JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri Ram Kumar Pal, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Kailash Prakash Pathak, learned AGA representing the State and also perused the record. 2. Present criminal appeal has been filed challenging the judgement and order of acquittal dated 15.10.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Kanpur Nagar in Session Trial No.601 of 2003 (State vs. Kulveer Singh), arising out of Case Crime No.77/2000, under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Naubasta, District Kanpur Nagar by which the learned trial Judge has acquitted the accused-respondents Kulveer Singh and Vasudev from the charges of Sections 302, 201 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act. 3. Before coming to the merits of the case, it is imperative to give brief facts of the case which have given rise to the present appeal. PROSECUTION STORY : 4. Sum and substance of prosecution case mentioned in the F.I.R., which is based on conjectures, surmises and self-belief, that accused-respondents have committed this offence against the husband of the informant. Though from the F.I.R. it is clear that this is not a case of direct evidence but the deceased was missing since 07.01.2000 and his dead body was recovered on 22.01.2020 in a drain near Hamirpur Road Daskuwa. After getting this information, the informant reached to that place and identified the dead body. In the F.I.R. it has been mentioned that the informant has firm faith that the author of the offence are Kulveer, Kayamuddin and Vasudev are the real culprits. They used to snatch away the money from the deceased. It is also born out from the record that the deceased has taken Rs.5000/-as loan from the accused-respondents and they were insisting to repay that amount and on this score the present F.I.R. was lodged. The date and time of lodging of the F.I.R. is 25.01.2000 at 14.20 hours and it was registered as Case Crime No.77/2000, u/s 302/201 I.P.C. at Police Station Naubasta, Kanpur Nagar. 5. Inquest report was prepared on 22.01.2000. From the dead body, a pass-book of Punjab Sindh Bank and a spectacles were recovered. Thereafter the autopsy of the dead body was conducted on 23.01.2000 at around 01.30 P.M. by Dr. 5. Inquest report was prepared on 22.01.2000. From the dead body, a pass-book of Punjab Sindh Bank and a spectacles were recovered. Thereafter the autopsy of the dead body was conducted on 23.01.2000 at around 01.30 P.M. by Dr. Satish Chandra, K.P.M. Hospital, who found three injuries over the deceased, viz, (i) bruise contusion with swelling over the left ear in front of the neck, (ii) bruise contusion in front of the neck and (iii) bruise contusion in front of the chest and just below the injury no.(ii). Brain was found congested and heart was empty. Doctor has opined that expected time of occurrence is about one week back from the said recovery, by strangulating the neck of the deceased. 6. After holding in-depth probe into the matter, whereby the police has recorded statements of as many as 10 witnesses, charge sheet has been submitted by the police on 27.07.2001 against accused Kulveer Singh, Vasudev and Kayum @ Kayamuddin u/s 302, 201 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act. Since all the offences are triable by the sessions, therefore, matter was committed to the session court for trial. Curiously enough the charges were also framed under the same sections against the accused-respondents. 7. In order to establish the case, prosecution has produced as many as 11 witnesses in the court for examination, namely; (i) Smt. Munni Devi, wife of the deceased and informant of the case as PW-1, (ii) Sachin Kumar as P.W.-2, (iii) Sushma as P.W.-3, (iv) Smt. Meena as P.W.-4, (v) Dr. Satish Chandra as P.W.-5, (vi) Head constable 143 Mauji Lal Mishra as P.W.-6, (vii) P.C. Mishra, Investigating Officer as P.W.-7, (viii) Shyamakant Tripathi, Investigating Officer as P.W.-8, (ix) B.N. Chaturvedi, Investigating Officer as P.W.-9, (x) Balvir Singh Chandel as P.W.-10 and (xi) H.C.1020 Mahavir Singh- P.W.-11. 8. In addition to this, prosecution has produced 10 documents which were exhibited during the trial as under : (i) Tehrir as Ex. Ka-1, (ii) Letter sent by the deceased Ramesh Kumar to Senior Electricity Divisional Engineer as Ex. Ka-2, (iii) Postmortem report as as Ex. Ka-3, (iv) Chik F.I.R. as Ex. Ka-4, (v) Copy of G.d. as Ex. Ka-5, (vi) Report regarding destroyed G.D. as Ex. Ka-6, (vii) Site Plan as Ex. Ka-7, (viii) Charge sheet as Ex. Ka-8 (ix) Panchayatnama as Ex. Ka-9 and (x) Recovery of Pass Book and Spectacles as Ex. Ka-10. 9. Ka-2, (iii) Postmortem report as as Ex. Ka-3, (iv) Chik F.I.R. as Ex. Ka-4, (v) Copy of G.d. as Ex. Ka-5, (vi) Report regarding destroyed G.D. as Ex. Ka-6, (vii) Site Plan as Ex. Ka-7, (viii) Charge sheet as Ex. Ka-8 (ix) Panchayatnama as Ex. Ka-9 and (x) Recovery of Pass Book and Spectacles as Ex. Ka-10. 