ORDER : S.H.VORA, J. By way of present appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for short), appellant–real brother of deceased seeks to challenge the judgment and order of acquittal dated 21/12/2021 passed in Sessions Case No.90 of 2017 by the learned Sessions Judge, Panchmahals at Godhra acquitting the private respondents viz., respondents No.2 to 5 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120B, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Brief facts leading to the prosecution case can be stated thus: 2.1 Deceased-Umar Farooq Abdul Salam Badam was demanding return of amount of Rs.78,000/- which he lent to accused No.1–Hasan Yousuf Pittal and also removed accused No.3–Abdul Mannan Mohammed Giteli @ Hafeez from their gambling partnership business. Keeping the said grudge, accused Nos. 1 to 3 in connivance with each other and by hatching criminal conspiracy to eliminate appellant’s brotheron 15/01/2017 at 9:00 a.m., accused No.1 and deceased came from Polan Bazar towards Godhra Court on the motorcycle of the deceased. Whereas, the accused Nos. 2 and 3 were waiting in the Ford Fiesta Car No. GJ1-RA-7507. After the deceased was taken into confidence, they parked the deceased’s motorcycle near the Godhra Taluka Panchayat and occupied the seat in the car and went towards Vejalpur bus-stand. As per prosecution case, accused No.1 was driving the car; whereas the deceased was seated behind in between the accused No. 2 and 3 and after having tea at Vejalpur, they were returning back and while on the road from Trupti Hotel to Paravdi bypass road, at about 12:00 p.m. to 12:30 p.m., as pre-planned, the accused took up the quarrel with the deceased and in that process, accused Nos. 2 and 3 caught hold of his neck and choked him to death. Thereafter, the accused packed the dead body in two gunny bags and drove the car towards Ambali village and disposed off the body near a lake situated at the outskirts of the village and returned back to Godhra. As per further case of prosecution, accused after returning back apprehended being caught by police on the basis of the gunny bag marks and dress of the deceased, accused Nos. 1 to 3 called their friend–accused No.4 to Polan Bazar and narrated the story and he agreed to join them in destroying the evidence. As per further case of prosecution, accused after returning back apprehended being caught by police on the basis of the gunny bag marks and dress of the deceased, accused Nos. 1 to 3 called their friend–accused No.4 to Polan Bazar and narrated the story and he agreed to join them in destroying the evidence. Accused No. 2 to 4 went in the Santro Car No. GJ- 18A-6820 to Kalabhai Petrol pump and purchased petrol and went to village Ambali in between 3:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. After reaching the spot, they sprinkled petrol on the dead-body and set it ablaze and ran away from the spot after committing the crime. That one Mr.Madansinh Sisodiya, resident of village Ambali came to know about the burnt unknown dead-body and therefore he informed the Godhra Taluka Police Station and lodged the complaint at Exh.62. 3. Pursuant to the said complaint, the investigating officer recorded statements of the witnesses, seized muddamal articles and drawn various Panchnamas and also collected CCTV footage and other relevant scientific evidence against the accused persons. After having found material against the accused-private respondents, charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court of learned JMFC, Godhra. As said Court lacks jurisdiction to try the offence, it committed the case to the Sessions Court, Godhra as provided under section 209 of the Code. 4. Upon committal of the case to the Sessions Court, Godhra learned Sessions Judge framed charge at Exh.6 against the private respondents for the aforesaid offence. The private respondents pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried 5. In order to bring home charge, the prosecution has examined 35 witnesses and also produced various documentary evidence before the learned trial Court, more particularly described in para 5 of the impugned judgment and order. 6. On conclusion of evidence on the part of the prosecution, the trial Court put various incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence to the private respondents so as to obtain his explanation/answer as provided u/s 313 of the Code wherein all the accused persons denied all incriminating circumstances and it is further stated by them that they have been falsely implicated in the crime purely on the basis of suspicion and they have no enmity with the deceased. After hearing both the sides and after analysis of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial Judge acquitted the private respondents-accused of the offences, for which they were tried, as the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. 7. We have heard learned Advocate Mr.Majmudar appearing for the appellant. 7.1 While opening the case he has admitted that there is no eye-witness to the alleged incident and entire prosecution case rests on the extra judicial confession made by accused No.2- Siddiq Bilal Haji Sujela through brother of the deceased - PW 19-Mohammedsaeed Abdul Salam Badam (Exh.73), CCTV footage and last seen together theory. 