JUDGMENT : Prem Narayan Singh, J. The present appeal is filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 10.09.2022, passed by learned Eight Additional Session Judge, Ujjain in S.T. No.250/2021, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable U/s 392/397 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo 7 years imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/-, and usual default stipulations. 2. As per the prosecution case, on 26.08.2021 at about 10.30 pm complainant Brijgopal Yadav went to Binnu Badoriya's Pan shop to have some tobacco. At that time, appellant reached the spot, he pointed knife in the neck of the complainant and snatched away seven grams golden chain worth Rs.20,000/- from the complainant. This incident was witnessed by Binnu Badoriya and Bablu Mechanic. Thereafter, the FIR was lodged against by complainant. 3. The police after following the due procedure, prepared the spot map, recorded the statements of the witnesses, seized the articles, arrested the accused person and after due investigation filed the charge-sheet under Section 392 of IPC. The matter was committed to the Court of Sessions where upon the charges were framed under Sections 392/397 of IPC. The appellant abjured his guilt and took a plea that he has been falsely implicated and prayed for trial. 4. The prosecution on its behalf has examined as many as 15 witnesses namely Raghunath Singh (PW-1), Brijgopal Yadav (PW-2), Abhishek Jain (PW-3), Prem Malviya (PW-4), Rinku Soni (PW-5), Jhakir @ Bablu (PW-6). No witness has been adduced in defence by the appellants. 5. Learned trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence and argument adduced by the parties, pronounced the impugned judgment on 10.09.2022 and finally concluded the case and convicted the appellant for commission of the said offence under the provisions of Sections 392/397 of IPC. 6. Being aggrieved by the order of learned trial Court, the appellant has preferred this criminal appeal stating the fact that the impugned order is against law and facts. The appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. The eye witnesses Raghunath Singh, Binnu Mechanic and Zakir @ Bablu had declined to support the prosecution case. The said incident happened on 26.08.2021 at 10.30 pm while FIR was lodged belatedly on 27.08.2021. There were earlier disputes between the complainant and applicant due to this disputes appellant was foisted in this false case. The eye witnesses Raghunath Singh, Binnu Mechanic and Zakir @ Bablu had declined to support the prosecution case. The said incident happened on 26.08.2021 at 10.30 pm while FIR was lodged belatedly on 27.08.2021. There were earlier disputes between the complainant and applicant due to this disputes appellant was foisted in this false case. The weight of the seized chain is different from the actual weight of stolen chain. Identification of said chain was vitiated because it was conducted in presence of police witnesses. The independent witness Abhishek Jain has not supported the seizure memo. There are omissions and contradictions in the statement of eye witnesses and police witnesses. As such the trial Court has erred in passing the order of conviction and therefore, counsel prays for setting aside the impugned judgment. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent opposing the contentions submitted that the judgment of learned trial Court has been passed after proper appreciation of evidence, hence, it does not deserve any interference. So also looking to the heinousness of the offence punishment is also not warranting any interference. Finally, learned Govt. Advocate bearing out the finding of the learned trial Court requested to dismiss the appeal. 8. In the back drop of the rival contentions, the point of determination is that as to whether the finding of learned trial Court regarding conviction and sentence under Section 392 read with Section 397 is correct in eyes of law and facts? 9. At the outset the statement of complainant Brijgopal Yadav (P.W.2) is required to be enumerated. Brijgopal Yadav (P.W.2) assorted that on 26.08.2021 at 10.30 pm he has gone to the shop of Binnu Badoriya nearby 36 quarters for getting tobacco. When he arrived at the shop and was busy in talking with Billu Mechanic all of a sudden appellant-Kushwant @ Dabbu came and by pointing his knife upon the neck of the complainant snatched his golden chain. Further he stated that the value of said chain was approximately Rs.20,000/- and the weight of the chain was 2 and 3/4 troy ounce (tolah). He has lodged FIR (Ex.P/2) and thereafter he has given the bill of the said chain to Police. Tehsildar has called him for identification of the said chain where upon he has identified his chain correctly. In his cross-examination witness has elucidated that he know accused Dabbu from his birth. 10. He has lodged FIR (Ex.P/2) and thereafter he has given the bill of the said chain to Police. Tehsildar has called him for identification of the said chain where upon he has identified his chain correctly. In his cross-examination witness has elucidated that he know accused Dabbu from his birth. 10. Abishek Jain (P.W.3) has not supported the prosecution case in his examination-in-chief and he has been declared hostile by the prosecution. However, this witness has admitted his signatures on seizure memo Ex.P-7 which has been supported by Prem Malviya (P.W.4), the investigating officer in his examination in chief. Similarly, Rinki Soni (P.W.5) has also supported the prosecution case in his examination in chief regarding receipt on a letter pad. However, Raghunath Singh (P.W1) and Zakir @ Bablu (P.W) who are said to be eye witnesses of the case have not supported the prosecution case regarding loot. 11. Now the question is as to whether on the basis of evidence adduced by complainant Brijgopal Yadav (P.W.2) the appellant can be convicted for the offence under Section 392 read with Section 397 of IPC, 1860? 