JUDGMENT : Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla, J. 1. The present Government Appeal has been filed under section 378(3) Cr.P.C. by the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-appellant along with an application seeking leave to appeal challenging the Judgment and Order dated 30.05.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.1 (Crime Against Women), Fatehpur in Sessions Trial No. 132/2014, (State vs. Mohd. Ibrahim @ Munna and six others), arising out of Case Crime No. 594 of 2013 at P.S. Kotwali, District Fatehpur by means of which all the accused respondents have been acquitted for the offence under Sections 120B/302, 328/149, 302/149, 201/149 IPC. 2. Learned State Counsel while pressing the application seeking leave to appeal contended that learned Trial Court has not appreciated the prosecution evidence in its correct perspective. It has been submitted that the findings of acquittal recorded by learned Trial Judge is against the evidence on record. He next submitted that the learned Trial Court has committed a manifest error of law and has ignored the material evidence on record by the prosecution by holding that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges against the accused respondents beyond the reasonable doubt. 3. We have heard the learned Additional Government Advocate for the Appellant-State and also perused the findings recorded by the Trial Court. 4. The brief facts are that on 09.12.2013, Shafiq, brother of the deceased gave a written Tehrir stating therein that they were five brothers. Brother Jamil used to live in a rented house at Hamlet of Asti Gardiyan at P.S. Kotwali, District Fatehpur alongwith his wife Smt. Rizwana. For the past 5 to 6 years, Jamil was working at Saudi Arabia. His wife, a lady of easy virtues, developed illicit relation with Mohd. Ibrahim @ Munna, Sayeed and a local Doctor at Hamlet of Asti Gardiyan. Due to this reason, the couple had estranged relationship. On 05.12.2013, Jamil went missing from his home. On 06.12.2013, a missing report was lodged by him at P.S. Kotwali. During search, he came to know that on 5.12.2013, his brother was administered intoxicating substance and was killed and his dead body was thrown in a well, which was seen by an unknown person, on whose pointing the dead body was found floating in the well. His brother had been killed by Smt. Rizwana in connivance with others. During search, he came to know that on 5.12.2013, his brother was administered intoxicating substance and was killed and his dead body was thrown in a well, which was seen by an unknown person, on whose pointing the dead body was found floating in the well. His brother had been killed by Smt. Rizwana in connivance with others. On the basis of this Tehrir an FIR was registered being Case Crime No. Nil/2013. After the inquest proceedings, the dead body was sent for autopsy. As the deceased belonged to P.S. Kotwali, therefore, the investigation was transferred on 09.12.2013 at 23:00 hours to P.S. Kotwali, as Case Crime No. 594 of 2013 under Sections 302/34, 328 and 201 IPC against Mohd. Ibrahim @ Munna, Sayeed, Smt. Rizwana, Shanawaz, unnamed Doctor and an unknown person. 5. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against Mohd. Ibrahim @ Munna, Mohd Sayeed, Smt. Rizwana, Shanawaz, Dr. Arif, Naushad and Phool Chandra Soni, under Sections 302/34, 328, 120B and 201 IPC before the concerned Court. The charges were framed under Sections 120-B/302, 328/149, 302/149, 201/149 IPC. The accused denied the charges and claimed tried. 6. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined ten witnesses in all and the exhibits. 7. From perusal of the record, we find that P.W. 1 Shafiq, the first informant/brother of the deceased, in his examination-in-chief, had supported the prosecution version and had proved the written Tehrir and the Panchayatnama as a Panch witness. P.W. 2 Mohd. Ismile, elder brother of the deceased/the witness of last seen, deposed that while he was on way with his brother-in-law, at New Tehsil crossing, he saw Jamil (deceased) on a motor-cycle which was driven by Munna. Smt. Rizwana too was sitting. On another motor-cycle Shanawaz and Sayeed were sitting and were going towards Asti. When he stopped them then they told that they were going in an invitation at Sayeed's house. Later he came to know that the dead body of his younger brother Jamil was lying in a well. P.W. 3 Inspector Gurmukh Singh, the second Investigating Officer had proved the chargesheet against accused persons. P.W. 4 Dr. Alok Verma conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased (Jamil) on 10.12.2013 at 11:30 am. During post mortem, following injuries were found on the body of the deceased Jamil : “1. P.W. 3 Inspector Gurmukh Singh, the second Investigating Officer had proved the chargesheet against accused persons. P.W. 4 Dr. Alok Verma conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased (Jamil) on 10.12.2013 at 11:30 am. During post mortem, following injuries were found on the body of the deceased Jamil : “1. A cut wound on the right side of the jaw, which was below the jaw from the chin towards the right ear, whose size was 8 cm x 1.5 cm. The wound was deep till the wound and edges of the wound were sharp. 