JUDGMENT : Moushumi Bhattacharya, J. 1. Both these criminal appeals are against a judgment dated 6.1.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Andaman and Nicobar Islands. 2. By the impugned judgment, the accused persons, namely, M. Jose and R.N. Hawlader were held not guilty of the offence punishable under sections 304/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and were acquitted under section 235(1) of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 3. The appellants in the present case are the State and Sujit Kumar Samuel, the defacto complainant and the brother of the deceased, Anil Kumar Samuel. The factual conspectus which was before the learned Sessions Judge is first required to be briefly stated. 4. The prosecution case is that on 28.7.2007, the appellant, Sujit Kumar Samuel lodged an FIR stating that his brother Anil Kumar Samuel did not return home on 27.7.2007. Sujit Kumar Samuel later received information that his brother was lying at Brookshabad in an injured condition and found his brother lying dead near the sea shore with injuries at his head and blood oozing out of his nose and mouth. Sujit Kumar Samuel/the appellant lodged an FIR against unknown miscreants which was registered as Case Crime no. 328 of 2007 dated 28.7.2007. M. Jose and R.N. Hawalader, the two accused persons were thereafter arrested and charge-sheeted under offences punishable under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. After framing of charge, the accused persons pleaded not guilty and denied the allegations made by the prosecution. The Impugned Judgment dated 6.1.2023: 6. The Learned Court framed two points for consideration; namely whether the accused persons committed the offences as alleged by the prosecution and whether the prosecution was able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. 7. The learned Court considered both the points and the evidence and the material witnesses and concluded that the deceased, Anil Kumar Samuel and two of the witnesses, namely, Rajesh Pal and Satinder Singh had gone to Carbyn’s Cove in Port Blair and consumed liquor over a length of time. The deceased, Anil Kumar Samuel, Rajesh Pal and Satinder Singh thereafter had an altercation with the accused persons, namely, M. Jose and R.N. Hawlader after which Anil pushed Jose and ran towards a coconut plantation on the side of the beach. The accused persons chased Anil. The deceased, Anil Kumar Samuel, Rajesh Pal and Satinder Singh thereafter had an altercation with the accused persons, namely, M. Jose and R.N. Hawlader after which Anil pushed Jose and ran towards a coconut plantation on the side of the beach. The accused persons chased Anil. The Learned Court relied on the statements made by the accused persons in their examination under section 313 of the CrP.C. where the accused persons admitted that they were present in the Carbyn’s Cove Sea Beach on that day and were on duty and also admitted to having an altercation with Anil and two other persons and that Anil abused the accused persons. The accused persons however denied chasing Anil or throwing a stick at Anil. 8. The Court also considered several of the material witnesses including PW 9, PW 23, PW 27 and PW 18 (an Autopsy Surgeon). The Court also took into account the Brain Mapping Reports of both the accused through Narco Analysis Tests at the time of investigation and came to the conclusion that the accused persons had knowledge of activities listed in the Report of Brain Mapping suggesting active participation of the accused persons in connection with the case. 9. The Learned Court came to the conclusion that serious contradictions were made in respect of the evidence of PW 9 which demolished the credibility of the said witness and further that there was no coconut plantation in the place of occurrence as opposed to the evidence given by the prosecution. The Court further concluded from the evidence that the place towards which the deceased Anil rushed was visible from the place where the altercation took place and that there was no evidence that the accused persons could have reached Anil for the purpose of commission of the alleged offence. The Learned Court also did not have any evidence of one of the accused persons throwing a stick at the victim and also that there was no evidence as to the identity of the person who allegedly threw the stick. 10. The Court accordingly found that the prosecution had failed to prove its case as to how the victim sustained injuries on his person beyond all reasonable doubts and accordingly held that the accused persons were not guilty of the alleged offence. 10. The Court accordingly found that the prosecution had failed to prove its case as to how the victim sustained injuries on his person beyond all reasonable doubts and accordingly held that the accused persons were not guilty of the alleged offence. The Court accordingly acquitted the accused persons namely, M. Jose and R.N. Hawlader of the alleged offence punishable under sections 304/34 of The Indian Penal Code. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant in CRA(DB) 1 of 2023, Sujit Kumar Samuel takes several points on the defects in the impugned judgment. The ground of perversity is divided under the heads of non-examination of the I.O/PW 9 and the rejection of the Polygraph, Brain Mapping and Narco Analysis tests. Counsel submits that the evidence of the eye witnesses evidence which was also discarded in acquitting the accused persons. Counsel submits that the impugned judgment contains insufficient and superficial recording of the evidence and does not consider the actual evidence showing the circumstances which were relevant for proving the charges against the accused. Counsel submits that the Learned Court also overlooked the serious injuries inflicted on the deceased. 12. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State adopts the arguments made on behalf of the appellant in CRA(DB) 1 of 2023 and urges that the impugned judgment should be set aside. 