JUDGMENT M.A. Ali, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.09.2013, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur, in Sessions Case No.1(NL)/2007, whereby, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondents No. 1 to 3 of the charge under Section 302/109 IPC and Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act. 2. As per the prosecution case, the victim Tanya Mosing came out from his house at Itanagar with his vehicle on 10.02.2001 at about 5 PM and he did not return home. On the next day, he was found lying dead at Pathalipahar, Banderdewa. Having come to know about killing of the victim Tanya Mosing, the FIR (Ext.13) was lodged by PW-15, Sri Ugen Pulsar, on the basis of which, police registered Bihpuria P.S. Case No. 45/2001 under Section 302 IPC. IN course of investigation, police recorded statement of the witnesses, seized certain incriminating articles as well as the revolver and the vehicle of the deceased, prepared inquest report and the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. Dr. Hridayananda Baruah (PW-6) conducted the post-mortem examination, who found the following injuries. "Multiple sharp and deed cut injuries (8 and 19 nos exact nos. Could not be elicited due to distorted anatomy of the muscles by multiple cuts) seen on right side of the neck extending from occipital region to lower portion of neck. An oblique sharp and deep cut injury was seen in the lower portion of occipital bone on right side. The bone was cut with exposure of brain matter. An oblique sharp cut injury seen over the mandible on right side with the mandible cut into two pieces. A penetrating injury by a dagger (khukri) in the chest. Blood stains was present over the head, neck and shoulders. One sharp and deep cut injury over the occipital bone on right side (7x4x3 cm). Membrane cut and brain matter exposed in the occipital region (right side). In the opinion of the doctor, death was caused to due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries sustained by the victim and all the injuries were antemortem and was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 3. On completion of the investigation charge sheet was laid against the respondents No. 1 to 3, who eventually stood trial. 4. 3. On completion of the investigation charge sheet was laid against the respondents No. 1 to 3, who eventually stood trial. 4. In course of trial, learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 under Section 302/109 IPC and Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act R/W Section 34 IPC, to which all the respondents pleaded not guilty. Fifteen witnesses were examined by the prosecution in order to bring home the charges and on appreciation of the evidence, learned Sessions judge acquitted all the accused/respondent Nos.1 to 3. 5. Aggrieved, the wife of the victim has preferred the instant appeal. 6. We have heard the learned Sr. Counsel, Mr. P.K. Tiwari for the appellant and the learned Addl. P.P., Ms. S. Jahan for the respondent No. 4 as well as learned counsel Ms. S.G. Baruah for the respondents No. 1 to 3. We have also scrutinized the evidence brought on record. 7. The first witness examined by the prosecution was one Bipul Bhuyan, who testified that one morning, he found the dead body of a person lying in a pit near Pathalipahar Railway crossing and immediately he informed the officer-in-charge of Banderdewa Out Post. He also stated to have noticed a Gypsy vehicle near the body. He further stated that he had seen cut injury on the neck of the deceased and one 'khukri' was found inserted into his neck. 8. The second witness examined by the prosecution was one Robin Bhuyan, who stated, that having learnt about the occurrence, he came to the place of occurrence along with other people and had seen the body with injury. He also stated to have signed the seizure list (Ext.2), whereby personal belongings of the deceased including one pistol was seized by police. 9. The third witness examined by the prosecution was PW-3, Smt. Paye Mosing, who is the wife of the deceased. The PW-3 testified that on 10.02.2001, her husband (victim) told her, that he had received a telephone call from a person with surname Das, calling him to Banderdewa. After receiving the said telephone call, the victim came out of the house with his vehicle bearing registration No. AR-01-3477. He also carried his licensed pistol with him. The PW-3 testified that on 10.02.2001, her husband (victim) told her, that he had received a telephone call from a person with surname Das, calling him to Banderdewa. After receiving the said telephone call, the victim came out of the house with his vehicle bearing registration No. AR-01-3477. He also carried his licensed pistol with him. She further stated, that her husband did not return on the night and on following day, at about 9 AM, Smt. Taying Pulzer informed her over phone that the dead body of her husband was found lying near Pathalipahar Railway crossing. Immediately, she rushed to the place of occurrence along with the informant and noticed the body of her husband lying there. She also stated that later on, police arrested the accused Diganta and Naba Bora and according to her, Naba Bora confessed the guilt before the police. She also stated to have taken custody of the pistol of her husband as well as the vehicle. 