JUDGMENT : Hemant M. Prachchhak, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 04.05.1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in Sessions Case No.82 of 1993, whereby the accused – respondents herein viz. Mohanbhai Dhanjibhai Patel, Arvindbhai Mohanbhai Patel, Vithalbhai Dhanjibhai Patel, Pragjibhai Odhavjibhai Patel, Ashokbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Kaba alias Kurjibhai Dhanjibhai Patel came to be acquitted from the charge of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 342 read with Section 120B of the IPC, the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred present criminal appeal u/s 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Code”). 2. At the outset, it may be noted that the respondent No.4 – Pragjibhai Odhavjibhai Patel, having expired pending the appeal, the appeal stood abated qua the said respondent No.4, as per the order passed by the Court. 3. The brief facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are that, on 19-10-1992 Jivanbhai went to Bhavnaben at Maroli and did not return home till 25-10-1992 or his message was not received. Therefore, his brother Kurjibhai went to Maroli from Surat for inquiry and on inquiring, Jivanbhai was not found there and on asking deceased Bhavnaben, she did not give satisfactory reply. Therefore, Kurjibhai came back to Surat and he stated the fact to Ashok, the elder son of Jivanbhai's first wife. Thereafter, Kurjihai, Ashokbhai and his friends went to Maroli on the same night at that time, Bhavnaben was sleeping at neighbour's house, therefore, as Ashok asked her to sleep at her own house, she denied so, Kurjibhai and Ashokbhai and his friends Rameshbhai, etc. came taking her to Kohinoor society at Surat and Bhavnaben stayed at the house of Jivanbhai Dhanjibhai at Surat since she and she was kept. On 26/27-10- 1992 in the night Ashokbhai Jivanbhai happened to enter into altercation with Bhavnaben in regard to missing of his father Jivanbhai Dhanjibhai and keeping such doubt that she had committed murder of Jivanbhai Dhanjibhai, he went to his uncle Mohnabhai talked to him to get information at that time, Mohanbhai asked Ashokbhai to go to his another uncle Vitthalbhai Dhanjibhai and to state the fact so, Ashokbhai met Vitthalbhai Dhanjibhai and stated the fact. Then, Vitthalbhai Dhanjibhai decided to keep with Nanubhai Desai @ Nanu Custom, who is residing at Surat Athwalines area who believes Bhavnaben as sister, and to inquire about Bhavnaben therefore, Nanu Custom was called and as he came, keeping with Ashok Jivanbhai, Vitthalbhai Jivanbhai, Arvindbhai Mohanbhai, Kurjibhai Dhanjibhai, Pragjibhai Oghavjibhai and Kangarbapu inquired Bhavnaben pressurizing and brought out such fact that Jivanbhai's murder has been committed and his dead body has been buried in the compound of Bhavnaben's bungalow. As such fact came out, As this fact was revealed, some of the relatives of Jivanbhai went to Maroli and Bhavnaben was kept at the bungalow of Jivanbhai situated at Kohinoor Society, Surat. Thereafter, at 19-30 hours, information was received that, Bhavnaben was found hanging by a rope tied to a fan in the kitchen of the building where she was kept. Bhavnaben could have not reach the fan and the hook of the fan fitted here at this place, in the ceiling of the kitchen. Moreover, the chair on which it was pretended that, Bhavnaben stood and hung herself by tying the rope in her neck, was sleeping away even after the deceased was hanged on the same. That means, the feet of the dead body of the deceased were not touching the chair. Seeing this situation, as suspicion was arose, as to whether the deceased really committed suicide or not, as it came to know that, the death of deceased was unnatural, P.M. of the dead body was carried out. As per the opinion of the Doctor, the cause of death of was asphyxia due to manual compression of the neck followed by hanging. As seven ante-mortem injuries were found on the body of the deceased lady during the examination of the dead body, the deceased lady did not commit suicide but, the aforesaid relatives of Jivanbhai, suspecting that, the deceased Bhavnaben was behind the death of Jivanbhai, brought the deceased Bhavnaben from Maroli to Surat with the help of Jivanbhai, Kurajibhai Dhanjibhai, Rameshbhai and kept her in the house with the cooperation of the other persons. Mohanbhai Dhanjibhai, Nanubhai Desai, Kurjibhai Dhanjibhai, Pragjibhai Odhavjibhai, Vitthalbhai Dhanjibhai, Ashokbhai Jivanbhai and Arvindbhai Mohanbhai hatched criminal conspiracy on 26/27-10-1992 in the night at Hotel Jivandhara. Mohanbhai Dhanjibhai, Nanubhai Desai, Kurjibhai Dhanjibhai, Pragjibhai Odhavjibhai, Vitthalbhai Dhanjibhai, Ashokbhai Jivanbhai and Arvindbhai Mohanbhai hatched criminal conspiracy on 26/27-10-1992 in the night at Hotel Jivandhara. They forcefully made Bhavnaben speak about death of Jivanbhai and mentally tortured her and caused the death of the deceased by strangling neck, causing injuries on the chest and other parts of her body and to destroy the evidence, tried to prove that, she has committed suicide by hanging her by the rope tying with the hook of the fan and pretended to have commit suicide and though the death of Bhavnaben was unnatural, destroyed the evidence by giving false statement in the Police Station. 