13. Learned counsel appearing for the accused persons, namely, M. Jose and R.N. Hawlader relies on the evidence of the material witnesses and submits that the evidence could only lead to the conclusion of the accused not being guilty of the offence. Counsel submits that PW 9 and PW 10 were planted witnesses who made out a new case and gave accounts of Anil being chased by the accused persons and Anil running towards the plantation. Counsel submits that no weightage can be given to the Narco Analysis, Brain Mapping and Polygraph tests, since there was no uniform criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of these techniques. 14. Although the appellants seek to assail the judgment on the failure of the learned Judge to consider relevant materials which, according to appellants, would prove the guilt of the accused, the grounds sought to be made out are required to be substantiated by evidence. For instance, the appellants state that the victim/Anil Kumar Samuel was left for dead and the death was caused by M. Jose and R.N. Hawlader. For instance, the appellants state that the victim/Anil Kumar Samuel was left for dead and the death was caused by M. Jose and R.N. Hawlader. The appellants seek to make the allegation on the post-mortem Reports and the evidence of a few of the prosecution witnesses. This is the crux of the appellants’ case together with the Polygraph, Narco Analysis and Brain Mapping tests which the appellants say prove the guilt of the accused persons. The appellants also base their arguments on the alleged contradiction in the versions of the accused persons on their examinations under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 15. The appellants’ allegations must however be tested against the evidence which was available before the learned Sessions Judge, Andaman and Nicobar Islands. 16. The impugned judgment contains a separate section on the “Decision with Reasons”. The Court rightly summarized the case as one of the accused persons facing trial for allegedly killing Anil Samuel for homicide not amounting to murder and that it was hence incumbent upon the prosecution to show with evidence that the alleged occurrence took place on that date and place and also at the specific time under the precise circumstances narrated on behalf of the prosecution. 17. The prosecution witnesses whose evidence was taken were PW1, PW3, PW4, PW5, PW6, PW9, PW10, PW23, PW25 and PW27. Issues were accordingly framed on (a) whether there was death and (b) whether the death was caused with the intention of causing death and the accused caused death of the deceased with the knowledge that death would result from the act of the accused. 18. The Court recorded the individual evidence of PW1 (Sujit Kumar Samuel) (appellant), PW3 Satinder Singh who was a constable and part of the group which met at Carbyn’s Cove from which the incident of 27.7.2007 came to light. In essence, on 27.7.2007, Rajesh Pal called Satinder Singh and both of them went to the “Waves” Restaurant at Carbyn’s Cove where they found the deceased Anil Kumar Samuel and others including two police personnel in uniform with sticks in their hand came to them. Rajesh and the others came to know later that the police personnel were M. Jose and R.N. Hawlader. Rajesh Pal thereafter kept his hand on the shoulder of M. Jose which made M. Jose angry. Rajesh and the others came to know later that the police personnel were M. Jose and R.N. Hawlader. Rajesh Pal thereafter kept his hand on the shoulder of M. Jose which made M. Jose angry. The evidence further showed that all these men were consuming liquor at “Waves” Restaurant. M. Jose and R.N. Hawlader wanted to take Rajesh Pal to the police station which was opposed by the others who were present and Anil abused the police personnel and tried to leave the place with Rajesh. M. Jose restrained them from leaving and Anil pushed M. Jose and ran towards the coconut garden. M. Jose and Mr. Hawlader chased Anil and one of them threw a stick at Anil and the police personnel also followed Anil into the coconut tree garden. The police personnel returned after a long time towards the beach upon which Rajesh asked the police personnel as to the whereabouts of Anil. The police personnel deposed that Anil was swimming across the sea but that they could not see Anil after the place became dark. 19. The evidence of PW4 Dheeraj Lall who was also part of the drinking team with Anil and fled from the scene on 27.7.2007 repeated the incident as narrated by PW3. PW5, B. Tulsi Babu, a friend of the victim also repeated the same incident. The Court hence concluded that the deceased Anil, Rajesh and Satinder had gone to Waves Restaurant where they had an altercation with the accused persons in course of which Anil pushed M. Jose and ran towards the coconut plantation and the accused persons chased him. The Court also records that the accused persons in their examination under section 313 of Cr.P.C, denied having chased Anil or throwing a stick at him. 20. On the other hand, the evidence of PW9, V. Padmanathan, who claims to be an eyewitness, is recorded to the effect that he saw three persons fleeing from Carbyn’s Cove and identified Anil who was shouting for help and two police men chased him, assaulting Anil by stone and lathi. The evidence of PW10, one Mahesh Narayan, an independent witness, states that he found Rajesh, Satinder and Anil having an altercation with two police personnel in front of Waves Restaurant and saw that Anil pushed one policeman who fell on the sea-shore and another police person chased Anil who ran towards an agriculture plantation. The evidence of PW10, one Mahesh Narayan, an independent witness, states that he found Rajesh, Satinder and Anil having an altercation with two police personnel in front of Waves Restaurant and saw that Anil pushed one policeman who fell on the sea-shore and another