JUDGMENT : BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by Smt. Ram Shree who is complaining against the acquittal order dated 3 December 2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Pilibhit in Sessions Trial No. 588 of 2009 arising out of Case Crime No. 675 of 2009 (State vs. Bhai Lal), under Section 302 read with Sections 34 and 201 I.P.C. Police Station Bilsanda, District Pilibhit. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that accused Bhai Lal had given an application to Police Station Bilsanda on 25 June 2009 mentioning therein that he had married his daughter Sunita with Bharat Lal. She had one child from that wedlock and she died. Thereafter, he married his second daughter, namely, Surja Devi with Bharat Lal. Bhai Lal had asked him to send Surja Devi to his house 7-8 days prior from the date of occurrence of the incident but Surja Devi denied to go there. Bharat Lal had left the house and he consumed poison due to which he died in Gauhaniya and his dead-body was found hanging from a pakad tree. The local police reached the spot and the dead-body was taken into custody. Panchayatnama was done and the body was sent for post mortem. After post mortem Case Crime No. 675 of 2009 under Section 302 I.P.C. was lodged on 27 June 2009 and the investigation started. The mother of the deceased Bharat Lal filed an application on 27 June 2009, addressed to Police Station, Bilsanda, wherein she had mentioned that her son was married in Village Navdiya Marauri, with the daughter of Bhai Lal. She has four year old child and her daughter, Sunita died prior to three years after her death. The younger sister of Sunita was married to Bharat Lal. Surja Devi was studying in Class-VII. She used to come to the house of Smt. Ram Shree. Surja Devi had gone to the house of her father prior to 10 days. Bharat Lal had gone to take her on Wednesday 24 June 2009. The body of Bharat Lal was found in village Firsa Pastaur at road side on 25 June 2009. She went to the place of occurrence. The panchayat nama was conducted. She further stated that she suspected that Bhai Lal and Surja Devi together killed her son. Bharat Lal had gone to take her on Wednesday 24 June 2009. The body of Bharat Lal was found in village Firsa Pastaur at road side on 25 June 2009. She went to the place of occurrence. The panchayat nama was conducted. She further stated that she suspected that Bhai Lal and Surja Devi together killed her son. She had further stated that Bharat Lal had no good relation with Surja Devi. Surja Devi usually would live in her village. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against Bhai Lal and Surja Devi under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. 3. The Court summoned the accused, the charges were framed for the offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 201 I.P.C. The accused denied the charges. The prosecution side led the evidences of PW-1 Ram Shree, PW-2 HCP Siyaram Rathaur, PW-3 Phoolchandra, PW-4 Smt. Reshma Devi, PW-5 Shankar Lal, PW-6 S.I. Bhoopal Singh and PW-7 Dr. S.P. Singh. 4. PW-1 stated in her statement in examination in chief that Bharat Lal was her son in law and he was married to Sunita Devi earlier but after death of Sunita Devi he was married to her younger daughter Surja Devi. Surja Devi was not happy with Bharat Lal and she did not care of him, due to which there was quarrelsome and bitter atmosphere in the house, and she usually resided in her father's house. Bharat Lal had gone to take back Surja Devi but she refused and did not return. Bharat Lal and the accused quarreled throughout night. Bharat Lal was not given food and his dead-body was found, accused had murdered him. She lodged the F.I.R. through Ram Kishan who had submitted the written application (tahreer). 5. PW-2 HCP Siyaram Rathaur admitted that he lodged the report on the basis of the complaint. PW-3 Phoolchandra and PW-4 Smt. Reshma Devi were declared hostile, they did not support the prosecution version. PW-5 Shankar Lal has supported the prosecution version stating that he was going to Bilsanda Market on a bicycle and on reaching Gauhaniya, at the place of occurrence, near a pakad tree, at 10 a.m. he saw that the deceased Bharat Lal was lying on the ground and his bicycle was lying nearby. Surja Devi was pressing the chest of Bharat Lal and Bhai Lal was pressing the neck. Surja Devi was pressing the chest of Bharat Lal and Bhai Lal was pressing the neck. He saw the said incident for two minutes and thereafter went to Bilsanda Market. When he came back to the same place about 3 p.m. he saw that there was crowd, but, Bharat Lal and Surja Devi were not present. Bharat Lal was lying on the earth. After two months from the date of occurrence of the incident, he had informed about the incident to Ram Shree and she informed the police. He was summoned by police after a month thereafter when he told the story to Ram Shree. PW-6 S.I. Bhoopal Singh conducted the panchayatnama and he was examined. PW-7 Dr. S.P. Singh was also examined who stated that he did the post mortem on 26 June 2009 at 4 p.m. The body was 1½ days old, injuries found on the body of Bharat Lal follows as under: (i) Multiple abraded contusions (15). The sizes of ranged from 1.5 cm x 1.0 cm to 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm. These injuries were present on chin, cheek and right portion of the forehead and raised part of the bone under the eyes in an area of 15 cm x 9 cm. (ii) Three abrasions were found on the left cheek of the deceased. Their sizes ranging respectively from 