JUDGMENT : (D.K. Upadhyaya, J.) 1. An application has been preferred to condone the delay along with the application seeking leave of the Court to file an appeal under section 378 (3) of Cr.P.C. 2. Office has reported a delay of 15 days in preferring this appeal. 3. Having regard to the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application seeking condonation of delay and also having heard the learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State-appellant, we are satisfied that delay has sufficiently been explained. 4. Accordingly, the prayer for condonation of delay is allowed and resultantly the delay is condoned. 5. The State-appellant has moved the application under section 378 (3) of Cr.P.C. seeking leave of the Court to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 25.07.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gonda whereby the respondents-accused persons have been acquitted of the charge against them for the offence punishable under section 302/34 of I.P.C. in Sessions Trial No.210 of 2015 which had arisen out of Case Crime No.23 of 2015, under section 302/34 of I.P.C., Police Station-Umari Begamganj, District-Gonda. 6. Heard learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State-appellant and perused the records available before us. 7. Prosecution case against the respondents-accused-persons rests solely on circumstantial evidence and accordingly as per settled legal position, the Court has to be cautious in its approach in recording conviction which can be done only if all the links in the chain of circumstances is complete pointing out to the guilt of the accused-persons and further only if every hypothesis of innocence is capable of being negated on the basis of evidence available on record. It is equally well settled that while evaluating circumstantial evidence adequate care must be taken. 8. It is also well settled that in an appeal against acquittal this Court has to be circumspect and unless the finding recorded by the learned trial court is found to suffer from patently erroneous approach and the findings are perverse, this Court will not interfere in the order of acquittal in appeal. Interference by this Court in an appeal against acquittal is permissible only if it is found that the view taken by the learned trial court while recording the judgment of acquittal is apparently wrong and has led to miscarriage of justice. Interference by this Court in an appeal against acquittal is permissible only if it is found that the view taken by the learned trial court while recording the judgment of acquittal is apparently wrong and has led to miscarriage of justice. With these legal principles in mind, we proceed to consider the prayer made by the State-appellant to grant leave to file appeal against the judgment of acquittal which has been sought to be impeached. 9. Prosecution case stated in brief is that a written report was submitted to the Police Station-Umari Begamganj, District-Gonda by the informant-Ram Karan Bajpai, who is the father of the deceased-Dinanath on 09.02.20215 in the morning at about 9.30 A.M. stating therein that his son Dinanath (deceased) who was aged about 21 years had gone to cut barseem (a green leefy forage used as fodder for cattles) in the field situate in front of his house on 08.02.2015 at 4.30 P.M. but he did not return and despite a vigorous search he could not be traced, however, his dead body was found at 7.00 A.M. on 09.02.2015 in the field where barseem was sown. The complainant also stated in his application that he apprehends that his son had been murdered and dead body was kept in the field. On the basis of this written report, the F.I.R. was lodged at 9.30 A.M. on 09.02.2015 at Case Crime No.23 of 2015, under section 302 of I.P.C. whereafter the investigation commenced and accordingly inquest report was prepared by the Investigating Officer and the dead body was sent to the hospital for postmortem. Certain articles were collected from the field where the dead body was found. In the postmortem report since the cause of death could not be ascertained, hence viscera was preserved which was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory. Statement under section 161 of the Cr.P.C. of the witnesses were recorded and in the viscera report poison was detected to be found. After completion of investigation, the accused persons-(i) Nankau @ Dinesh Bajpai, (ii) Nanhu and (iii) Gudiya Bajpai, W/o Nankau @ Dinesh Bajpai were charged for the offence under section 302/34 of I.P.C and accordingly charge under the said provision was framed on 04.06.2016 whereupon the accused persons denied charge and claimed trial. 10. After completion of investigation, the accused persons-(i) Nankau @ Dinesh Bajpai, (ii) Nanhu and (iii) Gudiya Bajpai, W/o Nankau @ Dinesh Bajpai were charged for the offence under section 302/34 of I.P.C and accordingly charge under the said provision was framed on 04.06.2016 whereupon the accused persons denied charge and claimed trial. 