4. On the basis of above, the Investigating Officer, after carrying out investigation and collecting sufficient evidence against the respondents – accused had laid the charge-sheet in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Surat. Since the case was exclusively triable by Sessions Court, learned JMFC, Surat committed the case to the Sessions Court as provided under section 209 of the Code. 5. Upon committal of the case to the Sessions Court, learned Sessions Judge framed charge at Exh.7 against the accused persons - opponents herein for the aforesaid offence. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. In order to bring home charge, the prosecution has examined as many as 35 prosecution witnesses and also produced documentary evidence before the learned trial Court, which are as under : Oral Evidence : Sr. No. Name of Witness Exh. 1. Kantaben Jivanbhai - PW - 1 (Hostile) 40 2. Hitesh Jivanbhai - PW - 2 (Hostile) 41 3. Devrajbhai Muljibhai - PW - 3 42 4. Mustakali Jafarali - PW - 4 (Hostile) 43 5. Parshottam Devji Jakecha - PW - 5 (Hostile) 44 6. Shivabhai Ramjibhai Savani - PW - 6 (Hostile) 45 7. Madhubhai Shankarbhai - PW - 7 46 8. Induben @ Sudhaben Gunvantbhai Desai - PW - 8 48 9. Babubhai Narsinhbhai Patel - PW - 9 (Hostile) 49 10. Ranchodbhai Govindbhai Mesuriya - PW – 10 (Hostile) 50 11. Chandubhai Devrajbhai - PW - 11 51 12. Jyantibhai Maganbhai Patel - PW - 12 (Hostile) 52 13. Kangiri Premgiri Gosai - PW - 13 (Hostile) 53 14. Jitubhai Ramchandra - PW - 14 55 15. Gunvantbhai Bhanabhai Patel - PW - 15 56 16. Ranchodbhai Govindbhai Mesuriya - PW – 10 (Hostile) 50 11. Chandubhai Devrajbhai - PW - 11 51 12. Jyantibhai Maganbhai Patel - PW - 12 (Hostile) 52 13. Kangiri Premgiri Gosai - PW - 13 (Hostile) 53 14. Jitubhai Ramchandra - PW - 14 55 15. Gunvantbhai Bhanabhai Patel - PW - 15 56 16. Rameshbhai Raghavbhai - PW - 16 (Hostile) 57 17. Madhubhau Merubhai - PW - 17 (Hostile) 58 18. Valjibhai Karamsinhbhai - PW - 18 (Hostile) 59 19. Bhagubhai Ravjibhai - PW - 19 60 20. Channabhai Ravjibhai - PW - 20 61 21. Manubhai Jaswant Patel - PW - 21 (Hostile) 62 22. Babubhai Virjibhai Patel - PW - 22 (Hostile) 63 23. Govindbhai Mohanbhai Patel - PW - 23 64 24. Dr.Mohmmad Iqbal Husain Qureshi - PW - 24 67 25. Girishbhai Tribhovandas - PW - 25 73 26. Nanubhai Dolatram Desai - PW - 26 76 27. Maheshchandra Chabildas Champaneria - PW - 27 81 28. Kamlaben Ratanji Prajapati - PW - 28 83 29. Natwarlal Bechardas Patel - PW - 29 84 30. Ghanshyam Tribovan Pandya - PW - 30 88 31. Mansingh Somabhai - PW - 31 89 32. Bipinbhai Natwarbhai - PW - 32 92 33. Mukesh Nandshankar Joshi - PW - 33 95 34. Ayodhyasinh Khengar - PW - 34 101 35. Bhavsingh Divabhai Vaghela – Complainant & IO 102 Documentary Evidence : Sr. No. Documents Exh. 1. Panchnama of Bhavnaben 65 2. Inquest Panchnama of Bhavnaben 74 3. Post Mortem Report 68 4. Inquest Panchnama of Jivanbhai 22 5. Panchnama of Jivanbhai 24 6. List of documents application (Mark 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 21, 24, 25, 26 & 27) 17 7. List of documents application (Mark 3 & 4) 39 8. FIR being CR. Reg. No.I-132/92 at Jalapore Police Station (for murder of Jivanbhai) 86 9. FIR being CR. Reg. No.I-438/92 Varachha Police Station (for murder of Bhavnaben) 103 10. Summary Report of Abetted in respect of murder of Jivanbhai 87 7. On conclusion of evidence on the part of the prosecution, the trial Court recorded further statements of the accused persons – respondents herein as provided u/s 313 of the Code, wherein, the respondents herein denied their involvement in the offence and stated that false case has been filed against them. On conclusion of evidence on the part of the prosecution, the trial Court recorded further statements of the accused persons – respondents herein as provided u/s 313 of the Code, wherein, the respondents herein denied their involvement in the offence and stated that false case has been filed against them. After hearing both the sides and after appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial Judge acquitted the respondents herein from the charge of offence under sections, 302, 201, 342 read with Section 120B of the IPC. 8. We have heard the learned APP Mr.Chintan Dave appearing for the appellant – State of Gujarat, learned advocate Mr.Saurin Shah appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned Senior Advocate Mr.I.H. Syed assisted by learned advocate Mr.Apurva Kapadia appearing for respondent Nos.3, 5 and 6 and minutely examined the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced before the learned Trial Court discussed at great length in the impugned judgment itself. 9. Learned APP Mr.Dave appearing for the appellant - State submitted that though the prosecution has proved homicidal death beyond reasonable doubt, however, the Trial Court has committed an error while passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. He submitted that the prosecution has examined independent witness namely, Dr.Mohammad Iqbal Husain Qureshi – PW 24 (Exh.