10. Pw-4, Tilok Handique stated that about 6/7 years back, when he fell asleep at night, police came to his house and taking him along went to the rear side of the house of accused Diganta. He further stated, that on reaching the rear side of the house of Diganta, he had found other police personnel searching something in the light of torch and one of the police uttered by saying 'palo palo' (got it). Thereafter police came to his house and had showed him a pistol with bullet, which was seized vide Ext. 3. During cross examination, he stated that he did not see as to wherefrom the said pistol/revolver was found by police. It was further elicited during cross examination, that on their reaching the back side of the house of Diganta, he came to know that the police have already found the pistol. It was also elicited that the accused Diganta was not with the police at the time of recovery of the pistol, which was seized vide Ext.3. 11. According to PW-5 (Aniram Gohain), police called him to the house of Tilok Handique (PW-4) and had showed a revolver kept wrapped with cloth and took his signature on the seizure list. Police however, did not tell him as to wherefrom the said revolver was recovered. 11. According to PW-5 (Aniram Gohain), police called him to the house of Tilok Handique (PW-4) and had showed a revolver kept wrapped with cloth and took his signature on the seizure list. Police however, did not tell him as to wherefrom the said revolver was recovered. PW-7, Lakhinath Gohain stated that hearing commotion and the barking of the dogs at a distance of about 300 feet from his house, he went there, where the police had shown him a sweater, a pair of trousers and some cloths and took his signature on the seizure list, Ext.5. He also stated, that at that time, Diganta was not with the police. He further stated to have learnt from the police, that those articles were found near the stream. He however failed to recognize during evidence whether the cloths which were shown at the time of evidence, were the cloth seized vide Ext.5. It was also elicited during his cross examination, that before he reached the place near the stream, cloths were already recovered by police. 12. Pw-8 testified that having seen the police and the people gathering at the courtyard of Diganta, he went there and police had shown him some cloths, such as sweater, shirt etc. and took his signature on the Ext.5. He also stated, that he did not notice whether Dignata was present there or not when he put his signature on the Ext.5. He also failed to identify the cloths while deposing in court. However, during cross examination, it was confirmed that Dignata was not present when he (PW-8) put his signature on the Ext.5. 13. Pw-10, stated that having heard about the occurrence, he went to Pathalipahar Railway crossing, where he had seen the body of the deceased kept in a Gypsy vehicle. 14. Pw-12, was he Junior Scientific Officer, who deposed that he received a parcel containing one old torn and dirty green coat, one woolen full sleeve sweater and one synthetic open full sleeve dirty and torn shirt, which were marked by him as Ext. Sero-264/02, 265/02 and 266/02. According to PW12, the old torn and dirty green coat (Ext. Sero 264/02) gave positive test for blood, but he could not ascertain its origin because of insufficient test material. The other articles being woolen full sleeve sweater and open full sleeve dirty and torn shirt gave negative test for any trace of blood. Sero-264/02, 265/02 and 266/02. According to PW12, the old torn and dirty green coat (Ext. Sero 264/02) gave positive test for blood, but he could not ascertain its origin because of insufficient test material. The other articles being woolen full sleeve sweater and open full sleeve dirty and torn shirt gave negative test for any trace of blood. According to him, though Ext. Sero 264 gave positive test for blood, he could not ascertain whether it is human blood or blood of any other animal. 15. Pw-11, Arun Ch. Gogoi, who was the Investigating Officer of the case, deposed that he seized a 'khukri' vide Ext. 15 seizure list, which was recovered from the body of the victim in course of postmortem examination. It is in the evidence of PW-11, that although, he had sent the cloths of the deceased as well as the cloth seized from the accused Diganta for chemical examination, the 'khukri' seized vide Ext. 15, which was found inserted in the body of the victim at the time of postmortem examination was not sent for chemical examination nor any step was taken for collecting fingerprint etc.from the said 'khukri'. He also admitted that the recovery and seizure of the pistol vide Ext. 3, seizure list was not done on being led by accused Dignata. 16. A dispassionate scrutiny of the oral testimony of the aforementioned witnesses would show that although some cloths were seized from the possession of the accused Dignata and sent for chemical examination, nothing material could be found during chemical examination to connect the same with the offence far less showing any link with the respondents No. 1 to 3. Though blood stain was found in one of the cloth, the forensic expert could not ascertain the origin of the blood because of insufficient test material. The other articles gave negative test for blood. Except this evidence of seizing some cloths from the accused Diganta, there is absolutely no material on record to connect any of the appellants with the commission of the offence in the instant case. 17. As already indicated above, though a 'khukri' was seized from the body of the deceased, neither any fingerprint was collected nor the same was sent for forensic examination. 