JUDGMENT : MAULIK 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 04.01.2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Panchmahals at Godhra in Session Case No.244 of 2002. The State is in appeal before us challenging the impugned judgment and order, by which the respondent – accused has been acquitted from all the charges levelled against him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 2. The short facts of the prosecution case are as under; 2.1 The prosecution case in brief is that on 24.5.2002 at 4 O'clock or thereabout, the accused of this case sprinkled acid on the deceased Gautambhai and his daughter aged about 7 years, who were sleeping in the Dhaliya near their house and thereby caused their death. The motive of the offence was that the accused was having illicit relation with Sumitraben, wife of the deceased, for the last 4 years and the deceased Gautambhai and Dakshaben being an obstacle for the aforesaid illicit relation, the accused caused the death of both of them.As the possession of acid is against the Notification of the District Magistrate, the accused has also committed the offence under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. An FIR came to be filed with the Jambughoda Police Station being for the offences punishable under the provisions of Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. Investigating Agency, during the course of investigation recorded statements of the witnesses, drawn various panchnamas including panchnama of scene of offence, collected medical papers, PM Report etc. After having found sufficient material against the Respondent - accused, charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Halol. However, as the said Court lacks jurisdiction to try the offence, as alleged offences being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Godhra, as provided under Section 209 of the Code, which was numbered as Sessions Case No. 244/2002. 2.2 Upon committal of the case to the Sessions Court, Godhra, the Ld. Sessions Judge, framed charges vide Exh.3 against the respondent-accused for the aforesaid offences. The Respondents - Accused pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried. 2.2 Upon committal of the case to the Sessions Court, Godhra, the Ld. Sessions Judge, framed charges vide Exh.3 against the respondent-accused for the aforesaid offences. The Respondents - Accused pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried. He was tried for the said offences and in order to bring home charge, the prosecution has examined prosecution witnesses and also produced various documentary evidence before the Sessions Court. The details of the evidence led by the prosecution are reproduced in the tabular form hereunder: Oral Evidences Sr. No. Exh. No. Name of witness Nature of witness Remarks 1 20 Fudiben PW 1 2 22 Chotabhai Prosecution witness 3 24 Sumitraben PW 3 4 25 Kanubhai PW 4 5 27 Dr. Kishorbhai Doctor 6 35 Dr. Paresh Doctor 7 36 Chimanbhai PW 7 8 37 Vikrambhai PW 8 9 38 Babubhai PW 9 Documentary Evidences Sr. No. Exh. No. List of documents Remarks 1 10 Panchnama 2 11 Inquest Panchnama 3 12 Inquest Panchnama 4 14 Police Yadi by PSI 5 16 Police Yadi by PSI 6 18 Police Yadi by PSI 7 19 FSL Report 8 21 Original complaint 9 23 Panchnama 10 26 Arrest Panchnama 11 28 PM Note 12 34 Map 2.4 Thus, prosecution had examined the complainant, eye witnesses, medical officer and the police witness, which according to the prosecution have bring home the charge in support of their case. At the end of the evidence, necessary pursis was presented before the Sessions Court declaring closer of evidence. The Sessions Court, thereafter proceeded to record the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After evaluating the evidence available on record, arrived at a conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the respondent-accused and has acquitted the respondent – accused from all the charges levelled against him. 2.5 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the State being prosecuting agency has filed the present appeal. 3. Brief discussion of prosecution witnesses 1. Prosecution has examined Fudiben mother of the deceased Exh 20. She was sleeping when the incident happened. She submitted complaint in the police station. PW1 2. Prosecution has examined Chotabhai Raysinh, panch Exh. 22. He identified Manharbhai (accused). He identified his signature. 3 Prosecution has examined Sumitraben Gautambhai. Exh 24 Wife and mother of deceased. She had a relationship with accused. 4. She was sleeping when the incident happened. She submitted complaint in the police station. PW1 2. Prosecution has examined Chotabhai Raysinh, panch Exh. 22. He identified Manharbhai (accused). He identified his signature. 3 Prosecution has examined Sumitraben Gautambhai. Exh 24 Wife and mother of deceased. She had a relationship with accused. 4. Prosecution has examined Vikrambhai Nankabhai Bariya. Exh 37 Mantri of the Milk production company. He identified accused. He submitted that they brought acid to measure milk fat but he was not in-charge of the acid but accused father was the in-charge. 5. Prosecution has examined Babubhai Kanubhai Pandor. PSI Exh. 38. He was investigation officer of the present case. He produced Chagesheet Panchnama, Muddamal Certificate, inquest panchanama, notification of arms. He identified accused Arguments on behalf of Appellant/State: 4. It is submitted that findings of acquittal are contrary to law and evidence on record. It is also submitted that the findings recorded are erroneous and based on irrelevant material. It is further contended that the Sessions Court has committed an error in acquitting the respondent and not properly appreciated the evidence produced on record though the prosecution had proved case against the accused. It is further contended that the Sessions Court has given weightage to the minor omission and contradiction in the evidence of the witnesses, though there was none. The Sessions Court has relied on minor contradiction and discarded the evidence of the witnesses, thus, the reasons assigned by the Sessions Court while acquitting the accused are unjust, improper, perverse and unwarranted to the facts of the prosecution case and thereby, has committed an error in acquitting the accused. It is further submitted that the prosecution has established the guilt of all the accused and the Sessions Court has committed an error both on law and facts. Thus, the Sessions Court has wrongly recorded the order of acquittal, which deserves to be quashed and appropriate sentences for the offences be passed against all the accused. On the aforesaid contentions, it is submitted that present appeal may kindly be allowed as prayed for. 5. We have gone through the records and after reappreciating 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. On the aforesaid contentions, it is submitted that present appeal may kindly be allowed as prayed for. 5. We have gone through the records and after reappreciating 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. 5.1 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. 