2007. The prosecution has failed to prove that the entries in the register were made by the deceased herself and it has further failed to prove the seizure of this register, as required under the law. 12. Nitu Dixit (PW-2) is a sister-in-law (bhabhi) of the deceased. She states that she was informed by the deceased about cruelty being meted out to her. 13. Dev Narayan Vajpaye, (PW-3) is a cousin brother of Uma Shankar Dixit (PW-1), has stated that in the marriage of the deceased, sufficient dowry was given to the accused persons but yet deceased was subjected to cruelty. He further states that on the day of incident, at about 2:00 p.m., he saw both the accused persons and Sushma i.e. mother of accused appellant Neeraj Mishra running out of their house and then he saw smoke returning out from their house. He states that at the relevant time he was returning from the house of Lalu Agnihotri (DW-5) and he asked them once smoke is coming out from their house then why they are running but yet the accused persons did not stop and went away. He further states that when accused persons did not return to their house, he along with other persons gained entry in the house of Neeraj Mishra and found both the deceased in burning condition. It is relevant to note here that when he was confronted from his diary statement, he has deposed that all these facts were disclosed by him to the police at the time of recording his diary statement, but if the same is not recorded, he could not tell any reason. 14. Laxmi Dixit (PW-4) is the mother of the deceased. Her statement is almost similar to that of her husband and daughter-in-law. She in her cross-examination has stated that her daughter was born and grown in a town. 15. Dr. Anoop Kumar (PW-5) has conducted postmortem on the body of the Km. Abha, vide Ex. Ka.5. 14. Laxmi Dixit (PW-4) is the mother of the deceased. Her statement is almost similar to that of her husband and daughter-in-law. She in her cross-examination has stated that her daughter was born and grown in a town. 15. Dr. Anoop Kumar (PW-5) has conducted postmortem on the body of the Km. Abha, vide Ex. Ka.5. Ganesh Shankar Diwedi (PW-6) is scribe of check F.I.R. Kamta Prasad (PW-7) has conducted inquest on the body of deceased. Dr. Ramesh Kumar (PW-8) conducted postmortem on the body of deceased Shikha, vide Ex. Ka.12. M.A. Khan (PW-9) assisted during investigation. Laxmi Nivas Mishra (PW-10) is the Investigating Officer who has duly supported the prosecution case. Ram Singh (PW-11) is the second Investigating Officer. 16. In Section 313, Cr.P.C. statement, accused appellant Neeraj Mishra has stated that his father-in-law was an old friend of his father, financial condition of his father-in-law was weak and he got married with Shikha without accepting any dowry. He has further stated that his wife was from Kanpur Nagar, educated and was not keen to live in rural area but under the pressure of her father and mother, she agreed to marry him. He further states that his financial condition was much better as compared to that of the family of his wife. Two-three days prior to the incident, his co-brother has come to his house to take the deceased along with him but he refused to send her, as a result of which there was a quarrel between him and the deceased. He further states that on the date of incident, at about 10:00 a.m., when he was leaving for Kanpur to purchase certain medicines from the market, deceased insisted to accompany him but he did not take her, as there was no one in the house, she therefore got annoyed. He further states that when he was at Kanpur in the market at about 03:30 p.m. in the afternoon, he received the information about the incident. 17. He further states that when he was at Kanpur in the market at about 03:30 p.m. in the afternoon, he received the information about the incident. 17. Almost similar defence has been taken by acquitted accused Ramesh Mishra, who has categorically stated that at the relevant time, he was performing his duty in the bank He has further stated that after coming to know about the incident when he returned back to his house, he found main door of the house to be closed from inside and the smoke was coming out, information was sent to the police and after climbing the wall, entry was made inside the house, door was opened and dead bodies of the deceased were found there. 18. Vipin Kumar Khanna (DW-1) has been examined to prove alibi of Ramesh Mishra. According to him, at the relevant time, accused Ramesh Mishra was on his duty. Ramjee (DW-2) and Kuldeep Agnihotri (DW-3) have stated that at the time of occurrence, accused persons were not present in the house and when police came, he (DW-3) went inside the house through ladder and then the door was opened. Bijay Shankar (DW-4) has stated that he and appellant Neeraj Mishra have gone to Kanpur for purchasing, he purchased certain articles from hardware shop, whereas appellant Neeraj Mishra purchased some medicines. Lalu Agnihotri (DW-5) has stated that PW-3 has made incorrect statement to the effect that on 22.9.2007, he came to his house. 