JUDGMENT : BELA M. TRIVEDI, J. 1. The appellant-State of Gujarat has preferred the present appeal under Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the judgment and order dated 28.02.1997 passed by the Sessions Judge, Junagadh (hereinafter referred to as “the Sessions Court”) in Sessions Case No. 97 of 1994, whereby the respondent-accused has been acquitted from the charges levelled against him for the offences punishable under section 302, 201, 364, 365, 397, 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 2. It the outset, it may be noted that charge was framed by the Sessions Court at Exh.1 against the present respondent, who was the accused No. 2 and also against one Arjanbhai Sarmanbhai, who was the accused no. 1 for the alleged offences, however, the accused no. 1-Arjanbhai Sarmanbhai had expired at the initial stage of trial and therefore, the trial has stood abated qua him and was proceeded against the present respondent-accused no. 2. 3. As per the case of the prosecution, the complainant Bhimabhai Varjangbhai Rabari, who happened to be the father of the deceased Hamir, had lodged a complaint on 11.06.1994 before the Junagadh city police station, alleging inter-alia, that his son Hamir had left the house for plying rickshaw on rent at about 8:00 a.m. on 08.06.1994 and had not returned home till late night on that day. He therefore had made search in the village, but he was not found. On 09.06.1994 he alongwith others had again made search in the city of Junagadh and other nearby places for the whole day, however the said Hamir was not found, nor his rickshaw was found. Thereafter, on 10.06.1994, he had received information that the rickshaw of Hamir bearing registration No. GRP-683 was found lying unattended at the outskirt of village Chikasa on the Porbandar-Madhavpur road. In the meantime, he and his brother-Bhagu Meraman were also in search of his son Hamir and had met one Rabari Ramabhai Ranabhai, residing at village Dharam Aveda, who had informed them that on Wednesday i.e. 08.06.1994 at about 10:00 a.m. when he was passing through village Vanthali with his truck loaded with mangoes, had seen the rickshaw of Hamir, which was being driven by Mer Arjan Sarman (accused no. 1) and that Hamir and one another unknown person were sitting at the back seat of the rickshaw and were going towards Manavadar. The complainant had therefore gone to village Kareni, where he had met one Nathabhai Rabari, who informed him that Hamir had allowed the wife of Nathabhai to sit in his rickshaw up to some distance. The complainant thereafter had also gone to the village Maiyari, where he was informed by one owner of pan-shop that on 08.06.1994 at about 6:30 p.m. three persons had come in one rickshaw, out of whom one appeared to be of Rabari community and two appeared to be of Mer community and that they had purchased pan from his shop. The complainant thereafter had gone to the temple of Narvai Mataji, where on inquiry, he was informed that Arjan Mer alongwith one boy belonging to Rabari community and one unknown person had come in one rickshaw and had made inquiry for the food and thereafter, all the three had left for Madhavpur. The complainant had suspected that since the rickshaw of Hamir was found unattended, his son Hamir must have been kidnapped by Arjan Sarman Mer and other person accompanying him. 4. The said complaint of the complainant was registered at the Junagadh City Police Station, as C.R. No. I-274/1994, for the aforesaid alleged offences. The Investigating Officer, after completing the investigation and collecting sufficient evidence against both the respondent-accused had laid the charge-sheet in the Court. The alleged offences being triable by the Court of Sessions, the said case was committed to the Sessions Court, Junagadh under Section 209 of Criminal Procedure Code, where it was registered as Sessions Case No. 97 of 1994. 5. On the Sessions Court having framed the charge against both the accused for the alleged offences under section 302, 201, 364, 365, 397, 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, the accused had denied the same and claimed to be tried. The trial was conducted against both the persons, however, as stated hereinabove, the accused no. 1-Arjan Sarman had expired at the initial stage of trial and therefore, the trial had stood abated qua him and had proceeded against respondent-accused No. 2 alone. 6. The prosecution to prove the charges levelled against the accused had examined as many as 20 witnesses and produced documentary evidence. 1-Arjan Sarman had expired at the initial stage of trial and therefore, the trial had stood abated qua him and had proceeded against respondent-accused No. 2 alone. 6. The prosecution to prove the charges levelled against the accused had examined as many as 20 witnesses and produced documentary evidence. The further statement of the respondent-accused was recorded under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. wherein he denied the allegations levelled against him and stated that he was falsely implicated in the case. The Sessions Court after appreciating the evidence on record acquitted the respondent-accused no. 2 from the charges levelled against him vide the aforesaid judgment and order, against which the State Government has preferred the present appeal. 