police person chased Anil who ran towards an agriculture plantation. The witness also stated that the alleged incident took place between 6.30 to 7 in the evening and it was dark at the time when the incident took place. PW23, one Simbu Munda, gave his evidence that he heard screams for help coming from the side of the beach which was mentioned by PW9 but did not pay any attention as he was repairing a tyre. PW25, Sanjay Lall gave his evidence that he found Anil, Rajesh and another person on 26.7.2007 between 3-5 p.m. standing in Prothrapur but did not accompany them and later came to know about the dead body being discovered at Brookshabad. PW27 one Athena Soreng, another independent witness who was working as Manager in the Waves Restaurant, Carbyn’s Cove, gave evidence that four men came to the restaurant and ordered beer and were consuming liquor in their vehicle and again in the restaurant at 5.30 p.m. PW27 further deposed that the four men were drunk and the two police personal who were on duty came to pacify them and one of them fled after “dashing” the police men and both the police personnel started chasing him. While one of the men fled, the other did not return from the sea side. Analysis of the impugned judgment 21. The analysis of the learned Sessions Court is to the effect that the evidence of PW9, who claimed to be an eyewitness of the incident, contained contradictions and further that the prosecution could not produce the Investigating Officer who had relocated abroad after his retirement. Hence the veracity of these contradictions could not be justified. The Court also took into account the evidence of PW18, one Dr. Dinabandhu Bairagi, who was the autopsy surgeon and had recorded that the victim suffered multiple injuries on the forehead and nose and that the injuries were caused by a hard blunt weapon and by rubbing against a rough surface which resulted in death caused due to cardio respiratory failure and internal hemorrhage following fracture of the scalp and head injuries. 22. 22. The Court records that PW18 however did not mention in his examination report whether the injuries were ante-mortem or post-mortem. The Court also recorded the three tests conducted on the accused persons with diligence. These were Brain Mapping, Narco Analysis and Polygraph tests. The tests were conducted by PW 21, Dr. S. Malini who was a forensic expert in Polygraph, Narco Analysis and Brain Mapping. The impugned judgment records that PW21 came to the conclusion that the revelations were made by the accused persons in a state of trance and that PW21 found that the accused persons possessed knowledge of the activities listed in the Report of brain mapping and that the target words were suggestive of primary coding of information suggesting active participation of the accused persons in connection with the case. 23. With regard to the Polygraph and Narco Analysis test, the Learned Court discussed the scope of admissibility of such tests and also the Brain Mapping Report of the accused persons. The prosecution suggested that the accused persons caused the death of the victim Anil Kumar Samuel. The Court however concludes that the test Reports could not be made the basis for conviction as the Reports were prepared on the responses given by the accused in a state of trance with limited responses to certain target words when the accused did not have any control over their minds due to the effect of Sodium Pentothal administered to the accused persons during the tests. 24. The Court was further of the view that although the Polygraph Report indicates a measure of non-truthfulness on the part of the accused persons, the Report does not make any reference to the standard measurement as to the sign of deception. Similarly, the Brain Mapping test was indicative of the possession of knowledge about the accused persons and their active participation in the case. However, the test reports did not prove the involvement of the accused persons in the commission of the crime beyond reasonable doubt. 25. The Learned Court was also of the view that the contradictions in the evidence of PW 9 diluted/negated the evidence since the defence had no opportunity to confirm the contradictions in the statements of PW 9. The evidence of PW 9 lost credibility due to non-production of the I.O. As stated above, the I.O was not examined as he was not available in India. 26. The evidence of PW 9 lost credibility due to non-production of the I.O. As stated above, the I.O was not examined as he was not available in India. 26. Further, the Court opined that the prosecution’s case was made on the basis of the “last seen together” theory but that there was no evidence to prove that the accused persons chased the victim to the coconut grove. In this regard, it is relevant to state, as pointed out by the Learned Court, that the site plan (exhibit 29) does not mention any coconut plantation in the place of occurrence. Therefore, the prosecution case of the victim running away to the coconut plantation was not found to be credible. 27. After a detailed analysis of the evidence given by the witnesses, the Learned Court concludes that although the prosecution produced witnesses, who had direct knowledge about the incident and had seen the victim and the accused persons together - the “last seen together” theory - there was no evidence of the accused persons chasing the victim Anil or more importantly, causing his death. There was also no evidence as to the specific identity of the person, who allegedly threw a stick at the victim and whether the stick actually hit the victim and caused his death. The Court was hence of the view that the prosecution failed to prove that the victim sustained injuries on his person beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore the accused could not be held guilty of the alleged offence. Conclusion 28. On a careful consideration of the impugned judgment, this Court is unable to see any infirmity in the findings or perversity in the reasoning. The entire case of the appellants before us is based on surmises and conjectures. Although the appellants seek to create a narrative of the victim being assaulted by the accused persons and thereafter being left for dead on the Brookshabad creek and relies on the evidence of the eye witness, the Post Mortem Report, Brain Mapping Report, Polygraph Report, Narco Analysis Test pointing towards the guilt of the accused, we cannot find any evidence bridging the gaps in the narrative. 