9. Learned Trial Judge after recording the statements of all witnesses and looking into the matter, eventually landed to the conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish own case or involvement of accused persons beyond any iota of doubt and consequently giving the benefit of doubt exonerated the accused persons from the charges u/s 302, 201 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act. TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES 10. The Court has got occasion to peruse and analyze the testimonies of these witnesses of facts. It is necessary to have a fleeting glance on the relevant testimonies recorded during trial. 11. In order to establish the case, prosecution produced four witnesses of fact, namely Smt. Munni Devi, informant of the case who has been examined as P.W.-1, Sachin Kumar as P.W.-2, Sushma as P.W.-3 and Smt. Meena as P.W.-4. From perusal of testimony of Smt. Munni Devi (P.W.-1) indicates that she in her testimony states that her husband was working as Fitter in Electric Loco-shed Anwarganj and Kulveer Singh, Kayamuddin and Vasdev used to snatch money from him when he used to receive his salary. Not only this, her husband has taken Rs.5000/-as loan from Kulveer Singh and these persons were insisting to repay the entire loan amount. They have overpowered the deceased and wanted to have his signature over the pay slip. On 7.1.2000 her husband went to attend the duty and since then his whereabouts was not known. She along with her son kept on searching her husband without complaining to any authority. A tangent expression was made on 14.01.2000 that her husband came along with Kayamuddin and Kulveer to C.H.O. Cooperative Bank, Govind Nagar and it was given to understand that thereafter her husband was disappeared. Eventually on 22.01.2000 the informant got an information that a dead body was lying in an abundant condition near Dasu Kuwa (Naubasta) and was taken to the mortuary. At mortuary she identified the dead body as her husband. Eventually on 22.01.2000 the informant got an information that a dead body was lying in an abundant condition near Dasu Kuwa (Naubasta) and was taken to the mortuary. At mortuary she identified the dead body as her husband. She further states that she has all reasons to believe that on account of loan amount Kulveer, Kayamuddin and Vasdev have jointly assassinated her husband, of which on 25.01.2000 F.I.R. was registered. She also states in her testimony that all three persons used to visit the place of her husband quite frequently and all of them have very congenial relationship. Under circumstances, a million dollar question arises as to why since 7.01.2000 to 22.01.2000 no action was taken by the informant. P.W.-2 Sachin almost reiterated the prosecution version toing the line of P.W.-1, except that he too has seen the deceased while going from Kath Ka Pul on 7.1.2000. P.W.-3 Smt. Sushma and P.W.-4 Smt. Meena more or less have supported the prosecution story. 12. After assessing the entire gamut of the facts and circumstances, learned Trial Judge has arrived at the conclusion that there is no material on record to persuade him to convict the named accused persons for the charges framed against them. It was found that sum and substance of entire case hinges upon the broken links of circumstantial evidence and unit of the circumstances is not complete so as to hold the accused persons guilty, beyond any iota of doubt. He found that there is no tangible last seen evidence and the doctor, who conducted the autopsy on 23.1.2000, has opined that duration of death of the deceased is one week back that too do not corroborate the time and date of the incident. After evaluating and analyzing the entire circumstances and the material on record, the court below found that standard norms established for assessing the circumstances have not been achieved by the prosecution and the court below, therefore, has exonerated the accused-respondents from the charges u/s 302, 201 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act. 13. Our criminal justice dispensation system is solely dependent upon the testimonies of witnesses and when from the above mentioned testimonies it clearly comes out that none of the prosecution witnesses have proved the prosecution case beyond all reasonable doubt, then the conclusion arrived at by learned Trial Judge seems to be the more probable conclusion. 14. 13. Our criminal justice dispensation system is solely dependent upon the testimonies of witnesses and when from the above mentioned testimonies it clearly comes out that none of the prosecution witnesses have proved the prosecution case beyond all reasonable doubt, then the conclusion arrived at by learned Trial Judge seems to be the more probable conclusion. 