7. Learned APP Ms. C.M. Shah appearing for the appellant-State has vehemently submitted that the findings recorded by the Sessions Court acquitting the respondent-accused are perverse, inasmuch as though there was sufficient evidence adduced by the prosecution, the same has not been appreciated by the Sessions Court in the right perspective. According to her, though some of the witnesses had turned hostile, the entire evidence of such witnesses should not have been discarded by the Sessions Court. In this regard, she has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shyamal Ghosh vs. State of West Bengal, (2012) 7 SCC 646 . Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. vs. Naresh and Others, 2011 Cri. L.J. 2162, she has submitted that the Sessions Court had failed to appreciate that FIR could not be an encyclopedia containing all the details of the alleged incident. According to her, when the complainant himself was not aware about the entire incident as to how his son was kidnapped and was not aware about his whereabouts, the complaint could not contain all the details of the incident in question, as also of the accused. The truck driver Ramabhai Ranabhai (PW-14), who had seen the accused Arjan Sarman with deceased Hamir and one another person on the alleged date, when the said Hamir was found missing, there was no reason to disbelieve his version, coupled with the evidence of Vanravan Devjibhai (PW-15), who had stated inter-alia that on the previous date of incident i.e. on 07.06.1994, two persons had come to stay in his guest house and one of them was Arjan Sarman Mer. She further submitted that the entire case of prosecution was dependent on the circumstantial evidence and therefore, the evidence of the witnesses, who had lastly seen the deceased Hamir alongwith accused would be very material and would provide the link in the chain of circumstances. Ms. Shah has also relied upon the evidence of Balubhai Bhagabhai (PW-10), in whose presence the discovery of tape-recorder and knife was allegedly made at the instance of respondent-accused no. 2. She has also relied upon the evidence of Paresh Anantrai (PW-12), in whose presence, the accused Arjan Sarman had shown the place, where the dead body of the deceased Hamir was found and the panchnama at Exh.35 was drawn. According to her, some lacunas in the investigation carried out by the Investigating Officer may not be treated as fatal to the case of prosecution. 8. Per contra, learned Advocate Ms. Urmila Desai appearing for the respondent-accused submitted that when the Sessions Court after appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution acquitted the respondent-accused by giving him benefit of doubt, the Court in appeal should not disturb the findings recorded by the Sessions Court, more particularly when there was no direct evidence worth the name against the respondent-accused. She also submitted that there was no evidence as regards involvement of the respondent- accused, nor was there any evidence as regards the motive of the respondent-accused to commit the alleged crime. The material witnesses, run the submission of Ms. Desai examined by the prosecution had turned hostile and not supported of case of the prosecution. The respondent accused was also not identified by any of the witnesses during the course of the trial, nor TI parade was conducted during the course of the investigation to establish the identity of the respondent-accused. 9. At the outset, it may be stated that the High Court has ample powers to re-appreciate the evidence appreciated by the Trial Court and come to its independent conclusion, nonetheless as per the settled legal position, the High Court should be slow in interfering with the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. Beneficial reference of the decisions in case of Chandrappa vs. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 in case of State of Goa vs. Sanjay Thakkar, (2007) 3 SCC 75 and in case of State of Rajasthan vs. Rama Niwas, (2010) 15 SCC 436 be made in this regard. 10. Beneficial reference of the decisions in case of Chandrappa vs. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 in case of State of Goa vs. Sanjay Thakkar, (2007) 3 SCC 75 and in case of State of Rajasthan vs. Rama Niwas, (2010) 15 SCC 436 be made in this regard. 10. The law as regards appreciation of evidence in the case based on circumstantial evidence is also well settled by the Supreme Court as back as in the year 1984, in case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 , in which the Supreme Court had laid down the following five golden principles to be kept in mind by the Courts while appreciating the circumstantial evidence: “1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must or should be and not merely ‘may be’ fully established. 2. The facts so established should be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt and 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. 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.” 11. Hence, keeping in mind, the aforestated legal position, let us broadly examine the evidence adduced by the prosecution. The prosecution had examined the complainant- Bhimabhai Varjangbhai at Exh.17. He had reiterated the contents of the complaint lodged by him. The said complaint was produced on record at Exh.78. Having regard to the evidence of complainant, it appears that his son Hamir having left the house at 8:00 a.m. on 08.06.1994, to ply the rickshaw, had not returned home till late night and therefore, he had gone for the search, however, his son could not be found. On the next date, he therefore had gone to village Kadegi and met one Nathabhai Rabari, who had informed him that Kariben wife of Nathabhai alongwith his son and daughter were dropped by Hamir in his rickshaw at village Kedegi on 08.06.1994. On the next date, he therefore had gone