JUDGMENT : 1. By way of the instant petition preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.03.2022, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore (hereinafter referred to as "the Revisional Court"), whereby the orders dated 04.09.2021 and 17.11.2021, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jalore (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court") have been affirmed, while rejecting the revision petitions filed by the petitioner. 2. The facts narrated in brief are that petitioner's brother Kishore Kumar, who had renounced the world on 30.05.2010 to become a Jain Saint (renamed as "Jin Ratna Vijay"), passed away on 23.01.2021 in suspicious circumstances. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that on 23.01.2021 at around 4:45 am (early morning), the petitioner's sister (Usha Devi) received a phone call from Shri Jay Ratna Suri Maharaj, head of Bhandavpur Tirth informing that her brother Jin Ratna Vijay Ji Maharaj (formerly known as Kishore Kumar) is missing. Thereafter another phone call was received informing that his brother Jin Ratna Vijay Ji Maharaj has committed suicide. 4. According to the petitioner, though his family members requested Shri Jay Ratna Suri Maharaj to wait until they reach Bhandavpur Tirth, but the request was not heeded to and the body was cremated in haste. 5. The petitioner lodged an FIR alleging murder and the same was registered in the Police Station Sayla, District Jalore on 04.04.2021 (FIR No.77/2021) for the offences under Sections 302 & 201 of Indian Penal Code. 6. After thorough investigation and considering the postmortem report, which indicated reasons of death as 'asphyxia' -due to drowning and finding absence of external injury, the police filed a negative final report so far as offences under Sections 302 & 201 of Indian Penal Code are concerned and concluded the case to be a case of suicide. 7. The petitioner lodged a protest petition and assailed the conclusion drawn by the Investigating Officer on various grounds, but, the same was rejected by the learned trial Court vide its order dated 04.09.2021. 8. The petitioner thereafter preferred a revision petition, which too came to be rejected by the Revisional Court vide order dated 29.03.2022. 9. Mr. 7. The petitioner lodged a protest petition and assailed the conclusion drawn by the Investigating Officer on various grounds, but, the same was rejected by the learned trial Court vide its order dated 04.09.2021. 8. The petitioner thereafter preferred a revision petition, which too came to be rejected by the Revisional Court vide order dated 29.03.2022. 9. Mr. Falgun Buch, learned counsel for the petitioner navigated the Court through the contents of the FIR and narrated various circumstances, more particularly emphasizing on the fact that the deceased was 62 years of age and having problem in his foot. He argued that the petitioner could not climb up to the water reservoir to commit suicide. While highlighting that as per the report prepared by the police, there was only 2-2.5 feet water in the tank, he argued that no human being can drown and die in such shallow water. 10. Learned counsel invited Court's attention towards the Whatsapp message received by petitioner's family and recording of the phone call in which the deceased Saint Jin Ratna Vijay Maharaj had expressed his dissatisfaction rather concern over the behaviour of other Saints towards him and apprehended threat to his life. He argued that even CCTV camera recording was not obtained. 11. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record, including the orders passed by the Courts below. 12. A perusal of the order dated 04.09.2021, passed by the learned trial Court, reveals that the trial Court has passed a detailed order dilating upon all the issues and concerns expressed by the petitioner. 13. In relation to CCTV camera recording, the trial Court has found that on account of plantation and other construction activities being undertaken at the trust premises, the CCTV cameras were not operational. The Court has thoroughly examined the postmortem report, which clearly suggests cause of death to be asphyxia. The postmortem report establishes that there was no external injury on the body of the deceased. 14. The learned trial Court has also properly considered petitioner's contention that water was insufficient to drown a person. The Court has thoroughly examined the postmortem report, which clearly suggests cause of death to be asphyxia. The postmortem report establishes that there was no external injury on the body of the deceased. 14. The learned trial Court has also properly considered petitioner's contention that water was insufficient to drown a person. By underscoring that the death had occurred prior to 4:45 am on 23.01.2021 and the Fard was prepared at 1:30 pm, the trial Court has held that according to the explanation statements given by the Trust and the workmen, the water level in the overhead tank had come down due to water usage for gardening and ongoing construction work. 15. In relation to petitioner's contention regarding the call details of other Saints in the Trust, the learned trial Court has examined the case diary and recorded a finding that the call details have properly been examined and nothing has come down from such call details. 16. The Investigating Officer also examined the postmortem report and other surrounding circumstances to come to the conclusion that no poisonous substance was found in the viscera of the deceased, therefore the possibility of poisoning has also been ruled out. 17. The Revisional Court has also considered the material available on record and has affirmed the order passed by the learned trial Court. 18. Considering the allegations levelled in the FIR, this Court has also examined the order passed by the learned trial Court, Revisional Court and the submissions made at bar by Mr. Buch, learned counsel for the petitioner. 19. According to this Court, the postmortem report and the FSL report itself is conclusive -it shows the death of Saint Jin Ratna Vijay Ji Maharaj to be from drowning; there is no external injury. FSL report regarding viscera does not indicate poisoning. 20. This being the position, the death because of drowning appears as an irresistible conclusion. 21. It is not the allegation of the petitioner nor is there any incriminating evidence indicating that the deceased was taken to overhead tank (which was about 50 feet above the ground level) and then thrown in the tank. If an old person cannot climb stairs upto 50 feet, it is equally difficult to believe that he was taken by someone to the height of 50 feet and thrown in the tank. 22. If an old person cannot climb stairs upto 50 feet, it is equally difficult to believe that he was taken by someone to the height of 50 feet and thrown in the tank. 22. In the absence of any supporting material, coupled with the fact that there was no external injury found on the body of the deceased, this Court is of the view that the trial Court committed no error in concluding that the deceased died due to asphyxia -by committing suicide. 23. Adverting to submission made by Mr. Buch that the Investigating Officer has not collected the CCTV footage, this Court is of the view that the Investigating Officer has recorded the statement not only of the members of the Trust but also of the labourers and other connected members and found that the CCTV cameras were not operational. Therefore, petitioner's allegation/apprehension in relation to not recovering and going through the CCTV recording is without any basis. 24. Coming to the argument of Mr. Buch that a Saint who had renounced the world 10-11 years ago would normally not commit suicide, suffice it to say that understanding the human psychology is difficult nay impossible; but then, such suspicion cannot lead to a definite conclusion, sans any other evidence. 25. That apart, call details and the allegations in the FIR and submissions made by Mr. Buch are indicative of a disturbed state of mind of the deceased and in such a situation, possibility of a person, even one who has renounced the world, committing suicide cannot be ruled out completely. 26. The petitioner has relied upon the statement of some residents of Bhandavpur to assert and establish that the relationship of the deceased was not congenial with other Saints of the Tirth. But such statements per se cannot be construed to be evidence treading an Investigating Officer to reach to a conclusion that it is a case of homicide. 27. As an upshot of discussion foregoing, this Court concurs with the view taken by the Courts below; there is no error in the order(s) impugned. 28. The petition, therefore, fails. 29. Stay petition also stands dismissed accordingly.