2. A cut wound on the left side of the neck which extended from half of the jaw to below the left ear, whose size was 4 cm x 0.1 cm. 3. Cut wound on the upper part of the head from front to back whose size was 6 cm x 0.5 cm, deep up to the bone and edges were sharp. 4. Cut on the right side on the left side of the back on the head, horizontally placed, size 05 cm x 0.5 cm. It was deep till the bone, the edges were sharp. 5. Cut wound on the right side behind the head, placed horizontally, size 13 cm x 0.5 cm, deep wound up to the bone with sharp edges 6. Incised wound on the right hand dorsal aspect transversally placed size 5 cm x 01 cm, deep to the wound injuries, the edges were sharp.” 8. According to the doctor, the deceased died about 4-5 days before the post mortem. The cause of death was due to anti mortem injuries as a result of shock and excessive haemorrhage. P.W. 5 Constable Moharir Rameshwar Prasad proved the G.D. Entry No. 28 dated 08.12.2013 at 12:30 pm regarding the missing report given by Smt. Rizwana, wife of the deceased at P.S. Kotwali. P.W. 6 Constable Mohrarir Subhash Chandra deposed that he was posted on 09.12.2013 at P.S. Kotwali and received the Chik FIR No. Nil of 2013 lodged at P.S. Kotwali on 09.12.2013, on the basis of which, Case Crime No. 594 of 2013 was registered vide G.D. No. 58 dated 09.12.2013 at 23:00 hours. P.W. 7 Inspector Rajiv Dwivedi of P.S. Kotwali, the first Investigating Officer had proved all the police papers. P.W. 7 Inspector Rajiv Dwivedi of P.S. Kotwali, the first Investigating Officer had proved all the police papers. P.W. 8 Head Constable Moharir Laxmi Kant Yadav arrested accused Ibrahim @ Munna and had proved the extra judicial confession of Ibrahim, on whose pointing, the Gandasa was recovered from a tube well Kothari. P.W. 9 S.I. Surendra Kumar Shukla deposed that he alongwith other police officers took out the soaked dead body of Jamil from the well with the help of the villagers. The inquest report was prepared and dead body was sent for post mortem examination. P.W. 10 S.I. Suresh Saroj, in his examination-in-chief, deposed that on 09.12.2013 he was posted at P.S. Hathgaon and proved the hand written Tehrir given by the first informant on the basis of which an FIR bearing Case Crime No. Nil/2013, under Sections 34/302, 201/328 IPC was registered at P.S. Hathgaon which was entered as G.D. No. 20 dated 09.12.2013 at 9:30 am. 9. The accused during their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. stated that they have been falsely implicated. Accused Sayeed denied the charges levelled against him and stated that he had been falsely implicated in connivance with the police. Accused Mohd. Arif also denied the charges leveled against him, stating that he was not a doctor by profession, but by slang the villagers called him as doctor and was falsely implicated due to money dispute. Accused Smt. Rizwana (wife of the deceased) stated that her husband Jameel went missing on 05.12.2013, for which, information was given at P.S. Kotwali. Later, all the proceedings were carried against her in connivance with the police. As she solemnized love marriage with the deceased, his brothers and his other family members opposed them and eliminated them from the family. As her husband demanded money and property from them, due to this reason, the first informant and Ismile managed to kidnap and killed her husband. Accused Phool Chandra Soni deposed that he had been falsely implicated and had no information about the incident and refused to be examined as defence witness. Accused Naushad stated that he had been falsely implicated due to political rivalry in the village. Accused Shanawaz deposed that he had been falsely implicated and has not committed the murder nor participated in the crime. He stated that he had been falsely implicated being the brother of Smt. Rizwana. Accused Naushad stated that he had been falsely implicated due to political rivalry in the village. Accused Shanawaz deposed that he had been falsely implicated and has not committed the murder nor participated in the crime. He stated that he had been falsely implicated being the brother of Smt. Rizwana. Accused Ibrahim deposed that he had been falsely implicated. The Police planted a false recovery of Gandasa from his possession after purchasing a Gandasa from the market. 10. The accused in their defence produced four defence witnesses. D.W. 1 Ram Vishal was a villager who knew the accused and the informant and knew some previous money dispute. D.W. 2 Suhail, son of the deceased, deposed that his father was killed when he was 19 years of age. His parents solemnized love marriage. His uncle Shafiq and Ismile opposed this marriage due to which his parents were ousted from the home. His father hired a rented house at Hamlet of Asti Gardiyan where they stayed together. His uncle Shafiq and Ismile were not willing to give share of property of his father. Uncle Shafiq was step brother of his father. On 04.12.2013 at 9:00 am, when his father and mother were at home, uncle Shafiq came to his house and took away his father saying that now it is enough and he would settle the dispute and he can come along to take his share of the property. His uncle took away his father. On the same evening at 7:00 pm his father returned back and informed his mother that again he had been called for the next day for getting the share of property. On 05.12.2013 at 6:30 pm, his father went at Sungaon to meet his uncle