to village Kadegi and met one Nathabhai Rabari, who had informed him that Kariben wife of Nathabhai alongwith his son and daughter were dropped by Hamir in his rickshaw at village Kedegi on 08.06.1994. Thereafter, the complainant had gone to village Maiyari, where he was informed by one owner of Pan-shop that on 08.06.1994 at about 7:00 p.m. his son Hamir, Mer Arjan Sarman and one another unknown person had come in rickshaw to his pan-shop and had left after having pan. The complainant thereafter had gone to the temple of Narvai Mataji and had inquired from one person having tea cabin. He had informed the complainant that on 08.06.1994 at about 10:00 p.m. Arjan Sarman and one person belonging to Rabari community and one another unknown person had come to his tea cabin and had asked for the food, and thereafter, they all had left towards Madhavpur. According to the complainant, he had lodged the complaint against two persons, out of whom one was Arjan Sarman, however, the complainant did not remember the name of the other person. He had further stated that on the next day of his complaint, he was asked by the police officer to accompany him alongwith the said Arjan Samran, who had taken all of them to a secluded place, where the dead body of his son was found in decomposed condition. 12. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that though the complainant had named Arjanbhai, he did not remember the name of the other person, who was accompanying Arjanbhai on 08.06.1994. The PW-3 Sejiben Nathabhai and the PW-4 Kaliben Mulubhai who had travelled in the rickshaw of Hamir on 08.06.1994, had stated inter-alia that apart from Hamir, there were two other persons sitting in the rickshaw, however, they did not know their names. Both the witnesses were declared hostile. Similarly, the PW-5 Ranmal Bachu and the PW-6 Hardas Nebha, the shopkeepers, had also turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. None of them had identified the respondent-accused. The PW-9 Bhupendra Damji with whom the respondent-accused was working and before whom, the alleged confession was made by the respondent as regards the incident in question, had also turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. 13. Much Reliance was placed by learned APP Ms. None of them had identified the respondent-accused. The PW-9 Bhupendra Damji with whom the respondent-accused was working and before whom, the alleged confession was made by the respondent as regards the incident in question, had also turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. 13. Much Reliance was placed by learned APP Ms. Shah on the evidence of Ramabhai Ranabhai (PW-14), who had deposed at Exh.63 that on 08.06.1994, when he was standing on the road opposite Mango Market at Vanthali, he had seen the rickshaw of Hamir Bhimabhai driven by him and had also seen that Arjan Sarman Mer and Jiva Lila seated at the backside seat of the rickshaw. According to him, he had shouted at Hamir, however, he did not hear his shout as the tape recorder in the rickshaw was on. According to him, he had informed this fact to the complainant-Bhimabhai and thereafter, the said Bhimabhai had lodged complaint before the police. In his cross-examination, the said witness had adhered to his version stated by him in the examination-in-chief. However, it is pertinent to note that he was not shown the respondent-accused in the Court to establish that the person sitting with Arjan Sarman in the rickshaw of Hamir was the same Jiva Lila, he had seen him on the date of incident i.e. on 08.06.1994. Another material aspect is that though according to Ramabhai Ranabhai (PW-14) he had informed complainant-Bhimabhai about the said incident of he having seen the said three persons and thereafter, the complainant Bhimabhai having lodged the complaint, the name of respondent-accused was not given by the complainant-Bhimabhai in the his complaint. 14. Thus, there was hardly any cogent evidence adduced by the prosecution to establish nexus of the respondent-accused with the alleged crime. As stated earlier, the said Ramabhai Ranabhai (PW-14) was not shown the respondent-accused in the Court for his identification, nor his name was given by the complainant in the complaint, though according to Ramabhai Ranabhai (PW-14), he had given the name of Jiva Lila to the complainant-Bhimabhai before the complainant was lodged by him. Under the circumstances, the very identity of the respondent being not duly established, it is risky to convict the respondent-accused on such sketchy evidence adduced by the prosecution. The prosecution had miserable failed to establish the chain of circumstances to unerringly point to the guilt of the respondent accused. Under the circumstances, the very identity of the respondent being not duly established, it is risky to convict the respondent-accused on such sketchy evidence adduced by the prosecution. The prosecution had miserable failed to establish the chain of circumstances to unerringly point to the guilt of the respondent accused. In that view of the matter, it could not be said that the findings recorded by the Sessions Court are perverse, more particularly when the main accused No. 1-Arjan Sarman has already expired and there was hardly any evidence to connect the present respondent-accused No. 2 with the alleged crime. 15. The Court therefore does not find any substance in the present appeal. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge, Junagadh on 28.02.1997 in Sessions Case No. 97/1994 is hereby confirmed. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. R&P be sent back.