JUDGMENT Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, C.J. - Aggrieved by the acquittal of Mohan Ram, (the accused-respondent herein), by judgment dated 15.10.2019, passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Chamoli, in Sessions Trial No. 4 of 2016, the State has filed the present appeal before this Court. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 14.12.2015, Dinesh Ram (P.W.1) lodged a written report (Ex. Ka 4), before the SHO, Police Station-Chamoli, wherein he claimed that his brother-Bharat Lal (the deceased) used to work as a labourer at Joshimath. Yesterday, on 13.12.2015, around 07:30 P.M., he met his brother, along with Vikram Lal, Churi Lal, Jaspal Lal, and Tula Ram. These persons were travelling with Mohan Ram in Mohan Ram's truck. The truck number of the accused, Mohan Ram, is UA-07-4787. At the time of meeting, his brother told him that he is going to their village. At that time, the complainant left for Village Narangi for attending a marriage. He further claimed that at night, he came back to his house. But his brother did not come back to their house. He further claimed that, since his uncle's house is on the way to his house, he thought that perhaps his brother has stayed at his uncle's house. In the morning, on 14.12.2015, a Member of the Zila Panchayat, namely, Guddu Lal, informed him that there is a body of an unknown person lying dead on the road. He further told that him perhaps, it is his brother. Therefore, the complainant went to the place, where the dead-body was lying; he discovered that it was, indeed, the body of his brother. The complainant suspected that his brother has been killed by Vikram Lal, Churi Lal, Jaspal Lal, and Tula Ram. 3. On the basis of this written report (Ex. Ka 4), a formal FIR, being FIR No. 20 of 2015, (Ex. Ka 11) was registered against Vikram Lal, Churi Lal, Jaspal Lal, Tula Ram and Mohan Ram for offences under Section 302 read with Section 34, and Section 201 of IPC. The investigation commenced. 4. After completing the investigation, however, the police filed a charge-sheet only against Mohan Ram, and arrayed Vikram Lal, Churi Lal, Jaspal Lal, Tula Ram as eye-witnesses. 5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined eleven witnesses, submitted twenty-six documents, and produced twelve material objects. The investigation commenced. 4. After completing the investigation, however, the police filed a charge-sheet only against Mohan Ram, and arrayed Vikram Lal, Churi Lal, Jaspal Lal, Tula Ram as eye-witnesses. 5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined eleven witnesses, submitted twenty-six documents, and produced twelve material objects. However, the defense neither examined any witness, nor submitted any document. 6. After assessing the evidence, produced by the prosecution, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused, Mohan Ram, by its judgment dated 15.10.2019. Hence, the present appeal before this Court. 7. Mr. Jagjit Singh Virk, the learned Deputy Advocate General, has raised the following contentions before this Court:- Firstly, despite the fact that this case is based on the direct evidence, and in spite of the fact that the prosecution has produced Jaspal Lal (P.W. 2), Vikram Lal (P.W.3), Churi Lal (P.W.5) and Tula Ram (P.W. 7) as the eye-witnesses, the learned Trial Court has erroneously acquitted the accused. Secondly, Dr. Gautam Naithani (P.W.9) had proven the Post-Mortem Report (Exhibit Ka-9). He had clearly established the fact that Bharat Lal had died a homicidal death. But despite these overwhelming direct evidence, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the accused. Lastly, the prosecution has also established that a mobile phone belonging to the deceased, and a blood-stained sweater were recovered at the instance of the accused. However, even these corroborative pieces of evidence have been ignored by the learned trial Court. Therefore, the acquittal order deserves to be set aside by this Court. In fact, accused Mohan Ram deserves to be convicted for the aforementioned offense. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Milind Raj, the learned counsel for the accused, has raised the following counter-arguments:- Firstly, the scope of interference with an acquittal order is extremely limited. An acquittal order can be set aside, if it were perverse. The perversity would emanate from the fact that the learned Trial Court has either ignored an evidence, which is readily available on record, or has based its reasoning on conjectures and surmises, or has misapplied the law. However, in the present case, none of these factors exist. Therefore, the judgment is not a perverse one. Hence, it should not be disturbed lightly. Secondly, the learned Trial Court, in fact, has critically analyzed the evidence. It has validly concluded that the prosecution case is replete with gaping