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm to 0.5 cm x 4.00 cm. All these three abraisons were in an area of 6 cm x 4 cm. (iii) Multiple abraded contusions were present on the membrane of the lips of the deceased. Their sizes ranged from 0.4 cm x 01 cm to 0.3 cm x 02 cm. (iv) An abrasion measuring 3.5 cm x 1.5 cm was found on the posterior portion of the right elbow of the deceased. (v) An abraision measuring 2.5. cm x 1.0 cm was present on medial aspect of the left elbow of the deceased. (vi) Whole front of the neck was swollen. Size 5.5. cm x 6.0 cm. 6. The doctor had given opinion that the cause of death was asphyxia, a result of throttling and smothering. PW-8 Smt. Shanti Devi and PW-9 Sarla Devi were also declared hostile and did not support the prosecution case. 7. (vi) Whole front of the neck was swollen. Size 5.5. cm x 6.0 cm. 6. The doctor had given opinion that the cause of death was asphyxia, a result of throttling and smothering. PW-8 Smt. Shanti Devi and PW-9 Sarla Devi were also declared hostile and did not support the prosecution case. 7. After evidence of prosecution the accused were afforded opportunity under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused had stated that Ram Shree, the complainant is the mother of the deceased, and Shankar Lal, PW-5, is the maternal uncle. Both the witnesses had given false statements to implicate the accused falsely. He further stated that the information of death was given by him first to the police station. The accused had got summoned the application dated 25 June 2009 from the police station. Ram Shree has stated in her statement that she had given application on 27 June 2009 after three days of the date of incident that Surja Devi and her father Bhai Lal had killed her son Bharat Lal. Surja Devi had no good relation and she usually lived in her parental house. She had further stated that she did not see the occurrence and she had nominated the accused. 8. PW-5 was examined before the Court and the same fact was reiterated by him in examination in chief. In cross-examination he admitted that Ram Shree, the complainant, is the sister and Bharat Lal, the deceased was the son of his sister thus his Bhanja. The Court was of the opinion that the conduct and behaviour of PW-5 was unusual, he did not make any protest at the time of incident when he saw that his bhanja was being killed by the accused., rather he proceeded to Bilsanda Market. PW-5 did not inform his sister for three months, thus, his testimony was totally discarded. The Court has further mentioned that Shankar Lal, the PW-5 has stated that he stopped for two minutes in front of the body of his bhanja Bharat Lal who was lying on the road. He then went to Bilsanda Market and thereafter again came to the place of occurrence where he saw that the body of his bhanja was lying on the road. He mentioned that he came back to his house because his son was ill. He remained in his village throughout the night. He then went to Bilsanda Market and thereafter again came to the place of occurrence where he saw that the body of his bhanja was lying on the road. He mentioned that he came back to his house because his son was ill. He remained in his village throughout the night. He admitted before the Court that he had gone for the last rites of his bhanja, but did not inform about the incident to his sister Ram Shree. He had also gone for dashwan. After three months of the incident he had gone to the police station and his statement was recorded. The Court was of the opinion that it is unnatural that a close relative PW-5 had not disclosed the death of his bhanja to his sister Ram Shree for three months. The statement of PW-5 is an after thought upon consultation and legal advice which was unreliable. Ram Shree in the cross-examination stated that she had reached the spot of occurrence at 12 noon and Shankar Lal (PW-5) was her real brother. She further stated that she had told Shankar Lal about the death of her son and Shankar Lal accompanied her to the police station. Shankar Lal mentioned that he got the information of the death of the deceased from his sister Ram Shree and had accompanied her to the police station, thus contradicting his statement of being occular witness. In the F.I.R. Ram Shree had not mentioned that Shankar Lal had seen the occurrence. 9. We have heard, Sri. S.K. Chaubey, learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Sri. Apul Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents as also perused the record. 10. After going through the entire case only one prosecution witness Shankar Lal, PW-5 has tried to support the prosecution version. The statement of Shankar Lal is to be analysed in the perspective of the overall prosecution case and inference is to be drawn from the circumstances and circumstantial evidence whether he was present on the spot or not. 11. In cross-examination he has admitted that Ram Shree (PW-1), the complainant, is his sister and Bharat Lal, the deceased was the son of his sister, thus, the deceased was his Bhanja (nephew). 