7.2 In order to establish the case, learned Advocate for the appellant took us through the deposition of PW 19- Mohammedsaeed AbdulSalam Badam (Exh.73), PW 25- Jakariya Mehboob Mugal (Exh.79) from whom the accused No.2-Siddiq Bilal and accused No.3-Abdul Mannan purchased gunny bag on 14/01/2017, PW 26-Mahendrakumar Gulabsinh Patel (Exh.80), employee of Kalabhai Petrol Pump who sold petrol in two bags allegedly purchased from Royal Hotel by one of the accused came in Santro Car, PW 27- Mehfuja Umarfarooq Badam (Exh.81) wife of the deceased to demonstrate that accused No.1-Hasan Yousuf Pittal dropped the motorcycle of deceased on the date of incident and handed over the key of the motorcycle and lastly PW 21-Shoaib Farooq Hathila (Exh.75) to demonstrate that he saw Fiesta Car wherein two accused persons viz., accused No.2 and 3 seen by him sitting in the car. 8. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the case of the prosecution is that the private respondents hatched conspiracy to kill the deceased under the grudge that he demanded back Rs.78,000/- lent to accused No.1 and further deceased removed accused No.3 from their gambling business. Upon our independent reassessment and re-analysis of the evidence, it appears that the prosecution has failed to establish the fact that accused and deceased were engaged into any gambling business and further accused No.1 borrowed any amount of Rs.78,000/- from the deceased. No evidence with regard to the meeting of minds or common intention of all the accused and motive by adducing cogent and concrete evidence including of criminal conspiracy being hatched by the private respondents has come on record. No evidence with regard to the meeting of minds or common intention of all the accused and motive by adducing cogent and concrete evidence including of criminal conspiracy being hatched by the private respondents has come on record. We have further found that the prosecution has not adduced any convincing evidence that the private respondents had strangulated the deceased in moving car on the Trupti Hotel to Paravadi by-pass road and thereafter dead-body was filled in gunny bag and dumped the body in the outskirts of Village Ambali and further failed to prove that accused persons or any of them purchased petrol from Kalabhai petrol pump and went to village Ambali, poured petrol upon the dumped body and set it ablaze and thereby destroyed the evidence. 9. Before the submissions made at bar, it needs to be kept in mind that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the Court is required to consider the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn and in the first instance be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. 10. At this juncture, a reference is required to be made to the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, [1984 AIR SC 1622], more particularly, paragraph 153 which reads thus: “153. 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. 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 Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra where the 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, (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.” 11. Bearing in mind the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the evidence so adduced before the learned trial Court, we have found that there is no iota of evidence from the mouth of any of the prosecution witnesses, more particularly, evidence of the prosecution witnesses read over by learned Advocate for the appellant Mr.Majmudar to indicate that at any given point of time the deceased and three accused persons were travelling together in the Ford Fiesta Car. No TI parade was held before the witnesses, more particularly, the employee of Kalabhai petrol pump and vendor of tea stall where it is alleged that deceased and accused persons took a cup of tea. 12. Apart from it; the CCTV footage does not disclose the identity of the occupants of both the cars. Even if we believe from the CCTV footage of Kalabhai petrol pump, it appears that accused No.4-private respondent No.5 was purchasing petrol and one Santro Car is visible. 12. Apart from it; the CCTV footage does not disclose the identity of the occupants of both the cars. Even if we believe from the CCTV footage of Kalabhai petrol pump, it appears that accused No.4-private respondent No.5 was purchasing petrol and one Santro Car is visible. Thus, merely on the basis of private respondent No.5 was purchasing petrol, it cannot be concluded that private respondents in connivance with each other has murdered the deceased and set ablaze the dead body. The conclusion drawn on the basis of CCTV footage (Exh.157) does not indicate that private respondents No.3 and 4 were alongwith private respondent no.5 in Santro Car. In nutshell, none of the evidence viz., oral or through CCTV footage, the presence of the accused persons alongwith deceased stands established. 13. Now insofar as the extra judicial confession made by accused No.2-Siddiq Bilal Haji Sujela before the elder brother of the deceased-PW 19-Mohammedsaeed AbdulSalam Badam (Exh.73) is concerned, it is deposed by him that on 15.01.17 as they had to fix the marriage of his niece, deceased had called him two-three times. It is deposed by him that the deceased had called him and informed that he alongwith accused No.1- Hasan Pittal were to go Saatpul and get the marriage date. According to the said witness, at about 6:00 p.m. the deceased’s phone was switched off and he had informed his brother, Mohammed Shafi. On hearing about unknown deadbody, they went to the Civil Hospital and identified the body on the basis of the watch and ring. It is also deposed by him that on the very same day, his brother had informed him that Hassan Pittal had come to drop the bike of the deceased and it is further deposed by him that on 16.01.17, accused No.2- Siddiq Bilal had called him late night to masjid and had informed him about their plan and the manner in which accused-Hasan Pittal brought the deceased on bike and how they took him into confidence and went in the car and the manner in which they quarreled and further informed that accused-Abdul Mannan strangulated the deceased; whereas accused-Siddiq Sujela caught hold of his hands and accused No.1-Hassan Pittal drove the car and further informed him about the manner in which they dumped the body and thereafter burned it. 14. 