17. As already indicated above, though a 'khukri' was seized from the body of the deceased, neither any fingerprint was collected nor the same was sent for forensic examination. Therefore, only evidence that has been led by the prosecution was that the victim (Tanya Mosing) was killed and his body was found lying at a place namely, Pathalipahar, Banderdewa and according to the doctor, death of the deceased was homicidal. Besides proving the death of the victim to be homicidal, prosecution evidence was hopelessly insufficient to connect even remotely the appellants with the commission of the offence in the instant case. Having appreciated the above evidence, learned Sessions Judge recorded the finding of acquittal of the respondents No. 1, 2 & 3. Although, the victim met with homicidal death, prosecution has not been able to bring on record any evidence to prove as to who were the perpetrator of the offence and therefore, the finding of the learned trial court, in our considered view was quite reasonable as there could not be any other finding on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution. Therefore, we find no reason to differ with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial court. 18. The Apex Court in Ashok Rai -Vs.- State of U.P. and Ors, (2014) 5 SCC 713 observed that unless the appellate court finds the order of acquittal to be clearly unreasonable and is convinced that there are substantial and compelling reason to interfere with it, it should not interfere with such judgment. 19. In another judgment, Shyam Babu-VS- State of U.P, (2012) AIR SC 3311 , the Apex Court observed that interference in appeal against acquittal is permissible only if the decision of the trial Court is perverse. It was held that if two views are possible on same set of evidence, then the appellate Court need not substitute its own view in preference to the view of the trial Court. 20. Thus the consistent view of the Apex Court is that unless the judgment of acquittal is demonstratingly unreasonable or unless there is compelling reasons, the appellate Court should be slow to interfere with the judgment of acquittal, even an alternative view is possible, reason being that order of acquittal strengthen the presumption of innocence. 20. Thus the consistent view of the Apex Court is that unless the judgment of acquittal is demonstratingly unreasonable or unless there is compelling reasons, the appellate Court should be slow to interfere with the judgment of acquittal, even an alternative view is possible, reason being that order of acquittal strengthen the presumption of innocence. Having marshaled the evidence in detailed as above, we do not find any reason not to speak of compelling reason to interfere with the impugned judgment, inasmuch as, the views taken by and the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court in our considered view appears to be quite reasonable and does not call for interfere. Therefore, we do not find any merit in this appeal and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 21. Before parting with, we must record our dissatisfaction in the manner and the way, the investigation was carried out in the instant case. Evidently, a dagger was found in the body of the victim as deposed by PW-2, which was ultimately seized vide Ext. 15, however, surprisingly no endeavor was made by the Investigating Officer to collect the fingerprint from the said dagger nor it was sent for chemical examination. It is further surprising to note that when the dagger was found embedded in the neck of the deceased, and noticed by the witnesses, the Investigating Officer even did not seize the same from the place of occurrence and the body was sent for postmortem examination with the dagger in the body, which was ultimately recovered by the doctor, who conducted the postmortem examination and handed over to police. The investigation was carried out in such callous and perfunctory manner, that it failed to collect any evidence, in fact, no serious endeavor was made by the Investigating Officer to carry out the investigation in proper manner, though the offence was a heinous one. It is only because of the perfunctory investigation, the prosecution case failed and consequently the justice and fair trial became the ultimate casualty. We expect that the State shall look into the matter with due concern. 22. We hereby provide that an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) shall be paid to the dependent wife of the victim as compensation under the victim compensation scheme. The Legal Services Authority shall disburse the compensation within a period of three months. We expect that the State shall look into the matter with due concern. 22. We hereby provide that an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) shall be paid to the dependent wife of the victim as compensation under the victim compensation scheme. The Legal Services Authority shall disburse the compensation within a period of three months. We further make it clear that the option to seek any other financial relief from the State permissible under the statute shall remain open and the compensation, as indicated above, shall not come in the way of such remedy. 23. Send down the LCR.