JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is filed against judgment of acquittal dated 20.07.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bundi in a case arising from FIR No.270/2021 lodged at Police Station Keshorai Patan, District Bundi under sections 302, 34, 201 & 341 of IPC. 2. As per the case set up by the prosecution, an FIR was registered at the instance of Raghuveer Sharma, brother of Somprakash Sringi (deceased). On 26.12.2020, a dead body was found lying on the railway track which was identified as of the deceased. On 03.09.2021, the FIR was registered and on insistence of the family members of the deceased, postmortem was not conducted. During investigation on the basis of conversation of deceased and Geeta recorded on phone of the deceased, the accused respondent Nos.2 to 4 were nominated. The prosecution examined twenty six witnesses and exhibited the documents. In the statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. accused stated it to be a case of false implication. The trial court giving benefit of doubt acquitted the accused. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the deceased and Sanwariya Goswami were in relationship with Geeta and were having strained relations with deceased. An FIR was registered by the deceased against Sanwariya Goswami. The contention is that the relationship between Geeta and Sawariya Goswami was established by the testimony of the witnesses and the conversation recorded at time of incident on the mobile phone of the deceased. The submission is that the complainant recognised that in recording the voice is of the accused. The rings and wallet of the deceased were recovered at the instance of Sawariya Goswami from his house. The towel used in the incident was also recovered at the instance of Sanwariya Goswami. The contention is that the trial court ignored the material evidence. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that after appreciating the evidence, appropriate orders be passed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. 6. The complaint was made on 19.04.2021 i.e. after four months of recovery of the body of the deceased and the FIR was registered on 03.09.2021. There is no explanation for the delay in filing the complaint. 7. The case set up is on the basis of a recording recovered from the mobile phone of the deceased. 6. The complaint was made on 19.04.2021 i.e. after four months of recovery of the body of the deceased and the FIR was registered on 03.09.2021. There is no explanation for the delay in filing the complaint. 7. The case set up is on the basis of a recording recovered from the mobile phone of the deceased. As per prosecution, at the time of the incident deceased was talking to Geeta when the accused gave him beating. It is important to note that neither call details of the deceased and Geeta nor the certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, 1872 was produced but only transcript of the recording was produced during trial. The location of the mobile phones of deceased and Geeta were not adduced in evidence. No voice sample was collected by police for recognizing voice of the accused in the recording. 8. There is contradiction in the statement of Geeta recorded by the Police and her deposition before the Court. Before the police, she stated that out of voices recorded of three persons in recording, one voice was of Sanwariya Goswami. In her testimony before the Court she stated that the voice was of Shailesh @ Chotu. 9. The testimony of PW-17 Rishipal Singh, loco pilot proved fatal to the case of prosecution as he stated that at the time of the incident, the deceased was lying alone on the track. 10. The recovery of wallet and the rings of the deceased at the instance of accused is doubtful. The recovery witnesses were the police officials. PW-12 Gajraj Singh admitted in his cross-examination that no independent witness was joined during the recovery proceedings. In the complaint there was no mention of deceased wearing rings on the date of the incident. No bill or document was produced by the prosecution to establish that the recovered rings were of the deceased. The prosecution witness PW-18 had not ruled out possibility of the rings being of someone else. The prosecution was not able to connect the accused with incident on the basis of recovery. 11. As per the prosecution, a towel used in the incident was recovered at the instance of Sanwariya Goswami. Suffice to say that no evidence was produced to co-relate towel with the incident. There was neither any blood stain nor any DNA of deceased was found on the towel. 11. As per the prosecution, a towel used in the incident was recovered at the instance of Sanwariya Goswami. Suffice to say that no evidence was produced to co-relate towel with the incident. There was neither any blood stain nor any DNA of deceased was found on the towel. The trial court concluded that the towel was having no crease. There was no indication that the towel was used to stifle the deceased. Moreover, the towel was recovered after around twenty months of the incident. 12. The law is well settled that for conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the chain is to be completed and a missing link shall prove fatal to the case of prosecution. Reference be made to the decision of Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116 , wherein it was held: “152. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or should be proved' as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra 1973CriLJ1783 where the following observations were made: Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a Court can convict, and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 153. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence.” 13. In the present case, the entire case set up is on surmises and conjunctures. The cause of death is also not known. The recording making foundation for the FIR and to nominate the accused was not produced before the court. Geeta faltered in her deposition before the Court that voice in the recording was of Sanwariya Goswami. There is no evidence on record to co-relate that the voice in the recording was of the accused and they were present at the time of the incident. 14. The scope of interference in the appeal against the judgment of the acquittal is enunciated by the Supreme Court in case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragouda Vs. State of Karnataka reported in [ (2024) 8 SCC 149 ] and held:- “40. Further, in H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka [H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581 this Court summarised the principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378CrPC as follows: (SCC p. 584, para 8) “8. … 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. 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; 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. 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 is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and 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.” 15. There is no factual or legal error much less perversity in the judgment of acquittal. No case is made out for interference. 16. The appeal is dismissed.