19. Close scrutiny of the evidence makes it clear that on 22.9.2007, Shikha and Km. Abha died unnatural death after sustaining about 100% burn injury. There is no conclusive evidence that at the time of incident, accused appellant Neeraj Mishra or acquitted accused Ramesh Mishra were present in the house in question where the incident had taken place. Though, father and mother of the deceased have made several allegations against accused persons for demand of dowry including ill treatment meted out to Shikha, but merely on the basis thereof, this Court cannot presume that it is the accused persons who had killed the deceased. Present is not a case of S. 304-B of IPC and we are dealing with the case of Section 302 of IPC. Even assuming that deceased Smt. Shikha was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry merely, on this basis, accused persons cannot be convicted under Section 302 of IPC. Present is not a case of S. 304-B of IPC and we are dealing with the case of Section 302 of IPC. Even assuming that deceased Smt. Shikha was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry merely, on this basis, accused persons cannot be convicted under Section 302 of IPC. Present case is based on circumstantial evidence and the law in this respect is well settled. In Sattatiya alias Satish Rajanna Kartalla v. State of Maharashtra (2008) 3 SCC 210 : ( AIR 2008 SC 1184 ), the Supreme Court, while dealing with circumstantial evidence, observed as under: "11. In Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P. ( AIR 1952 SC 343 ), which is one of the earliest decisions on the subject, this court observed as under: "10. ......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 be in the first instance be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis 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." 12. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of AP ((1989) Supp (2) SCC 706) : AIR 1990 SC 79 ), this court held that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, the following tests must be satisfied: "(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else." 13. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra ( (1984) 4 SCC 116 ) : ( AIR 1984 SC 1622 ), it was held that the onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and falsity or untenability of the defence set up by the accused cannot be made basis for ignoring serious infirmity or lacuna in the prosecution case. The Court then proceeded to indicate the conditions which must be fully established before conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence. These are: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned must or should and not may be established; (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused." 20. Recently, in Devi Lal v. State of Rajasthan (Criminal Appeal No. 148 of 2010, decided on 07.01.2019 (Reported in AIR 2019 SC 688 ) the Supreme Court, while dealing with circumstantial evidence, observed as under: 14. The classic enunciation of law pertaining to circumstantial evidence, its relevance and decisiveness, as a proof of charge of a criminal offence, is amongst others traceable decision of the Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 : ( AIR 1984 SC 1622 ). The relevant excerpts from para 153 of the decision is assuredly apposite: 153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned "must or should" and not "may be" established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned "must or should" and not "may be" established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between "may be proved" and "must be or should be proved" as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793 : ( AIR 1973 SC 2622 ) where the observations were made: "Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions." (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused." 15. It has further been considered by this Court in Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam (2013) 12 SCC 406 : ( AIR 2013 SC 3817 ) and Raja alias Rajinder v. State of Haryana (2015) 11 SCC 43 : (2015 AIR SCW 2485). It has been propounded that while scrutinising the circumstantial evidence, a Court has to evaluate it to ensure the chain of events is established clearly and completely to rule out any reasonable likelihood of innocence of the accused. The underlying principle is whether the chain is complete or not, indeed it would depend on the facts of each case emanating from the evidence and there cannot be a straight jacket formula which can be laid down for the purpose. But the circumstances adduced when considered collectively, it must lead only to the conclusion that there cannot be a person other than the accused who alone is the perpetrator of the crime alleged and the circumstances must establish the conclusive nature consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused." 21. But the circumstances adduced when considered collectively, it must lead only to the conclusion that there cannot be a person other than the accused who alone is the perpetrator of the crime alleged and the circumstances must establish the conclusive nature consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused." 21. True it is that the incident has taken place in the matrimonial house of deceased Shikha, but there is no clinching and conclusive evidence that at the relevant time the accused persons were also present at the place of occurrence, rather, evidence is there that both the accused persons had gone to market when the unfortunate incident occurred. The main evidence against the accused person is the statement of Dev Narayan Vajpaye (PW-3) who, in his court statement, has stated that he saw the accused persons coming out from their house and despite his request, they did not return back and when he (this witness) entered the house, he found the dead bodies. This particular portion of evidence of PW-3 is nothing, but improvement in Court because the same does not find in his S. 161, Cr.P.C. statement. In the facts and circumstances of the case, PW-3 becomes wholly unreliable and merely on his statement, conviction of the accused persons cannot be upheld. During investigation, the police has not found any such article from the place of occurrence on which basis, it can be presumed or can be said that it is the accused persons who killed the deceased after pouring kerosene oil on them and then setting them ablazed. Seizure of half burnt plastic chair does not indicate anything against the accused persons. 