29. 29. The most obvious gaps are of the accused persons chasing the victim and thereafter assaulting the victim and leaving him in the coconut plantation/grove till the victim died or the accused persons causing the death of the victim in the coconut grove. None of the witnesses, including the eye witness, gave evidence to close these gaps which could have led us to believe the appellant’s version of the accused persons being guilty of the commission of the offence under section 304/34 of the Indian Penal Code – punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder and acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention, respectively. 30. The burden is on the prosecution to prove the commission of the offence beyond reasonable doubt which the prosecution could not discharge at the time of trial. The appellant in CRA (DB) 1 of 2023 could also not show any evidence before us which could lead us to observing that the finding of the learned Court was either misdirected or came to a perverse conclusion on the basis of the evidence which was not before the Court or ignoring vital evidence which was before it. 31. It is also relevant to mention that the appellants have challenged a finding of acquittal which has a much higher threshold to cross where the entire judgment would have to be shredded apart to show that the Trial Court proceeded on a completely erroneous or perverse basis and ignored vital evidence. It is much more difficult to interfere with a judgment of acquittal into one of conviction or even one where the Trial Court is directed to re-hear and re-appreciate the case in a new light once again. Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 delineates the powers of the Appellate Court and sub-section (a) thereof empowers the Appellate Court to reverse an order of acquittal, direct that fresh inquiry be made or that the accused be re-tried or committed for trial. The Appellate Court may also find the accused guilty and pass sentence on him/her according to law. 32. The provision makes it clear that the Appellate Court has wide powers to interfere with an order of acquittal subject to the Appellate Court finding sufficient grounds for interference which is the second option given under section 386 where the first option is for dismissal of the appeal. 32. The provision makes it clear that the Appellate Court has wide powers to interfere with an order of acquittal subject to the Appellate Court finding sufficient grounds for interference which is the second option given under section 386 where the first option is for dismissal of the appeal. It is trite that interference can only arise where the order under appeal contains obvious infirmities or where there are lacunae which are contrary to the evidence which was before the Court or the court overlooked the evidence or failed to deal with the evidence despite recording the same. The interference must be within the well recognised principles of the powers of the Appellate Court under section 386 of the CrP.C. as well as the boundaries within which all Appeal Courts exercise their powers and discretion. 33. As stated above, the grounds which have been presented by the appellants for interference are on the “last seen together” theory, the motive of the accused Police Officers in chasing the deceased after being insulted, the fabricated story of the deceased swimming away when in actuality, the deceased was assaulted and left for dead, the contradictory versions of the accused in section 313 examinations, the credibility of the evidence of the 3 tests conducted on the accused, the medical evidence and the evidence of the eye witness, PW 9. 34. All the above grounds are based on presumptions without being backed by evidence. The appellants seek to cast a shadow of doubt over the reasons in the impugned judgment and possibly invite the Court to remand the matter for re-trial or be committed for trial. The Court however does not find any infirmity in the findings of the learned Trial Court. A mere shadow cast on the adjudicatory process does not automatically establish the guilt of the accused. There must be an unbroken chain of acts /commission which would lead to the conclusion that the acts resulted in the death of the victim. Mere presumptions also cannot call for an automatic re-trial unless the Appellate Court is satisfied that the gaps in the adjudication were stark enough for the case to be committed to trial once again. 35. We do not find any grounds either obvious or implied, for calling for a re-trial on the facts and evidence which was before the Learned Court. 35. We do not find any grounds either obvious or implied, for calling for a re-trial on the facts and evidence which was before the Learned Court. The Learned Court correctly came to the conclusion that the burden of proving the guilt of the accused was singularly on the prosecution and the prosecution was duty-bound to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt which the prosecution failed to do. We accordingly find no merit in the appeals for any form of interference as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or otherwise. 36. CRA (DB) 1 of 2023 and CRA (DB) 2 of 2023 are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copies of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon fulfillment of requisite formalities. Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J. I agree.