JUDGMENT : MAULIK J. SHELAT, J. 1. The present Acquittal Appeal has been filed under Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment and order dated 26.02.1997 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Court No. 1), Bhuj at Kutch in Session Case No. 9 of 1996. The State is in appeal before us. By way of the impugned judgment and order, the accused have been acquitted of all the charges levelled against them under Sections 302, 363 and 366 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. Respondent no. 2-Original accused no. 2, Raja Teja Harijan has been reportedly died and therefore, this Court vide its order dated 01.08.2022 directed abatement of the appeal qua respondent no. 2-original accused no. 2. 3. The short facts of the prosecution case are as under: 3.1 That on 30.04.1995 at around 9:00 AM, the complainant, namely, Uga Bhikha and his wife, Badhibai Uga Bhikha had gone to the house of one Merubha Narsangji Jadeja for house repair work and at that time, his two daughters, namely, Naviben and Shantaben, were at home. At around 13:00 hours, Jadeja Shivubha Madhavsinh-a resident of the complainant’s village Kuda Jampar at Taluka Rapar, had informed the complainant that there is smoke emitting from his house and informed him that there may be a fire in the house of the complainant. So, the complainant and his wife and other persons immediately rushed and reached the house of the complainant. It appears that door of the complainant’s house was closed from inside, which was opened by complainant applying force. When the complainant went inside the house, he saw that his daughter, Shantaben had been burnt alive and was shouting for help but at low decibel voice. When he had asked Shantaben about how it happened, she responded that Raja and Mohan had poured kerosene and burnt her alive and kidnapped her sister-Naviben and ran away. It appears that later on, missing Naviben (another daughter of the complainant) and her cousin sister-Sumiben, who happens to be the real daughter of the brother of the complainant, namely, Pethabhai Bhikhabhai Harijan, were found from a well on 02.05.1995. 3.2 Thus, FIR came to be lodged against accused, who have been charged with the aforesaid offences on 17.02.1997/30/01/1997 at Exh.1. The charges have been framed against the accused at Exh.1. Several witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. 3.2 Thus, FIR came to be lodged against accused, who have been charged with the aforesaid offences on 17.02.1997/30/01/1997 at Exh.1. The charges have been framed against the accused at Exh.1. Several witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. 3.3 After appreciating oral and documentary evidence on record, learned Sessions Court, has found so many contradictions in the version of witnesses, who have been examined by the prosecution and the story enumerated by complainant and his wife as well as other supporting witnesses, are not found trustworthy. Thus, considering the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Court, has acquitted both the accused from all the charges. 4. We have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Utkarsh Sharma at length, who has taken us through various oral evidence as well as documentary evidence, which are on record. We have independently examined and appreciated evidence of witnesses. 5. It appears that accused have not pleaded guilty and the prosecution has examined following 11 witnesses and submitted various documentary evidence, to prove the charges against the accused. Oral Evidences PW No. Exhibit No. Name of Witness Nature of Witness 1. 7 Uga Bhika Harijan (Complainant) Complainant-Father 2. 8 Badhibai Uga Bhikha Mother 3. 9 Shivubhai Harsinhbhai Jadega Well Operator 4. 10 Merubha Narsang Jadeja House owner-repair work 5. 11 Shivubha Madhavsang Jadeja Villager-informed complainant about fire 6. 12 Danubha Harisinh Jadeja Well Overseer 7. 13 Dr. Rajendrasinh Bhagwandas Kashyap Medical Officer-PM 8. 17 Pethabhai Bhikhabhai Harijan Father of Sumiben (deceased drowning) 9. 43 Velgar Shamgar Goswami PSO-Raper Police station. 10. 45 Kanaji Naranji Solanki PSI - Raper Police Station since 21.07.1995 11. 46 Mr. O.M. Panday PSI - Raper Police Station at time of offence Documentary Evidences S. No. Exhibit No. Name of Witness 1. 14, 15, 16 PM Note 2. 18 Inquest Panchnama 3. 19 Panchnama of the Room 4. 20 Panchnama near well clothes etc. 5. 21 Inquest Panchnama (well dead bodies) 6. 22 Panchnama of Well 7. 23 Panchnama of Accused No. 1 at time of arrest 8. 24 Arrest Panchanam Accused No. 1 9. 44 FIR 6. We start with oral evidence of complainant-Ugha Bhikha Harijan-PW-1 at Exh-7, who happens to be the father of victim girl and who was examined as prosecution witness no. 1 (hereinafter referred to as PW-1). 22 Panchnama of Well 7. 23 Panchnama of Accused No. 1 at time of arrest 8. 24 Arrest Panchanam Accused No. 1 9. 44 FIR 6. We start with oral evidence of complainant-Ugha Bhikha Harijan-PW-1 at Exh-7, who happens to be the father of victim girl and who was examined as prosecution witness no. 1 (hereinafter referred to as PW-1). In his examination-inchief, he has narrated the incident and deposed that on receiving the information about there appears fire in his residence, he rushed to his house alongwith wife and others and by forcing door of the house locked from inside, entered the house, wherein he found his daughter, Shantaben was burning alive when he had ask Shantaben as to how the incident happened, according to him, Shantaben informed him that accused had set her ablaze and ran away with her sister-Naviben. He had tried to douse the fire by putting blankets on her. It appears that PW-1 along with others went in search of Naviben and reached the house of his brother, Pethabhai from where he came to know that his niece Sumiben was also missing. Thereafter, PW-1 registered FIR at Rapar Police Station for the said incident late in the evening on 30-04-1995. 