11. In cross-examination he has admitted that Ram Shree (PW-1), the complainant, is his sister and Bharat Lal, the deceased was the son of his sister, thus, the deceased was his Bhanja (nephew). He did not make any protest nor enquired when he saw that his bhanja was being subjected to assault by pressing his neck and chest by the accused. He rather proceeded to Bilsanda Market. The incident according to him is of 10 a.m. Thereafter, he again came to the place of occurrence at 3 p.m. and saw that the body of his bhanja was lying on the road. He came back to his house because his son was ill. He remained to his village throughout night. He deposed before the Court that he had gone for last rites of his bhanja, but did not inform about the incident to his sister Ram Shree. He had also gone for dashwan. After three months of the date of occurrence he had gone to the police station and his statement was recorded. It is unnatural that for three months he did not disclose the incident to his sister Ram Shree. In contradiction case as stated by PW-5 is an after thought because the statement had been recorded by the police after three months. Lastly, it is noted that Ram Shree deposed statement in that she reached the spot of occurrence at 12 noon Shankar Lal her real brother accompanied her to the police station Shankar Lal had not informed her of the incident about the death of her son. In contradiction, Shankar lal deposed that he got the information of the death of his nephew from his sister Ram Shree and had gone along with her to lodge report at the police station. In the F.I.R. Ram Shree had not mentioned that Shankar lal had seen the incident. 12. There is no other prosecution evidence which supports the case. The testimony of PW-5 is wholly unreliable, being an outcome of after thought, consultation and legal advice. 13. While dealing with the scope of the appellate court a Division Bench of this Court in State of U.P. vs. Surendra Singh [Government Appeal No. 511 of 2019, decided on 20 January 2020] observed as under: “12. In Sudershan Kumar vs. State of Himachal, (2014) 15 SCC 666 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus: “31. 13. While dealing with the scope of the appellate court a Division Bench of this Court in State of U.P. vs. Surendra Singh [Government Appeal No. 511 of 2019, decided on 20 January 2020] observed as under: “12. In Sudershan Kumar vs. State of Himachal, (2014) 15 SCC 666 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus: “31. It has been stated and restated that a cardinal principle in criminal jurisprudence that presumption of innocence of the accused is reinforced by an order of the acquittal. The appellate court, in such a case, would interfere only for very substantial and compelling reason. There is plethora of case laws on this proposition and we need not burden this judgment by referring to those decisions. Our purpose would be served by referring to one reasoned pronouncement entitled Dhanapal vs. State which is the judgment where most of the earlier decisions laying down the aforesaid principle are referred to. In Para 37, propositions laid down in an earlier case are taken note of as under: “37. In Chandrappa vs. State of Karnataka, this Court held: (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. (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.” 32. Thereafter, in Para-39, the Court curled out five principles and we would like to reproduce the said Para hereunder: “39. The following principles emerge from the cases above: 1. The accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. The accused possessed this presumption when he was before the trial court. The trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is innocent. 2. The power of reviewing evidence is wide and the appellate court can re-appreciate the entire evidence on record. It can review the trial court's conclusion with respect to both facts and law, but the Appellate Court must give due weight and consideration to the decision of the trial court. 3. The appellate court should always keep in mind that the trial court had the distinct advantage of watching the demeanour of the witnesses. The trial court is in a better position to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses. 4. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has “very substantial and compelling reasons” for doing so. 5. If two reasonable or possible views can be reached - one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction - the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused.” 13. In Dilawar Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2015) 1 SCC 737 , the Supreme Court reiterated the same in paragraphs 36 and 37 as under: “36. The court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach is vitiated by manifest illegality. In Dilawar Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2015) 1 SCC 737 , the Supreme Court reiterated the same in paragraphs 36 and 37 as under: “36. The court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach is vitiated by manifest illegality. In an appeal against acquittal, this Court will not interfere with an order of acquittal merely because on the evaluation of the evidence, a different plausible view may arise and views taken by the courts below is not correct. In other words, this Court must come to the conclusion that the views taken by the learned courts below, while acquitting, cannot be the views of a reasonable person on the material on record. 36. In Chandrappa vs. State of Karnataka, the scope of power of appellate court dealing with an appeal against acquittal has been considered and this Court held as under: (SCC p.432 Para 42) “42......(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.” Unless there are substantial and compelling reasons, the order of acquittal is not required to be reversed in appeal. It has been so stated in State of Rajasthan vs. Shera Ram.” 14. In view of the aforesaid factual backdrop, we are of the opinion that the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed at the admission stage.