14. It is a matter of fact that complaint came to be registered on 15/01/2017; whereas the said extra judicial confession is alleged to have been made on 16/01/2017 i.e. after the lodgement of the complaint. PW 19-Mohammedsaeed AbdulSalam Badam (Exh.73) admitted in his cross-examination that he does not have the phone number from which the accused Siddiq Bilal had called him to the masjid and further he admits that he has not mentioned the phone number from which he received call from accused Siddiq Bilal in his statement before the Police and he has not mentioned the name of the masjid where the accused called him. Further the said witness has deposed that he has informed his younger brother viz., Mr.Mohammedshafi Abdul Salam Badam (PW 18 examined at Exh.68) about the conversation he had with the accused–Siddiq Bilal. 15. We have also gone through the deposition of PW 18 - Mohammedshafi Abdul Salam Badam (Exh.68) and he has deposed before the Court that only on 23rd he came to know that the accused persons killed his brother. The said witness admitted in his cross-examination that he was alongwith his brother–PW 19-Mohammedsaeed Abdul Salam Badam at the time of burial and that during the period from 15/01/2017 to 23/01/2017 on every single day, he met 19-Mohammedsaeed AbdulSalam Badam; but PW 19 did not inform him about the manner in which his brother was murdered. No call details are on record. 16. Thus, considering such inconsistent version and unnatural conduct of PW 19, it is quite surprising that though one of the accused made confession before PW 19 who is real brother of the deceased did not inform any of his relatives about the murder and confession. Thus, the so-called extra judicial confession cannot be made the sole basis for conviction and cannot be relied upon when the surrounding circumstances are improbable and create suspicion. As noted herein above, the chain of events does not lead to the result of private respondents committing the murder of deceased and the learned trial Court has not committed any error in acquitting the private respondents since the prosecution has measurably failed to establish the complete chain of evidence as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. 17. 17. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that in an acquittal appeal if other view is possible, then also, the appellate Court cannot substitute its own view by reversing the acquittal into conviction, unless the findings of the trial Court are perverse, contrary to the material on record, palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. (Ramesh Babulal Doshi V. State of Gujarat (1996) 9 SCC 225 ). In the instant case, the learned APP has not been able to point out to us as to how the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are perverse, contrary to material on record, palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. 18. In the case of Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 1995 SC 280 , Supreme Court has held as under: “The powers of the High Court in an appeal from order of acquittal to reassess the evidence and reach its own conclusions under Sections 378 and 379, Cr.P.C. are as extensive as in any appeal against the order of conviction. But as a rule of prudence, it is desirable that the High Court should give proper weight and consideration to the view of the Trial Court with regard to the credibility of the witness, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt and the slowness of appellate Court in justifying a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witness. It is settled law that if the main grounds on which the lower Court has based its order acquitting the accused are reasonable and plausible, and the same cannot entirely and effectively be dislodged or demolished, the High Court should not disturb the order of acquittal." 19. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Singh & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2011) 11 SCC 444 and in the case of Bhaiyamiyan Alias Jardar Khan and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2011) 6 SCC 394 , while dealing with the judgment of acquittal, unless reasoning by the learned trial Court is found to be perverse, the acquittal cannot be upset. It is further observed that High Court's interference in such appeal in somewhat circumscribed and if the view taken by the learned trial Court is possible on the evidence, the High Court should stay its hands and not interfere in the matter in the belief that if it had been the trial Court, it might have taken a different view. 20. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal must fail and is accordingly dismissed while confirming the judgment and order of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court.