-67), who has performed Post Mortem, has categorically supported the the case of the prosecution and mentioned the injury which is found on the body of the deceased Bhavnaben, however, the Trial Court has not considered the said evidence of the expert in its true and perspective spirit. He further contended that the prosecution has proved the motive beyond reasonable doubts but this fact has not been considered by the Trial Court while passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. He further submitted that the dead body was found from the house of Ashokbhai (accused No.5) who is the son of the deceased Jivanbhai from his first wife and therefore, he had reason to kill the deceased Bhavnaben and hence, there was strong motive with the said Ashokbhai, however, the Trial Court has not considered this aspect while passing the impugned judgment and order. He also submitted that the FSL report has also supported the case of the prosecution and there was legature marks also found and rope and other incriminating articles were also found at the place of offence, which came to be examined by the Forensic Science Laboratory and has supported the case of the prosecution and therefore, it establishes complete chain of circumstances to prove the case against the respondents – accused persons. Mr.Dave has also further submitted that the Trial Court has ignored the cogent and reliable material and sufficient evidence produced before it, and therefore, the impugned judgment and order is illegal, erroneous and the same is required to be quashed and set aside and the original accused – respondents herein are to be held guilty. Thus, he submitted that the present appeal may be allowed. 10. Per contra, the learned advocates appearing for the respondents – original accused have strongly objected the present appeal and submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish the motive, guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt as there are serious discrepancies in the evidence of Doctor - PW 24 (Exh.-67) and the Inquest Panchnama and therefore, the Trial Court has rightly discarded the evidence of the said doctor as it is not corroborated and it is contrary to the Inquest Panchnama, and therefore, the Trial Court has rightly passed the order of acquittal. It is also further submitted that the informant Mr.B.D. Vaghela, S.P. B. Div. Surat, who has recorded the FIR, himself has carried out the investigation and therefore, it is against the settled legal principles of law and only on that basis the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. It is also submitted that there is no cogent and reliable material evidence brought by the prosecution to hold all the accused – respondents herein guilty of the offence and not even remotely the informant could prove the guilt of the accused persons before the Trial Court and therefore, the Trial Court has rightly passed the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and no interference is required to be called for. 11. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. We have also perused the record and proceedings of the Trial Court and we have also examined the evidence recorded by the Trial Court in detail. 11. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. We have also perused the record and proceedings of the Trial Court and we have also examined the evidence recorded by the Trial Court in detail. On perusal of the evidence recorded by the Trial Court, we find that there is serious infirmity with regard to the oral deposition and the documentary evidence, more particularly the deposition of the Doctor (Exh.-67), who had deposed before the Trial Court that the death of the deceased Bhavnaben had occurred on 27.10.1992 at about 2.30 pm. and has found certain ligature marks and rope marks on the neck of the dead body. However, at the time of drawing Inquest Panchnama, the fact with regard to rope has not been mentioned by the Investigating Officer in presence of the Panchas and therefore, there was no cogent explanation given by the prosecution with regard to the marks of rope found at the time of Post Mortem which is stated by the doctor in his deposition and therefore, it creates a serious doubt in the case of prosecution. 11.1 It is also pertinent to note herein that the case of the prosecution mainly rests on the fact that the deceased Bhavnaben had committed murder of her husband on or between 25.10.1992 to 28.10.1992 and she had concealed the dead body of her husband somewhere in her house and upon inquiry by the family members of the deceased husband, she apprehended that she might be arrested for the commission of the offence of murder of her husband and therefore, on many occasions, the deceased Bhavnaben has not given proper response and reply to the family members upon inquiry. It also appears that out of the fear of the same, the deceased Bhavnaben committed suicide by hanging herself and thereafter all the accused persons have been involved in the offence of murder instead of suicidal death. Even the prosecution case does not inspire any confidence with regard to the evidence collected by the prosecution. On one hand, prosecution witness namely, Nanubhai Dolatram Desai – PW-26 was initially shown as accused in the FIR, subsequently reason best known to the IO and without