10. On behalf of the prosecution three witnesses of fact, namely, (i) P.W.1-Ram Karan Bajpai-complainant and father of the deceased, (ii) P.W.2-Sunaina Bajpai, who is the sister of the deceased and is said to be an eye witness, who has given evidence of deceased having been seen last in the company of the accused persons, and (iii) P.W.5-Krishna Dev Mishra, who is the witness of the inquest report, were examined. Apart from these witnesses of fact, formal witnesses, namely, (i) P.W.3-Moharrir Abhisek Kumar Misra, who proved the Chik F.I.R. and entry in the General Diary, (ii) P.W.4-Dr. Subodh Kumar, who conducted postmortem, (iii) P.W.6-Sub Inspector, Ram Bachan Yadav, who prepared the inquest report and other official papers, (iv) P.W.7-Inspector, Dinesh Singh Bist, who is the first investigating officer and (v) P.W.8-Vinay Kumar Saroj, who is the second investigating officer, were examined. In their statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C. the accused persons denied the prosecution case and claimed that they are innocent. In his statement respondent no.1-Nankau also stated that he himself is the witness of the inquest and that he had been roped in the case on account of the enmity between the accused persons and the family of the deceased, belonging to the same family. The other accused persons, namely, respondent no.2-Nanhu and respondent no.3-Gudiya Bajpai stated that they were innocent and had been falsely implicated in this case on account of enmity. 11. As observed above, the prosecution case is based squarely on circumstantial evidence. In order to prove the guilt of the accused-persons, prosecution relied upon four circumstances, namely, (i) the motive of committing the murder which according to the prosecution was on account of some civil dispute and litigation which had taken place some 40 years prior to the incident, (ii) the deceased was found to have been seen last with the accused-persons (iii) the circumstance that the accused persons had administered liquor with poison to the deceased and (iv) certain eye witnesses had seen the accused persons hiding the dead body of the deceased in the barseem-field. 12. 12. So far as the first circumstance of motive is concerned, the prosecution has attempted to prove that the accused persons committed murder of the deceased on account of enmity which the two families had been nurturing for the reason that about 40 years ago there was some dispute and litigation between them. 13. We will, thus, first examine as to whether this first circumstance in the chain of circumstances in this case is established on the basis of evidence available on record or not for the reason that in a case where the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence each circumstance forming the chain of circumstances is to be proved and established. To establish this first circumstance, the prosecution relied upon statement of P.W.1-Ram Karan Bajpai, who had stated in his statement that between the families of the informant and the accused-persons some proceedings of civil case had taken place about 40 years ago, however, no documentary proof of such a civil litigation was produced by the prosecution. 14. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-appellant has also failed to point out any evidence which may be available on record to establish this circumstance. On account of some civil litigation which is said to have taken place 40 years ago, it is highly unsafe to conclude that a crime like murder will be committed by the accused-persons, specially in view of the fact that no documents were produced by the prosecution to prove the factum of civil litigation between the parties. 15. The second circumstance, which the prosecution brought before the learned trial court in the chain of circumstances to prove the guilt against the respondents is that the deceased was last seen in the company of accused-persons. It is important to note that though apart from P.W.2-Sunaina Bajpai, who is the sister of the deceased, there were other witnesses also who were said to have seen the deceased last in the company of the accused-persons, most importantly it is the brother of the deceased, namely, Sonu who is also said to have seen the deceased in the company of the accused last, however, Sonu was never examined. Apart from P.W.2 Sunaina Bajpai and Sonu, there was another independent witness, namely, Rohit Bajai, who was also said to have seen the deceased going inside the house of the accused persons before the occurrence/incident but he was also not examined. Apart from P.W.2 Sunaina Bajpai and Sonu, there was another independent witness, namely, Rohit Bajai, who was also said to have seen the deceased going inside the house of the accused persons before the occurrence/incident but he was also not examined. It is only the statement made by P.W.2-Sunaina Bajpai, who is the sister of the deceased and daughter of the informant, who had deposed before the court during trial. Her statement thus needs to be scrutinized for ascertaining as to whether prosecution has succeeded in establishing this circumstances. Though P.W.2-Sunaina Bajpai in her statement before the Court has stated that her brother-deceased/Dinu Bajpai had gone to cut barseem in the field at around 4.30 P.M. on 08.02.2015, however, even after lapse of considerable time he did not come back home. She also stated