22. Taking the entire evidence as it is, we are of the view that there is no clinching, conclusive and reliable evidence on which basis accused appellant Neeraj Mishra can be convicted under Section 302 of IPC, however, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular, the evidence of parents of the deceased, it appears that deceased was compelled to commit suicide along with her minor child and, therefore, the appellant Neeraj Mishra is liable to be convicted under Section 306 of IPC, which is a minor offence instead under Section 302 of IPC. Accordingly, his conviction under Section 302 of IPC is altered into Section 306 of IPC. Accordingly, his conviction under Section 302 of IPC is altered into Section 306 of IPC. Appellant Neeraj Mishra has already served maximum jail sentence as provided under Section 306 of IPC and, therefore, no further order is required in relation to sentence to be imposed upon him. However, considering the provisions of Section 357, Cr.P.C. and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 6 SCC 770 : ( AIR 2013 SC 2454 ); appellant Neeraj Mishra is directed to deposit compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- (two lakhs) to be paid to Uma Shankar Dixit (PW-1), father of the deceased. Let this amount be deposited by appellant Neeraj Mishra within six months from the date of his release. The amount so deposited by the appellant before the trial court, shall be disbursed to Uma Shankar Dixit (PW-1). If the appellant fails to deposit the said amount, within stipulated period, he shall further undergo Jail sentence of three years and even after serving default sentence, amount of compensation shall be recoverable in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Kumaran v. State of Kerala & Anr. (2017) 7 SCC 471 : ( AIR 2017 SC 2433 ). 22A. The appellant is in Jail. He be set free forthwith, if not required in any other case, to comply the further direction of this Court. 23. The appeal succeeds and is partly allowed. 24. So far as Criminal Revision No. 711 of 2010 filed by the complainant is concerned, the trial court, after due appreciation of evidence, has taken a particular view acquitting him. Law in this respect is very clear that if on the basis of evidence, two views are possible, the view which is favourable to the accused, should be adopted. In the matter of State of Gujarat v. Jayrajbhai Punjabhai Vara ((2016) 4 SCC 151 : AIR 2016 SC 3218 ) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "20. The burden of proof in criminal law is beyond all reasonable doubt. In the matter of State of Gujarat v. Jayrajbhai Punjabhai Vara ((2016) 4 SCC 151 : AIR 2016 SC 3218 ) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "20. The burden of proof in criminal law is beyond all reasonable doubt. The prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and it is also the rule of justice in criminal law that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other towards his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted." 25. It is further settled position of law that scope of revision against judgment of acquittal is very limited and interference can be made only if a finding recorded by the trial Judge is wholly perverse. Unfortunately, present is not such a case. In State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram (2003) 8 SCC 180 : ( AIR 2003 SC 3601 ), the Supreme Court held in para 7 as under:-- "7. There is no embargo on the appellate Court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases 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 to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate Court to re-appreciate the evidence in a case where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused committed any offence or not. [See Bhagwan Singh and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (JT 2002 (3) SC 387): AIR 2002 SC 1621 ). [See Bhagwan Singh and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (JT 2002 (3) SC 387): AIR 2002 SC 1621 ). The principle to be followed by appellate Court considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable, it is a compelling reason for interference. These aspects were highlighted by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra ((1973) 3 SCC 193) : AIR 1973 SC 2622 ); Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat (1996) 9 SCC 225 ) : ( AIR 1996 SC 2035 ) and Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana (JT 2000 (4) SC 114) : AIR 2000 SC 1833 )." 26. Considering all the aspects of the case, we are of view that the trial Court was justified in acquitting private respondent Ramesh Mishra. The revision has no substance. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.