there being following any procedure under the provisions of Cr.P.C. he was shown as witness. On one hand, prosecution witness namely, Nanubhai Dolatram Desai – PW-26 was initially shown as accused in the FIR, subsequently reason best known to the IO and without there being following any procedure under the provisions of Cr.P.C. he was shown as witness. There is no any explanation worth the name rendered either by the IO or by the prosecution that under which circumstances the said accused was shown as a witness and surprisingly, the prosecution has examined the said PW-26 in the case against the accused persons. From his deposition the fact reveals and reflects that all the accused persons had went to village Maroli on 27.10.1992 and they were not present in the village where the incident of death of Bhavnaben had taken place. On the other hand, the prosecution has strongly relied on the said witness to prove the guilt of the accused persons and therefore, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has not proved the charge levelled against all the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and the Trial Court has not committed any error while passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. 11.2 So far as the contention raised by the learned APP with regard to the ownership of the house, from where the dead body of the deceased Bahvnaben was found, is concerned, the prosecution has not led any cogent and material evidence before the Trial Court that the sole and exclusive possession of the house in question is with Ashokbhai. In fact, the Trial Court has recorded that there were other persons who were occupying the said premises and there was no cogent and material evidence produced by the prosecution before the Trial Court and therefore, the Trial Court has rightly recorded the evidence with regard to the ownership and possession of the house. 11.3 So far as the reliance upon the FSL report is concerned, the basic infirmity starts from the initial stage of investigation which is not cured with the help of the FSL report. 11.3 So far as the reliance upon the FSL report is concerned, the basic infirmity starts from the initial stage of investigation which is not cured with the help of the FSL report. So far as motive is concerned, the prosecution has not proved the case against all the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and there is no complete chain while proving the guilt of the accused persons and it is a settled principle of law that in any of the cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to link all the chain to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, in the present case, the prosecution has failed to establish the case against the respondents accused persons. 11.4 The prosecution has examined as many as 35 witnesses, out of which, almost 20 witnesses have turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. It is also relevant to note herein that the FIR for the incident was recorded after two days and the informant namely B.D. Vaghela who himself being a police officer, had carried out the investigation, which is against the settled principles of law as a person who is a complainant cannot investigate the offence and there are series of judgments on that aspect and law is very settled on that aspect, therefore, the Trial Court has not committed any error while deciding this issue against the prosecution. It seems that the informant himself is the Investigating Officer and therefore, he has tried to involve all the accused persons in the alleged crime and has tried to collect the material to strengthen the case against all the accused persons to prove his investigation as true and correct and to prove the charge levelled against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, he has collected the evidence of that nature. But the prosecution has not proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt against all the accused persons and therefore, the Trial Court has rightly discarded and disbelieved the evidence of Mr.B.D. Vaghela while discussing in paragraph 36 of the judgment and has properly appreciated the evidence of IO and has discussed in length and therefore, the Trial Court has not committed any error while passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. 11.5 The prosecution had tried to prove the motive as Bhavnaben had committed murder of her husband, therefore, with a view to take revenge, perhaps the accused persons have committed the offence of murder of Bhavnaben, but there is no evidence worth the name produced before the Trial Court which shows the involvement of the accused persons in the commission of the alleged crime and therefore, the Trial Court has rightly discarded the evidence led by the prosecution. It is the case of the circumstantial evidence, therefore, prosecution has to prove the chain of circumstance beyond reasonable doubt to hold the accused persons guilty of the charge levelled against them. But, here in the present case, there is no complete chain established and there was missing link like timing of the death, presence of the accused persons, even last seen together were not established by the prosecution and on the contrary, the witness of the prosecution side has deposed before the Trial Court that on the date of incident, at the relevant point of time, alongwith the accused persons, they were at village Maroli and up to evening hours, they all were at village Maroli and the prosecution has strongly relied upon the said witness and has examined in support of their case. Thus, this itself cuts the root of the story of the prosecution that the accused persons were present at the time of incident at the place where the incident has occurred and therefore, we are of the firm opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt by leading any cogent and reliable material evidence before the Trial Court. 