Shafiq, for the whole night his father did not return. Next day morning at 8:00 am, he went to search his father at this uncle's residence then his uncle informed that his father came and went away an hour before and that he is not aware as to where he had gone, he may go and fetch him. The said witness returned back to Asti and shared it to his mother and inquired from his relatives and tried to fetch his father but the whereabouts could not be traced. The said witness returned back to Asti and shared it to his mother and inquired from his relatives and tried to fetch his father but the whereabouts could not be traced. Then 08.12.2013, he went to P.S. Kotwali to lodge a missing report about his father on the application of his mother at P.S. Kotwali. He could not believe that his uncle Shafiq and Ismile would do such an act, so he did not implicate them as accused. When he and his mother Rizwana started suspecting his uncle Shafiq and Ismile, then they falsely implicated his mother. His father was killed by his uncle Shafiq and Ismile who had greed for the property. 11. D.W. 3 Mohd. Ahmad deposed that he was Village Pradhan since 2009 to 2015. On 10.12.2013, he was not in his village and had gone to his relatives. 12. D.W. 4 Lal Miya was the friend of the Village Pradhan. On 10.12.2013, he was not present in the village, therefore, he stated that he is unaware about the recovery of Gandasa. No Gandasa was recovered from the possession of Ibrahim. 13. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the State-appellant submitted that from the Tehrir given by P.W.1, the deceased went missing on 05.12.2013 which is corroborated by the fact that as per the opinion of the doctor P.W.4, who conducted autopsy, the deceased died about 4-5 days before the post-mortem with a sharp edged weapon. The death was due to shock and excessive haemorrhage. 14. Secondly, it has been argued that P.W.2 Mohd. Ismile, brother of the deceased, who is the witness of last seen, saw the deceased on 05.12.2013 at about 5:15 pm in the company of accused persons on a motor cycle heading towards Asti. Thereafter the dead body of the deceased was found in a well which also corroborates the prosecution story. 15. Next, it has been submitted that after lodging of the FIR on 12.10.2013 accused Ibrahim @ Munna was arrested who in his extra judicial confession before Investigating Officer stated that he alongwith the co-accused on 05.12.2013 administered intoxicating substance to the deceased Jamil and thereafter he was killed. On his pointing a weapon of assault (Gandasa) was recovered from the tube well which also supports the prosecution case. 16. On his pointing a weapon of assault (Gandasa) was recovered from the tube well which also supports the prosecution case. 16. During the course of argument, learned State-counsel further argued that the strong motive behind the incident is that Deceased's wife Rizwana having illicit relations with the co-accused, due to which, estranged relationship developed between husband and wife. The co-accused hatched a conspiracy to kill Jamil and thrown the dead body in the well to disappear the evidence. 17. From perusal of record, we find that it is a case based on circumstantial evidence. There is no eye witness account of the incident. Though, according to the FIR, the main motive behind the incident was that the deceased's wife Rizwana was having illicit relation with the accused respondents, but no concrete or independent witness have been produced to prove this fact. 18. As far as the last seen evidence is concerned, P.W.2 saw the deceased on 05.12.2013 in the company of accused respondents but there are material contradictions in his examination-in-chief and cross-examination. According to the Tehrir, the deceased went missing on 05.12.2013 and a missing report was given at P.S. Kotwali on 06.12.2013 but the prosecution failed to produce the Tehrir during trial. According to the Tehrir dated 09.12.2013, it was stated that a person saw the dead body in the well but the said person was not produced as a witness neither the Investigating Officer collected any evidence of the dead body being thrown in the well. The first informant in his Tehrir had disclosed that the deceased went missing on 05.12.2013 but in his cross-examination he has repeatedly stated that the deceased went missing on 04.05.2013. There are material contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of P.W.1 and P.W.2 regarding the dead body which was thrown in the well. 19. From the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and after perusal of record, we find that there was dispute regarding share of property between the first informant and the deceased's brother. The first informant and his brother Ismile wanted to grab the ancestral property of the deceased and, therefore, he was killed. In order to disappear the evidence, the dead body was thrown in the well. This fact is supported by the evidence adduced by D.W.2 Suhail, the son of the deceased aged about 19 years who is the most natural witness. In order to disappear the evidence, the dead body was thrown in the well. This fact is supported by the evidence adduced by D.W.2 Suhail, the son of the deceased aged about 19 years who is the most natural witness. The said witness stated that he was residing with his father alongwith his other family members. The