6.1 In the cross examination, PW-1 has admitted certain facts, which are vital in nature. He has admitted that when he entered into the house, the fire was already extinguished but the smoke was coming out. He has admitted that he alone went inside his house. He has admitted that in the FIR, he has not mentioned that he had inquired about the accused prior to lodging of FIR. He has admitted that distance between his village: Jamper to Rapar is hardly 28 kilometers. He had stayed for about 5 to 10 minutes at his house and later on, in the evening at about 17:00 hours reached Rapar Police Station and registered FIR @ 19:00 hours. 7. Badhibai Ugha Bhikha Harijan-PW-2 at Exh-8, (hereinafter referred to as PW-2), in her examination-in-chief, stated that she and her husband were at the house of Jadeja Shivubha Madhavsinh for doing mason work and on receiving information about smoke emitting out of her house, she along with her husband-PW-1 reached at the house. She further stated that her husband had opened up the door by using his leg. She saw that her daughter-Shantaben was burnt alive. She further stated that her husband had opened up the door by using his leg. She saw that her daughter-Shantaben was burnt alive. She has categorically stated that her husband had not tried to douse the fire on her body but asked Shantaben that how it happened, whereby her daughter replied that the same is done by accused. Shantaben was little conscious but they have not tried to douse the fire on her body. Shantaben died after about 10 minutes and till that time, she was burnt alive but her husband-PW-1 did nothing. She has lastly stated that her another daughter-Naviben and niece-Sumiben were kidnapped by accused, who have been identified by her. 7.1 In her cross examination, she has admitted that she got scared when she saw Shantaben and became unconscious and she had dizziness for about 10 minutes. She has further admitted that except she and her husband, no one came inside their house. She has admitted that in unconscious state of mind, she was hearing the conversation, which took place between her husband-PW-1 with Shantaben. She has further admitted that when she gained consciousness, she was alone at her house in company of her husband-PW-1. She has admitted that she never heard about any relationship of her daughter and niece with accused and never saw them together. 8. Merubha Narsang Jadeja/PW-4 at Exh-10 (hereafter referred to as PW-4) in his examination in chief, stated that the complainant and his wife were working at the time of incident and that he heard from PW-1, that his daughter has been burnt and it is done by accused. 8.1 In cross-examination, he states that he does not remember that whether, in his statement before police, he stated that the complainant had informed or was speaking with regards to incident committed by Raja and Mohan. He also states that they had gone walking to the police station at Raper around 26 kms. 9. Dr. Rajendrasinh Bhagwandas Kashyap-PW-7 at Exh-13 - who carried out the PM of the dead bodies along with one Dr. Manoj Dave, in his cross-examination, indicated the state of mind of the deceased and her incapacity to give a Dying declaration or to speak. He has confirmed that due to severe burn injuries, victim would not in a position to speak anything. Manoj Dave, in his cross-examination, indicated the state of mind of the deceased and her incapacity to give a Dying declaration or to speak. He has confirmed that due to severe burn injuries, victim would not in a position to speak anything. He has confirmed that victim’s tongue was also found outside which speaks for itself about condition of victim. 10. Petha Bhikha Harijan-PW-8 at Exh-17 - father of the other deceased girl Sumiben, in cross-examination, accepts that he did not disclose anything with regard to Raja and Mohan and that the complainant had informed regarding burning of the deceased- Shantabai/ben and taking away other two girls. 11. Velgar Shamgar Goswami-PW-9 at Exh-43 - PSO, Raper Police Station, in cross-examination, admits that prior to FIR, he had discussion with regards to incident with the complainant and that there is one police station in between but the PSO there was on leave. 12. Kanaji Naranji Solanki-PW-10-Exh-45 - who took over the charge as PSI on 21.07.1995 and the investigation, and indicates with regard to filing of charge-sheet. 13. Om Prakash Mahadev Pandey - PW-11 at Exh-46- He was serving as PSI at Raper Police Station at the relevant point of time when the incident had taken place and in his deposition indicates that the whereabouts of the accused and girls were not found at the relevant point of time and no one saw them together. He also admits that important witness, namely, Vasantiben i.e. daughter-in- law of Petha Bhika is not cited as witness in charge-sheet, who otherwise had seen the boys going with the girls and was aware about their love affair. He also indicates about a chit which was discovered during investigation; however, it was not investigated properly. In cross examination he admits that this was the case of circumstantial evidence and nothing concrete was found against the accused. 14. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the impugned judgment is erroneous, as it is based on irrelevant material. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit appreciation of evidence is not properly done by learned Sessions Judge, which has resulted into miscarriage of justice. He would further submit that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, whereby the accused could have been proved guilty and punished for the offense committed by them. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit appreciation of evidence is not properly done by learned Sessions Judge, which has resulted into miscarriage of justice. He would further submit that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, whereby the accused could have been proved guilty and punished for the offense committed by them. He would submit that learned Sessions Court has misdirected itself by finding contradictions in the version of incident of prosecution witnesses and thereby, wrongly giving the benefit of doubt to accused, which resulted into their acquittal. 14.1 According to Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, there was no contradiction in the version of any of the witnesses whose evidence, are self sufficient to prove all the accused guilty. Thus, according to learned Additional Public Prosecutor, learned Sessions Court has committed a grave error by recording an order of acquittal, which deserves to be quashed and set aside by allowing the present appeal. 15. Learned advocate, Mr. Yogendra Thakore appearing for accused No. 1-Respondent no. 1, has filed leave note today but considering the fact that present appeal is of the year, 1997, being an acquittal appeal, we would like to proceed further with the appeal. 16. We have gone through the records and after re-appreciating the evidence and keeping in mind, the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while deciding acquittal appeal, we deem it appropriate to decide the appeal. 17. Before dealing with merit of the appeal, at this stage, we would like to remind ourselves the position of law by Supreme Court of India in its various decisions, whereby it has laid down several criteria while deciding acquittal appeal. 18. One of the recent pronouncement, in which, the Supreme Court of India in a case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Others vs. State of Karnataka, (2024) 8 SCC 149 has held as under: “39. This Court in the case of Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar and Another, (2022) 3 SCC 471 encapsulated the legal position covering the field after considering variousearlier judgments and held as below: “29. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court culled out the following general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal in the following words: [Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 ] “42. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court culled out the following general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal in the following words: [Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 ] “42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: (1) An appellate court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 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 emphasise 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 is 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.” 40. Further, in the case of H.D. Sundara & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581 this Court summarized the principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. as follows: 8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence. 8.2. Further, in the case of H.D. Sundara & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581 this Court summarized the principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. as follows: 8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence. 8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to re-appreciate the oral and documentary evidence. 8.3. 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. 8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible. 8.5. 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.” 41. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate Court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles: 41.1 That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity. 41.2 That the same misreading/omission to evidence on record; is based on a consider material. 41.3 That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record. 42. The appellate Court, in order to interfere with the judgment of acquittal would have to record pertinent findings on the above factors if it is inclined to reverse the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court.” 19. Now, keeping in mind the aforesaid ratio and after appreciating the evidence on record, following glaring facts, which are noticed by learned Sessions Court, while acquitting the accused, are required to be considered while deciding the present appeal. 20. It has surfaced from oral testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 that their daughter-Shantaben was burnt alive and she died within 10 minutes when they reached inside the house. 