11.6 It is settled principles of law that if two views are possible, then one which is favourable to the accused persons, are required to be adopted and therefore, the Trial Court has rightly recorded the findings while passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and we do not find any infirmity worth the name in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. 11.7 In case of Chandrappa and others Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415 , in paragraph 42, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held and observed as under : “42. 11.7 In case of Chandrappa and others Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415 , in paragraph 42, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held and observed as under : “42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of 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 emphasize 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. Firstly, the presumption of innocence 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.” 11.8 It would be worthwhile to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116 wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held and observed in paragraphs No.150, 163 and 164 as under:- “150. The High Court has referred to some decisions of this Court and tried to apply the ratio of those cases to the present case which, as we shall show, are clearly distinguishable. State of Maharashtra reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116 wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held and observed in paragraphs No.150, 163 and 164 as under:- “150. The High Court has referred to some decisions of this Court and tried to apply the ratio of those cases to the present case which, as we shall show, are clearly distinguishable. The High Court was greatly impressed by the view taken by some courts, including this Court, that a false defence or a false plea taken by an accused would be an additional link in the various chain of circumstantial evidence and seems to suggest that since the appellant had taken a false plea that would be conclusive, taken along with other circumstances, to prove the case. We might, however, mention at the outset that this is not what this Court has said. We shall elaborate this aspect of the matter a little later. 163. We then pass on to another important point which seems to have been completely missed by the High Court. It is well settled that where on the evidence two possibilities are available or open, one which goes in favour of the prosecution and the other which benefits an accused, the accused is undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of doubt. In Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, this Court made the following observations: "Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted This principle has a special relevance in cases where in the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence." 164. We now come to the mode and manner of proof of cases of murder by administration of poison. In Ramgopal's case (supra) this Court held thus: "Three questions arise in such cases, namely (firstly), did the deceased die of the poison in question ? (secondly), had the accused the poison in his possession ? and (thirdly), had the accused an opportunity to administer the poison in question to the deceased ? In Ramgopal's case (supra) this Court held thus: "Three questions arise in such cases, namely (firstly), did the deceased die of the poison in question ? (secondly), had the accused the poison in his possession ? and (thirdly), had the accused an opportunity to administer the poison in question to the deceased ? It is only when the motive is there and these facts are all proved that the court may be able to draw the inference, that the poison was administered by the accused to the deceased resulting in his death." Hence, the law is now settled and in the case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to establish the complete chain of evidence beyond reasonable doubt. 12. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, we are of the firm opinion that the Trial Court has not committed any error worth the name while passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and hence, no case is made out to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. 13. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present criminal appeal fails and same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Bailable warrant stands cancelled.