14. However, learned counsel for the appellant has tried to assail the impugned judgement by making a mention that learned trial Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence produced by the prosecution and decided the case on conjectures and surmises. He further submits that learned Trial Judge has grossly erred in disbelieving the testimony of prosecution witnesses and has given an undue importance to the version of defence. Learned Trial Judge has also not weighed and assess the prosecution witnesses in proper and perspective manner and erroneously has acquitted the accused-respondents. LEGAL DISCUSSION : 15. The Court has got occasion to lay its hands on the latest judgements relating to scope and ambit of Sections 378 and 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which speak about appeal against acquittal. 16. In the case of Rajesh Prasad vs. State of Bihar and another, (2022) 3 SCC 471 , while thrashing the earlier judgements, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under : "24. In Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade vs. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793 , Krishna Iyer, J., observed as follows: "6. ….. In short, our jurisprudential enthusiasm for presumed innocence must be moderated by the pragmatic need to make criminal justice potent and realistic. A balance has to be struck between chasing chance possibilities as good enough to set the delinquent free and chopping the logic of preponderant probability to punish marginal innocents." 25. This Court in Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat, (1996) 9 SCC 225 , spoke about the approach of the appellate court while considering an appeal against an order acquitting the accused and stated as follows: "7. ….. While sitting in judgment over an acquittal the appellate court is first required to seek an answer to the question whether the findings of the trial court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. If the appellate court answers the above question in the negative the order of acquittal is not to be disturbed. ….. While sitting in judgment over an acquittal the appellate court is first required to seek an answer to the question whether the findings of the trial court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. If the appellate court answers the above question in the negative the order of acquittal is not to be disturbed. Conversely, if the appellate court holds, for reasons to be recorded, that the order of acquittal cannot at all be sustained in view of any of the above infirmities it can then and then only reappraise the evidence to arrive at its own conclusions." The object and the purpose of the aforesaid approach is to ensure that there is no miscarriage of justice. In another words, there should not be an acquittal of the guilty or a conviction of an innocent person. 29. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court culled out the following general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal in the following words: (Chandrappa vs. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415 ) : "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. (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." 17. Similarly in Bannareddy and others vs. State of Karnataka and others, (2018) 5 SCC 790 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to discuss the scope of the High Court to interfere in an appeal against an order of acquittal passed by a Trial Court, and in paragraph10 it has been held that : "10. Before we proceed further to peruse the finding of the High Court, it is relevant to discuss the power and jurisdiction of the High Court while interfering in an appeal against acquittal. It is well settled principle of law that the High Court should not interfere in the well reasoned order of the trial court which has been arrived at after proper appreciation of the evidence. The High Court should give due regard to the findings and the conclusions reached by the trial court unless strong and compelling reasons exist in the evidence itself which can dislodge the findings itself. This principle has further been elucidated in the case of Sambhaji Hindurao Deshmukh and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 11 SCC 186 , para 13, wherein this Court observed that: "13……The High Court will interfere in appeals against acquittals, only where the trial court makes wrong assumptions of material facts or fails to appreciate the evidence properly. If two views are reasonably possible from the evidence on record, one favouring the accused and one against the accused, the High Court is not expected to reverse the acquittal merely because it would have taken the view against the accused had it tried the case. If two views are reasonably possible from the evidence on record, one favouring the accused and one against the accused, the High Court is not expected to reverse the acquittal merely because it would have taken the view against the accused had it tried the case. The very fact that two views are possible makes it clear that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and consequently the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt." 18. In the same chain the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jayamma and