that on the said date there some Pooja was being organized in the family as the deceased was to be married and further that she had gone to purchase some biscuits for the daughter of her Bua who was also present on account of Puja in the house and when she was coming back after buying the biscuits, she heard that her aunt Gudiya, who is the wife of Nankau-accused, was laughing and she saw that the deceased was having drinks with Nankau-accused. She also stated that they were drinking in the house of Nankau and the sun was about to set and that on a takhat a lantern was lighting and there was enough light where she saw that Gudiya and the other accused-persons were serving something to eat in the plate of the deceased-Dinu Bajpai. She also stated that when she asked Dinu that he was being searched and that he had gone to cut barseem, how did he come there, Dinu, who was in an inebriated condition, told her that he had come to sharpen the sickle and Gudiya Chachi, the third accused requested him to come to her house and she could not deny the invitation. She also stated before the court in her statement that she told the entire story to his brother Sonu and that Sonu told her that she should keep quite and that he will go and make enquiry and accordingly she came back home and after having food, she slept. She also stated before the court in her statement that she told the entire story to his brother Sonu and that Sonu told her that she should keep quite and that he will go and make enquiry and accordingly she came back home and after having food, she slept. She also stated that when she heard cries in the morning she awoke firstly and saw a crowd in the field lying opposite the house. She also stated that when she went to the field she found that dead body of the deceased-Dinu was lying in the field. 16. It is to be noticed that this witness, namely, P.W.2-Sunaina Bajpai is a very crucial witness so far as the second circumstance of the deceased having been found seen last in the company of the accused persons is concerned, however, it is also to be noticed that she for the first time made the said statement before the Investigating Officer after a lapse of period of five months and ten days from the date of occurrence about the fact that she had seen the deceased having drinks with the accused persons in the house. 17. P.W.7, who is one of the investigating officers, in his statement before the trial court had admitted that he had recorded the statement of P.W.2-Sunaina Bajpai under section 161 of Cr.P.C. after lapse of five months and ten days and has further stated that he did not have any information as to the whereabouts of this witness during these five months. P.W.7 did not offer any explanation as to such a long delay of five months and ten days in recording the statement of P.W.-2-Sunaina Bajpai except that he was told by the informant that on account of scare no witness had stated before the investigating officer that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused persons. We, thus, do not find any explanation as to why the statement of P.W.2 Sunaina Bajpai was recorded by the investigating officer after five months and ten days from the date of occurrence. This itself casts doubt on the statement of P.W-2-Sunaina Bajpai and makes her testimony fragile. Accordingly it cannot be said that the second circumstance of the deceased having been seen last in the company of the accused persons is established beyond doubt. This itself casts doubt on the statement of P.W-2-Sunaina Bajpai and makes her testimony fragile. Accordingly it cannot be said that the second circumstance of the deceased having been seen last in the company of the accused persons is established beyond doubt. In the same breath, we may also notice that Sonu, who is the brother of the deceased though is also said to have witnessed the deceased to be in the company of the accused persons before the occurrence, however, he was not examined. The other witness of this circumstance who is an independent witness, namely, Rohit Bajpai was also not examined. If we, thus, scrutinize the evidence available on record regarding the deceased having been last seen in the company of the accused-persons, we find that the sole evidence in this regard of P.W.-2 Sunaina Bajpai does not inspire confidence. 18. As already observed above, two eye witnesses of this circumstance, namely, Rahul Bajpai and Sonu were not examined and no plausible explanation comes forth as to why for the first time P.W.-2 Sunaina Bajpai stated before the investigating officer about she having seen the deceased last in the company of the accused persons after five months and ten days from the date of occurrence. There is nothing on record which shows that this witness ever told any one else including her father, who is the informant and the father of the deceased as well about she having seen the deceased in the company of the accused persons taking drinks on the date of occurrence. 