12. Certainly, learned counsel has expostulated that present applicant has been implicated in the case due to previous enmity, but on this aspect no documentary evidence has been furnished. Further only on the basis of enmity the statement of complainant Brijgopal Yadav (P.W.2) cannot be disbelieved. That apart, the statement of investigating officer Prem Malviya (P.W.4) has also no rebutted in his cross-examination. The complainant has not placed anything regarding the fact that appellant has any enmity with him. 13. On this aspect, it is mandated by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Baburao Devaskar and others Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2007) 13 SCC 501 that enmity, as is well-known, is a double edged weapon. Whereas, existence of a motive on the part of an accused may be held to be the reason for committing crime, the same may also lead to false implication. This ratio is recently endorsed by Full Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in Balram vs. State of M.P. (Criminal Appeal 2300/2019 decided on 08.11.2023). In the case at hand, the evidence available on record evinced the facts that mere existence of a previous dispute will not demolish the case of prosecution, if the prosecution is otherwise able to prove its case on merits. 14. In the case at hand, the evidence available on record evinced the facts that mere existence of a previous dispute will not demolish the case of prosecution, if the prosecution is otherwise able to prove its case on merits. 14. Having gone through testimony of these witnesses it is clear that Brijgopal Yadav (P.W.2) is the single witness who has stated that the said chain was snatched by applicant-Kushvant @ Dabbu and as per prosecution case the said chain was seized from the possession of the applicant and it was identified by the complainant himself, however, in para-11 complainant Brijgopal Yadav has clearly stated that procedure of identification was conducted in open place situated at Shahid Park. He got a call from Police Station for identification. Further it was informed to him that in identification parade there would be Sub-Inspector or Police Officer along with Tehsildar. Since complainant himself has stated regarding the presence of police witness at the time of identification parade, the whole identification is vitiated. So also the bill of golden chain is not in proper proforma. Complainant himself has submitted that the said bill was prepared on a letter pad. Nothing is mentioned regarding GST on the bill, hence the said bill (Ex-P/4) is also creating suspicion with regard to prosecution case. The said identification parade conducted through identification memo Ex.-P/5 which does not find support from the persons who has conducted the identification parade. Actually the said Executive Magistrate (Tehsildar) has not been adduced by prosecution and no explanation is given before this Court during the arguments in this regard. In this way when the identification of the stolen property has become doubtful, the whole story of prosecution cannot be believed. 15. It is evident that in this case eyewitnesses Raghunath Singh (P.W.1) and Jhakir @ Bablu (P.W.6) so also seizure witness Abhishek Jain (P.W.3) have not supported the prosecution case. Eye Witness Raghunath Singh and Jhakir @ Bablu have clearly denied the incident in their examination in chief even after being declared hostile, they have not supported the prosecution case. 15. It is evident that in this case eyewitnesses Raghunath Singh (P.W.1) and Jhakir @ Bablu (P.W.6) so also seizure witness Abhishek Jain (P.W.3) have not supported the prosecution case. Eye Witness Raghunath Singh and Jhakir @ Bablu have clearly denied the incident in their examination in chief even after being declared hostile, they have not supported the prosecution case. At this juncture, the attention of this Court has been drawn towards the law rendered in State of M.P. v. Budhram [ 1996 JLJ 377 ], wherein, it is held that even in cases which are related to heinous offences if the eye witnesses and other witnesses do no support the prosecution case, the prosecution cannot get success. In this case, this High Court, having considered the hostility of the witnesses, has also ordained as under : - "...Nevertheless, it can very well be said that a society gets justice, which it deserves. If the persons are not willing to state or depose about the facts which they have witnessed or regarding the events which took place in their presence, the Courts of law cannot help the situation, as the Courts of law are duty bound to give finding strictly in accordance with law and strictly within the four corners of law." 16. Certainly, only on the basis of enmity the testimony of any witness cannot be discarded, but when no eye witness is supporting the prosecution case and even the seizure memo cannot be supported by any independent witnesses, a person cannot be convicted for offence which has minimum punishment of 7 years rigorous imprisonment. In this respect, the following extract of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Makhan Singh vs. State of Haryana reported as (2015) 12 SCC 247 is also condign to quote here: "16......It is a well-settled principle of the criminal jurisprudence that more stringent the punishment, the more heavy is the burden upon the prosecution to prove the offence....." 