holes. However, in the present case, none of these factors exist. Therefore, the judgment is not a perverse one. Hence, it should not be disturbed lightly. Secondly, the learned Trial Court, in fact, has critically analyzed the evidence. It has validly concluded that the prosecution case is replete with gaping holes. Even the genesis of the case is unknown. Therefore, the learned Trial Court is legally justified in concluding that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond a shadow of doubt. Since the case is based on direct evidence, it was the duty of the prosecution to establish its case to a hilt. Since, the prosecution has failed to do so, the learned Trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused, Mohan Ram. Lastly, all the four eye-witnesses, namely, Jaspal Lal (P.W. 2), Vikram Lal (P.W.3), Churi Lal (P.W.5) and Tula Ram (P.W. 7), were, in fact, named as accused in the FIR itself by complainant Dinesh Ram (P.W.1). But for the reasons best known to the Investigating Agency, these four persons, who were named as accused, were never charge-sheeted by the police. Instead, they have been converted into eye-witnesses. But they are not approvers. Since they maintained a studied silence about the incident for almost a month, their testimony cannot be believed. Hence, the learned Trial Court was justified in rejecting their testimony, and in acquitting accused, Mohan Ram. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, examined the record, and perused the impugned judgment. 10. There are certain established principles with regard to the jurisdiction of the High Court while dealing with an acquittal order. In the case of Sampat Babso Kale v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 4 SCC 739 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the principles with regard to the powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against an acquittal order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:- 8. With regard to the powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal, the law is well established that the presumption of innocence which is attached to every accused person gets strengthened when such an accused is acquitted by the trial court and the High Court should not lightly interfere with the decision of the trial court which has recorded the evidence and observed the demeanour of witnesses. This Court in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 , laid down the following principles: (SCC p. 432, para 42) "42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate 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. 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." 11. In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Naresh, (2009) 9 SCC 368 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court opined that "an order of acquittal should not be lightly interfered with even if the court believes that there are some evidence pointing out the finger towards the accused". 12. These principles have recently been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anwar Ali & another v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2020) 10 SCC 166 . 12. These principles have recently been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anwar Ali & another v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2020) 10 SCC 166 . Therefore, these settled principles of criminal jurisprudence would have to be kept in mind while examining the legality or illegality of the impugned judgment. 13. Interestingly, in the present case, Jaspal Lal (P.W. 2), Vikram Lal (P.W.3), Churi Lal (P.W.5) and Tula Ram (P.W. 7) were named as accused persons in the FIR by Dinesh Ram (P.W. 1). According to Dinesh Ram (P.W. 1), he suspected that all these four persons, along with accused, Mohan Ram, had committed the murder of his brother, Bharat Lal. Yet without any valid reason, these four persons have been transformed from being the named accused to being eye-witnesses. Admittedly, these four persons were accompanying the deceased Bharat Lal and were travelling with the accused. 14. These four persons were examined as eye-witnesses. Yet all of them admit that they maintained a studied silence about the incident for over two weeks to almost a month. The only explanation given by them is that, since they were threatened by Mohan Ram that he would finish them also, they kept quiet. Despite the fact that they belonged to the same village as Bharat Lal's, they neither informed Bharat Lal's family, nor informed their own family members, nor informed the police that they had witnessed the alleged murder of Bharat Lal. Their inexplicable silence creates a great doubt about the veracity of their testimonies. 