19. For the reasons aforesaid, we find that even the second circumstance in the chain of circumstances which the prosecution intended to prove to bring home the guilt of the accused-persons is not established on the basis of evidence available on record. For these reasons we are also of the opinion that even the third circumstance of the deceased having been administered liquor by the accused persons is also not proved on the basis of the available evidence. 20. Apart from the above, the last and the forth circumstance as a link in the chain of circumstances is also not proved from the evidence available on record. 20. Apart from the above, the last and the forth circumstance as a link in the chain of circumstances is also not proved from the evidence available on record. The last circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is that certain eye witnesses had seen the accused persons hiding the dead body of the deceased in the barseem field, however, the eye witnesses of this circumstance were never produced as witnesses before the Court. The prosecution case as pleaded was that Paras, an independent witness, had stated before the investigating officer that on the date of occurrence when he had gone to attend the call of nature and ease himself in the field he heard some dogs barking and it appeared to him that some one had thrown a lump ( ढsyk ) towards the dogs and accordingly he sat behind the Pipal tree and from there he saw that Nanhu @ Dinesh Bajpai (accused) was carrying Dinu Bajpai-deceased from his shoulder and holding his hand and Nanhu was carrying the deceased holding his legs and that Gudiya, the third accused, was dashing the dogs away and that on account of fog the accused persons did not see him. Similarly, there is another alleged eye witness of this fourth circumstance who is Geeta Devi who is said to have stated before the investigating officer that she had gone in the morning of 09.02.2015 for attending the call of the nature in the field of Ram Karan (informant) where she found that accused persons-Nankau @ Dinesh Bajpai and Nanhu had brought some one to the barseem field and went away after leaving him. She is also said to have stated before the investigating officer that she had also seen the third accused along with them, namely, Gudiya. 21. It is, however, very important to notice that none of these witnesses, namely, Paras and Geeta Devi were examined before the court. Thus, fourth and the last circumstance of hiding the dead body of the accused persons in the barseem field is not proved. 21. It is, however, very important to notice that none of these witnesses, namely, Paras and Geeta Devi were examined before the court. Thus, fourth and the last circumstance of hiding the dead body of the accused persons in the barseem field is not proved. In fact except for relying upon the statement made by these two witnesses, namely, Paras and Geeta Devi before the investigating officer there is no evidence available on record to establish that accused persons were seen hiding the dead body of the deceased in the barseem field and the statement made before the investigating agency under section 161 of Cr.P.C. alone cannot be relied upon to establish or prove any relevant fact. In absence of statement of these witnesses during trial before the court, in our considered opinion, even the last link of the chain of circumstances is not proved. 22. It is well settled principle of law that when a case rests purely on circumstantial evidence, the evidence available on record should cogently and firmly establish the circumstances from which guilt is sought to be proved. It is equally settled that circumstances should be pointing towards the guilt of the accused and the circumstances taken together must form a chain so complete that there is no scope of deviating from the conclusion that the crime was committed by the accused persons and no one else. 23. It is also equally settled that standard of proof in case of circumstantial evidence has to be of a much higher degree and circumstances sought to be established should be conclusive of the guilt of the accused persons. 24. In the instant case, from the discussions made above, the prosecution case has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt the links of the chain of circumstances. In fact the evidence available on record which has been relied upon by the prosecution in regard to the deceased and the accused persons having been last seen together itself does not inspire confidence. The other links in the chain of circumstance as discussed above, are also not established. Accordingly, in this case it cannot be said that the only conclusion which can be drawn is about the guilt of the accused. 25. The other links in the chain of circumstance as discussed above, are also not established. Accordingly, in this case it cannot be said that the only conclusion which can be drawn is about the guilt of the accused. 25. We may also note that this Court has to keep in mind the fact that presumption of innocence is still available in favour of the respondents-accused persons and the same stands strengthened by the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial court. 26. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that the prayer for grant to leave is liable to be rejected. 27. Resultantly, the prayer for leave to appeal is refused. The appeal, thus, is also dismissed.