17. Now coming to the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kailash Gour v. State of Assam, (2012) 2 SCC 34 has held as under:- “39. It is one of the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved to be guilty. It is equally well settled that suspicion howsoever strong can never take the place of proof. It is one of the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved to be guilty. It is equally well settled that suspicion howsoever strong can never take the place of proof. There is indeed a long distance between the accused “may have committed the offence” and “must have committed the offence” which must be traversed by the prosecution by adducing reliable and cogent evidence. Presumption of innocence has been recognised as a human right which cannot be wished away. See Narendra Singh v. State of M.P. [ (2004) 10 SCC 699 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1893] and Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra [ (2005) 5 SCC 294 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1057]. 40. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in S. Ganesan v. Rama Raghuraman [ (2011) 2 SCC 83 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 607] where this Court observed:- “39. Every accused is presumed to be innocent unless his guilt is proved. The presumption of innocence is a human right. Subject to the statutory exceptions, the said principle forms the basis of criminal jurisprudence in India.” The above views were reiterated by this Court in State of U.P. v. Naresh [ (2011) 4 SCC 324 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 216].” 18. Further, it is settled position of law that where two views are possible then view pointing to the innocence of the accused should be adopted. (See:- Kalyan v. State of U.P., (2001) 9 SCC 632 and Kali Ram v. State of H.P., (1973) 2 SCC 808 ) . Conviction cannot be made on the basis of suspicion. There is indeed a long distance between the words 'might have committed the offence' and 'must have committed the offence'. 19. At this juncture, it is poignant to point out here that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Digamber Vaishnav v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2019) 4 SCC 522 has held as under:- “14. One of the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence is undeniably that the burden of proof squarely rests on the prosecution and that the general burden never shifts. There can be no conviction on the basis of surmises and conjectures or suspicion howsoever grave it may be. Strong suspicion, strong coincidences and grave doubt cannot take the place of legal proof. One of the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence is undeniably that the burden of proof squarely rests on the prosecution and that the general burden never shifts. There can be no conviction on the basis of surmises and conjectures or suspicion howsoever grave it may be. Strong suspicion, strong coincidences and grave doubt cannot take the place of legal proof. The onus of the prosecution cannot be discharged by referring to very strong suspicion and existence of highly suspicious factors to inculpate the accused nor falsity of defence could take the place of proof which the prosecution has to establish in order to succeed, though a false plea by the defence at best, be considered as an additional circumstance, if other circumstances unfailingly point to the guilt. 15. This Court in [Jaharlal Das v. State of Orissa, (1991) 3 SCC 27 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 527], has held that even if the offence is a shocking one, the gravity of offence cannot by itself overweigh as far as legal proof is concerned. In cases depending highly upon the circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that the conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof. The court has to be watchful and ensure that the conjecture and suspicion do not take the place of legal proof. The court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain of evidence should be established clearly and that the completed chain must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused.” 20. The impugned judgment of conviction of present appellant, when tested on the anvil of the aforesaid surrounding circumstances and the standard of proof required in criminal trial to hold the accused guilty of offence, cannot be given stamp of approval. 21. Consequently, the judgment under appeal dated 10.09.2022 passed in S.T. No. 250/2021 deserves to be set aside and appellant is liable to be acquitted of offence under Section 392/397 of the I.P.C, 1860 by giving the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the appellant stands acquitted of offence under Section 392/397 of the I.P.C, 1860. 22. As a result thereof, the appeal is allowed in the above terms. If presence of appellant in custody is not required in any other matter, he may be released forthwith. 23. The order of learned trial Court regarding disposal of the seized property stands confirmed. 24. 22. As a result thereof, the appeal is allowed in the above terms. If presence of appellant in custody is not required in any other matter, he may be released forthwith. 23. The order of learned trial Court regarding disposal of the seized property stands confirmed. 24. A copy of this order be send to the concerned trial Court and respective Jail authority for necessary compliance. 25. Pending application, if any, stands closed. Certified copy, as per rules.