20. It has surfaced from oral testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 that their daughter-Shantaben was burnt alive and she died within 10 minutes when they reached inside the house. According to PW-1, he had tried to douse the fire on her body but PW-2 in her cross examination, clearly stated that neither she nor her husband tried to douse the fire on the body of her daughter - Shantaben. This conduct of PW-1 is not only unusual but unnatural and not trustworthy especially when their daughter was burnt alive. According to PW-1, he entered his house along with his wife-PW-2 with other persons whereas PW-2, in her cross examination, has categorically admitted that she and her husband-PW-1 were alone inside the house. She became unconscious on seeing her daughter-Shantaben being burnt alive. Under such circumstances, the question of hearing conversation between the husband-PW-1 with Shantaben would be nothing but an unbelievable story. Thus, behavior and conduct of the parents of the victim is unnatural as no parent would stand away by doing nothing when their daughter is being burnt alive. It is required to be noticed that PW-1, in his complaint, has not stated that he had inquired the whereabouts of accused, which would be natural conduct of father, had he been intimated about name of accused by her victim-daughter. Furthermore, neither PW-1 nor PW-2 or other neighbours have taken any steps to give immediate medical help to Shantaben and it appears that she took her last breath inside the home of PW-1. No steps were taken by PW-1 to search accused in nearby area having nothing mentioned in his FIR about the same. Moreover, as per doctor’s evidence PW-7- Ex.13 has categorically stated that considering burn injuries found on body of Shantaben, he has admitted in his cross- examination that tongue of Shantaben was out and she was unable to speak due to burn injuries. 21. It has been further noticed that entire case of prosecution rests upon circumstantial evidence, having no direct proof of eyewitness, who had seen the accused coming out from the house of PW-1. 21. It has been further noticed that entire case of prosecution rests upon circumstantial evidence, having no direct proof of eyewitness, who had seen the accused coming out from the house of PW-1. At one stage, PW- 11, the inquiry officer in his deposition, tried to suggest that one-Vasantiben-daughter-in- law of Pethabhai, the brother of PW-1, had seen both accused taking away the daughters of PW- 1 and his brother-Pethabhai respectively but neither her statement is on record nor she was examined as witness by the prosecution in charge-sheet, which shows that the investigating officer has not properly investigated the crime by recording the statement of so called eyewitness-Vasantiben, which could have been vital evidence to bring home the charges levelled against the accused. 22. Be that as it may, in a case of present nature, which is based on circumstantial evidence, it is heavy burden upon the prosecution to complete the chain, thereby, accused can be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. According to us, the prosecution has failed to complete the chain and not able to prove the presence of both accused at the house of PW-1 as well as kidnapped the daughters of PW-1 and his brother respectively. 23. It has been further noticed by us that PW-2, in her cross-examination, has admitted that she never heard about relationship of her daughter and niece with accused and never seen them together. Then in absence of any evidence on record to suggest that the girls eloped with accused or in past, the accused have threatened the girls to keep relationship with them, the prosecution miserably failed to even prove the motive of accused for committing such heinous crime. It has been correctly noticed by learned Trial Court that there are several contradictions in oral testimony of PW-1 and PW-2, which are highlighted hereinabove and their conduct is also unnatural being parents. 24. The dead body of other 2 girls, namely, Naviben and Sumiben, who happens to be the daughters of PW-1 and his brother respectively, were found on 02.05.1995 from the well of village of PW-1; however, prosecution has failed to bring any evidence on record to suggest that between 30.04.1995 and 02.05.1995, both girls were eloped with accused and even no person from their village have seen them together. Thus, the charge of kidnapping of both these girls were not proved by prosecution beyond doubt. 25. Thus, the charge of kidnapping of both these girls were not proved by prosecution beyond doubt. 25. Thus, after going through evidence and its re-appreciation as well as reasons assigned by learned Sessions Court, the prosecution has failed to prove that the charges against accused are just and proper and we are in complete agreement with reasons assigned by the learned Sessions Court while acquitting accused. 26. Considering these set of evidences on record and in light of the latest decision of the Apex Court as reproduced hereinabove, which deals with the law on acquittal, we are of the opinion that no error has been committed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhuj at Kutch, in Sessions Case No. 09 of 1996 in acquitting the respondents. 27. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Resultantly, the impugned judgment and order of the trial court is hereby confirmed. Bail bond, if any, shall stand cancelled. Record and proceedings, if called for, be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.