Investigating Officer had not collected any such material which may prove the illicit relation of Rizwana with the accused respondents. Even the doctor P.W.4 in his cross-examination denied the injuries caused by Gandasa. He deposed in his cross-examination that the ante mortem injuries of the deceased cannot be caused with a weapon like Gandasa. The injuries must have been caused with a knife or a sharp edged weapon. There is no such recovery of knife from any of the accused respondents. Though, blood stained gandasa was recovered on 10.12.2013 and the blood stained pant of the deceased as well as the plain earth and blood stained earth was proved by the Investigating Officer but the recovered articles were not sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination. No details of the mobile carried by the deceased were given nor any call details report collected. D.W.2 Suhail, the son of the deceased was not called to identify the dead body of the deceased. All these factors if taken together do not prove the case of the prosecution nor the motive behind the incident beyond the reasonable doubt. 20. The chain of events connecting the circumstances is not complete to prove the prosecution case beyond the reasonable doubt. The prosecution story does not appear to be natural and reliable. The conspiracy amongst the accused persons to administer the intoxicating substance to the deceased and thereafter killing and throwing away the dead body in the well is also not proved. Even the motive is also not proved. There are material contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. 21. From the post-mortem report, no such sign of administering intoxicating substance to the deceased was found nor the time of death supports the prosecution case. 22. From the aforegoing discussions, the question that poses attention of the Court is whether an application for Leave toAppeal under Section 378 (3) Cr.P.C. can be dismissed in limine or not?. 23. 21. From the post-mortem report, no such sign of administering intoxicating substance to the deceased was found nor the time of death supports the prosecution case. 22. From the aforegoing discussions, the question that poses attention of the Court is whether an application for Leave toAppeal under Section 378 (3) Cr.P.C. can be dismissed in limine or not?. 23. The provision of Section 378(3) Cr.P.C, reads as follows: "........(3) [No appeal to the High Court] under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be entertained except with the leave of the High Court." 24. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has highlighted certain principles which govern the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while deciding an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In H.D. Sundara and others vs. State of Karnataka, (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1219, it has been held that: “(a) The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence; (b) The Appellate Court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to re-appreciate the oral and documentary evidence; (c) The Appellate Court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after re-appreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the Trial Court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record; (d) If the view taken is a possible view, the Appellate Court cannot over turn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; (e) The Appellate Court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible. The appellate court cannot examine the judgment of the Trial Court only to find out whether the view taken was correct or incorrect. After re-appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the Appellate Court must first decide whether the Trial Court its view was a possible view. The Appellate Court cannot over turn acquittal only on the ground that after re-appreciating evidence, it is of the view that the guilt of the accused was established beyond a reasonable doubt. After re-appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the Appellate Court must first decide whether the Trial Court its view was a possible view. The Appellate Court cannot over turn acquittal only on the ground that after re-appreciating evidence, it is of the view that the guilt of the accused was established beyond a reasonable doubt. Only by recording such a conclusion an order of acquittal cannot be reversed unless the appellate court also concludes that it was the only possible conclusion. Thus, the Appellate Court must see whether the view taken by the Trial Court while acquitting the accused can be reasonably taken on the basis of evidence on record. If the view taken by the Trial Court is a possible view, the Appellate Court cannot interfere with the order of acquittal on the ground that another view could have been taken.” The aforesaid view finds support in Banna Reddy and Others vs. State of Karnataka and Others, (2018) 5 SCC 790 . While dealing with the application for leave to appeal under Section 378 (3) of Cr.P.C., it has been held in State of Haryana vs. Ram Pal and Others (2005) 3 SCC 347 para 9 : "The trial Court was required to carefully appraise the entire evidence and then come to a conclusion. If the trial Court was at lapse in this regard the High Court was obliged to undertake, such an exercise by entertaining the