15. In the case of State of Orissa vs. Mr. Brahmananda Nanda, (1976) CriLJ 1985 (S.C.), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly opined that in a murder case, if an eye-witness maintains a studied silence for a long time and does not report the case either to the family of the deceased, or to the police, then the testimony of such a witness cannot be believed. 16. In the case of Shahid Khan vs. State of Rajasthan, (2016) 4 SCC 96 , the Hon'ble Apex Court had doubted the veracity of the testimony of those eye-witnesses, who had not spoken about the incident for three days. Moreover, since there was a delay in recording their statement, the Hon'ble Apex Court had doubted, whether these witnesses were actually eye-witnesses or not. The same principle would apply to the present case. Moreover, since there was a delay in recording their statement, the Hon'ble Apex Court had doubted, whether these witnesses were actually eye-witnesses or not. The same principle would apply to the present case. For, according to the alleged four eye-witnesses, their statements were not recorded by the police for over two weeks to one month. Hence, it is highly doubtful whether these alleged eye-witnesses are really eye-witnesses or not. 17. Moreover, their conduct at the time of the alleged incident is equally unbelievable. For, these four witnesses would have the Court believed that as soon as they saw Mohan Ram slapping Bharat Lal, they rushed to his rescue. Yet, four of them neither tried to over-power Mohan Ram, nor tried to separate him from Bharat Lal. Considering the fact that Mohan Ram was out-numbered, there is no reason whatsoever that he could not be overpowered by these persons. Yet these four persons pretend that they stood as mute witnesses to a murder. Therefore, their conduct is highly doubtful. Hence, the learned Trial Court was justified in concluding that their presence at the scene of the crime is doubtful. 18. Since the very presence of the alleged eye-witnesses is doubtful, the prosecution has failed to establish the genesis of the case. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish its case against Mohan Ram beyond a reasonable doubt. 19. Even the place where the dead-body was discovered is shrouded in mystery. For, according to the Inquest Report itself (Ex. Ka 1), the dead-body was found hanging on a slope. Yet, according to Dinesh Ram (P.W. 1), when he reached the spot, he found that the dead-body of his brother was buried under stones. Thus, the place and the condition, in which the dead-body was recovered is enigmatic. 20. Moreover, even the medical evidence is on shaky grounds. For, according to Dr. Gautam Naithani (P.W.9), at the time of conducting the post-mortem, he could not give a definite opinion with regard to the cause of death. Therefore, he had taken the viscera, and sent it for analysis to the FSL. However, subsequently, he claimed that the cause of death was the injuries caused to the brain, and the deceased had died in Coma. In case, the death was caused by the injuries to the brain, it would have been rather obvious to the Doctor while conducting the post-mortem. However, subsequently, he claimed that the cause of death was the injuries caused to the brain, and the deceased had died in Coma. In case, the death was caused by the injuries to the brain, it would have been rather obvious to the Doctor while conducting the post-mortem. Yet, Doctor Gautam Naithani (P.W. 9) has clearly admitted that the cause of death was unknown at the time of conducting the post-mortem. 21. Although the prosecution claims that it had recovered a cell-phone allegedly belonging to the deceased and a blood-stained sweater at the instance of the accused, but even these recoveries do not connect the accused to the crime. For, the cell-phone allegedly belonging to the deceased has never been identified by Dinesh Ram (P.W.1), the brother of the deceased. The said cell-phone was never subjected to a test identification parade. Moreover, there is not an iota of evidence produced by the prosecution proving the fact that the said cell phone actually belonged to the deceased. Neither the last location of the cell-phone, nor call details of the cell-phone have been produced by the prosecution. Therefore, mere recovery of a cell-phone, at the instance of the accused, does not necessarily connect the accused to the alleged crime. 22. Even the FSL report with regard to the blood-stained sweater merely mentions that "human blood" was recovered. It is nowhere mentioned therein as to whose blood it was, whether it was the blood of the deceased, or of the accused, or of someone else? Therefore, the recovery cannot be said to be a cogent and convincing evidence, which would connect the accused to the alleged offence. 23. Thus, admittedly, the prosecution case is replete with lacunae. Thus, the learned Trial Court was legally justified in acquitting accused-Mohan Ram. 24. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment. The appeal, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.