another vs. State of Karnataka, (2021) 6 SCC 213 , has considered the law on the issue involved and observed thus : "23. The other important reason to depart from the High Court's view re. conviction of the appellants is that the power of scrutiny exercisable by the High Court under Section 378, CrPC should not be routinely invoked where the view formed by the trial court was a 'possible view'. The judgment of the trial court cannot be set aside merely because the High Court finds its own view more probable, save where the judgment of the trial court suffers from perversity or the conclusions drawn by it were impossible if there was a correct reading and analysis of the evidence on record. To say it differently, unless the High Court finds that there is complete misreading of the material evidence which has led to miscarriage of justice, the view taken by the trial court which can also possibly be a correct view, need not be interfered with. This self-restraint doctrine, of course, does not denude the High Court of its powers to re-appreciate the evidence, including in an appeal against acquittal and arrive at a different firm finding of fact." 19. After overall assessment of the circumstances and perusing the entire material on record we find that, there was no eye-witness of the alleged incident. This case is based purely on circumstantial evidence and though the conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence alone but for that prosecution has to establish complete chain of circumstances, which consistently points towards guilt of the accused and accused alone. After assessing the entirely of circumstances, it cannot be said firmly that accused persons are involve in the commission of offence. After assessing the entirely of circumstances, it cannot be said firmly that accused persons are involve in the commission of offence. It is the duty of the prosecution to firmly and cogently establish the incriminating circumstances against the accused persons and from those incriminating circumstances inference of guilt of the accused could be conclusively drawn. If all the incriminating circumstances against the accused persons are taken into consideration they should be so complete that within all probability they should point towards the guilt of the accused persons, then only such circumstances may be relied upon. At this juncture it would be imperative to make a reference to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 , wherein the Apex Court has expatiated upon the aspect of circumstantial evidence and set forth certain guidelines in that regard, which are as under: "152. 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. 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 Sahebrao Bobade V State of Maharashtra 1973 CriLJ 1783 where the following 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. (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. 153. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence''. 20. After considering the aforesaid law laid down by the Apex Court on circumstantial evidence, it emerges that conviction can be based solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence where the circumstances are fully established and the chain of circumstances is conclusively complete and the cumulative effect of all the circumstances is such which shows that only and only the accused is found guilty of committing the offence. After perusal of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses we are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and also failed to prove the evidence regarding the factum of the deceased having been last seen in the company of accused persons. In the cases of direct evidence the motive aspect pales into complete insignificance but in the cases of circumstantial evidence it serves as one of the circumstances to be reckoned against the accused in proof of the guilt. In the present case the prosecution has tried to show during the course of trial that there was a demand of repayment of loan amount on behalf of accused persons and in that connection some hot-talk and scuffle between the accused persons and the deceased also took place but as we have seen during analysis of evidence that this aspect of the case also could not be satisfactorily proved by prosecution. We therefore are of the opinion that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of accused persons in commission of charged crime. 21. We therefore are of the opinion that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of accused persons in commission of charged crime. 21. We, therefore, find that the court below has taken a plausible and possible view of the matter on appreciation of entire evidence on record, which cannot be substituted by this Court by taking a different view as per the law discussed above. We also do not find that the findings recorded by the trial court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable, therefore, the present appeal is Dismissed.