5.2 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 Prasadv. 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 case [ 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, reappreciate 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. 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 CrPC 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 reappreciate the oral and documentary evidence; 8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after reappreciating 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; and 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. 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.” 5.3 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. 6. The respondent – accused was represented by learned advocate Mr. Uday M. Shashtri. However, learned advocate Mr. Shashtri has by his note dated 03.10.2023, informed the Registry of this Court that he has retired form the case as he has received no instruction from his client. Thereafter, none has appeared for original accused. Ordinarily, we would have issued fresh notice to the accused but considering the peculiar facts and circumstances and after re-appreciation of evidence, we deem it appropriate to proceed with the appeal in absence of respondent – accused as we are of the opinion that there is no error committed by the Sessions Court acquitting the accused. 7. We are assigning following reasons in support of our conclusion; 7.1 We have examined oral evidence as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution to bring home the charge levelled against the accused but after re-appreciating the same, we are of the opinion that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused. 7. We are assigning following reasons in support of our conclusion; 7.1 We have examined oral evidence as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution to bring home the charge levelled against the accused but after re-appreciating the same, we are of the opinion that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused. 7.2 It is the case of prosecution that accused having illicit relationship with wife of the deceased (Sumitraben – PW 3 – Exh.24), and that was the motive of accused for commission of such heinous offence by pourimg acid on both the deceased. To prove such charges and the motive, prosecution has examined several witnesses but none of them have supported the case of prosecution except one brother of the deceased, had enmity with father of the accused. As noted herein above, FIR was filed by mother of the deceased, but she is not eyewitness to the incident and even not alleged any motive of any illicit relation of Sumitraben with accused Manharbhai. 7.3 PW – 3 has also confirmed that there was no such relation between accused and herself and at no point of time, accused had given threat to cause harm to the deceased because of such alleged relationship between them. Further, accused happens to be nephew of wife of deceased. Even one of the brothers of deceased namely Kanubhai – PW 4 though examined unable to confirm about relationship between wife of the deceased with accused as he had heard about such relationship, so, he on assumption had recorded his statement to the police about such relationship. Likewise, another brother namely Chimanbhai – PW 7 was also not having any personal knowledge about such illicit relationship rather than it appears that he had some dispute about the amount received by the accused and his mother in relation to their agricultural land. Thus, prosecution has failed to prove the motive of accused to commit such crime. 7.4 The Sessions Court has discussed in detail above stated evidence – witnesses and come to the conclusion that the prosecution has unable to prove the motive. Thus, prosecution has failed to prove the motive of accused to commit such crime. 7.4 The Sessions Court has discussed in detail above stated evidence – witnesses and come to the conclusion that the prosecution has unable to prove the motive. 7.5 The another aspect which has been submitted by learned APP that plastic container containing acid was recovered from possession of accused and same is proved by prosecution by examining Panchas which ought to have been taken note by the Sessions Court to prima facie believe that accused had committed such crime. The Sessions Court had deliberated upon such evidence and discarded it on the ground that panchas examined before the Sessions Court were unable to state a colour of plastic container wherein, such acidic material was stored. Apart from this evidence, it appears that father of the accused i.e. Bhupendrabhai Karsanbhai happens to be the Secretary of one Paniyara Dudh Utpadak Sahakari Mandli wherein he was in possessions of records of society as well as acid. To prove this fact, prosecution has examined one Vikrambhai Baria Exh.37 PW 8 who happens to be Secretary in the said Mandali. It appears from evidence of PW 8, said Mandali was closed in the year 1982, which was again started in the year 1991 and the incident in question was taken place in the year 2002 i.e. after gap of 12 years. So, the Sessions Court has rightly came to the conclusion that it has far-fetched to assume that acid was stored for 12 years in the house of the accused which was used by him in committing crime. It was so observed that acid stored for 12 years would dilute its effect. Moreover, we had asked learned APP as to whether such chemical container, which was recovered from house of the accused was sent to the FSL to confirm about its effect. At that time he fairly conceded that the same was not sent to FSL. Prosecution is unable to confirm on record that alleged container containing chemical recovered from the house of the accused is “ACID”. 7.6 The entire case is based upon the circumstantial evidence, wherein heavy burden is upon prosecution to complete the chain of evidence, to prove the guilt of accused. Prosecution is unable to confirm on record that alleged container containing chemical recovered from the house of the accused is “ACID”. 7.6 The entire case is based upon the circumstantial evidence, wherein heavy burden is upon prosecution to complete the chain of evidence, to prove the guilt of accused. Having discussed herein above and as observed by the Sessions Court that prosecution has failed to complete the chain, thereby unable to prove the charges levelled against the accused. 8. According to us, after examining evidence in detail, there is no another view possible to bring home the charges against the accused whereby, we may alter / reverse the findings recorded by the Sessions Court. There is no perversity in impugned judgment in conclusion arrived at based upon the material available on record, wherein there is no apparent error committed by the Sessions Court. 8.1 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. 8.2 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, Panchmahals at Godhra, in Sessions Case No. 244 of 2002 in acquitting the respondents. 8.3 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.