appeal. The trial Court on the facts of this case did not perform its duties, as was enjoined on it by law. The High Court ought to have in such circumstances granted leave and thereafter as a first court of appeal, re-appreciated the entire evidence on the record independently and returned its findings objectively as regards guilt or otherwise of the accused. It has failed to do so. The questions involved were not trivial. The question regarding application of Section 302 and 149 IPC as raised does not require consideration, keeping in view the evidence adduced and conclusions of the trial court. The High Court has not given any reasons for refusing to grant leave to file appeal against acquittal, and seems to have been completely oblivious to the fact that by such refusal, a close scrutiny of the order of acquittal, by the appellate forum, has been lost once and for all. The High Court has not given any reasons for refusing to grant leave to file appeal against acquittal, and seems to have been completely oblivious to the fact that by such refusal, a close scrutiny of the order of acquittal, by the appellate forum, has been lost once and for all. The manner in which appeal against acquittal has been dealt with by the High Court leaves much to be desired. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative of an application of its mind, all the more when its order is amenable to further avenue of challenge. The absence of reasons has gendered the High Court order not sustainable. Similar view was expressed in State of U.P. v. Battan and Ors. (2001) 10 SCC 607 . About two decades back in State of Maharashtra v. Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan (1981) 4 SCC 129 , the desirability of a speaking order while dealing with an application for grant of leave was highlighted. The requirement of indicating reasons in such cases has been judicially recognized as imperative. The view was re-iterated in Jawahar Lal Singh v. Naresh Singh and Ors. (1987) 2 SCC. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Anil Kumar Alias Badka and others, (2018) 9 SCC 492 had again discussed the said issue. In State of Maharashtra vs. Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar (2008) 9 SCC 475 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the parameters which the High Court should keep in mind while deciding the application for grant of leave to appeal made under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. "19. Now, Section 378 of the Code provides for filing of appeal by the State in case of acquittal. Sub-section (3) declares that no appeal "shall be entertained except with the leave of the High Court". It is, therefore, necessary for the State where it is aggrieved by an order of acquittal recorded by a Court of Session to file an application for leave to appeal as required by sub-section (3) of Section 378of the Code. It is also true that an appeal can be registered and heard on merits by the High Court only after the High Court grants leave by allowing the application filed under sub-section (3) of Section 378 of the Code. 20. It is also true that an appeal can be registered and heard on merits by the High Court only after the High Court grants leave by allowing the application filed under sub-section (3) of Section 378 of the Code. 20. In our opinion, however, in deciding the question whether requisite leave should or should not be granted, the High Court must apply its mind, consider whether prima facie case has been made out or arguable points have been raised and not whether the order of acquittal would or would not be set aside. 21. It cannot be laid down as an abstract proposition of law of universal application that each and every petition seeking leave to prefer an appeal against an order of acquittal recorded by a trial Court must be allowed by the appellate Court and every appeal must be admitted and decided on merits. But it also cannot be overlooked that at that stage, the Court would not enter into minute details of the prosecution evidence and refuse leave observing that the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court could not be said to be `perverse' and, hence, no leave should be granted." 25. The law cited above and principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with an application for leave to appeal must apply the mind to consider whether prima facie case is made out or not and whether the order of acquittal be set aside or not and can dispose of the application inlimine. The core essence of natural justice and fair trial must reflect which will add assurance to the judicial process. 26. Thus, after perusal of the impugned judgment and arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the State, we find that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused respondents. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Judge in the impugned judgment is the plausible view and is well reasoned and supported by cogent evidence. No interference with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is warranted and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 27. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the leave to appeal is dismissed in limine. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed. 28. Copy of the order be sent to the Court concerned for consequential follow up action.