JUDGMENT : Sunil Beniwal, J. 1. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant - State of Rajasthan under Section 378 (iii) & (i) Cr.P.C. assailing the judgment dated 29.06.1993 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Merta, District Nagour in Sessions Case No.17/1990, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent for the offence under Sections 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (IPC) while extending benefit of doubt. 2. The facts in nutshell, as per the prosecution story in the present case are that a case was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by PW-1 Raghuveer Singh, wherein it was alleged that on 15/16.11.1989, the accused-respondent committed the murder of one Madan Singh. 2.1. As per the contents of the FIR dated 16.11.1989, it was stated by complainant PW-1 Raghuveer Singh that he was informed by one Satya Narayan and Bhanwar Singh on 16.11.1989 that Madan Singh was killed. This information was given to him when Madan Singh was about to be cremated. Later, he went to Police Station whereupon the post mortem was conducted and police also started investigation. 2.2. The prosecution case is primarily based on circumstantial evidence, as there was no eye-witness to the incident. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, while arguing the appeal made the following submissions: 3.1 The accused-respondent used a liquor bottle as a weapon to inflict a head injury upon the deceased Madan Singh, and due to the said fatal injury, Madan Singh succumbed on the spot. 3.2. PW-6 Heera Lal who deposed that the accused-respondent made an extra-judicial confession before him admitting that he had killed Madan Singh. This confession was stated to have been made in the presence of PW-11 Ram Narayan. It was urged that, in view of this confession, the learned trial Court ought to have accepted the prosecution story and have convicted the accused-respondent for the offence U/s 302 of the IPC. 3.3. The PW-6 Heera Lal, before whom the extra-judicial confession was made, conveyed the same to PW-22 Satya Narayan, who attended the funeral of the deceased. Before the cremation, the information was further conveyed to the brother of the deceased. As a consequence, the cremation was halted and PW-1 Raghuveer Singh was sent to inform the police. 3.3. The PW-6 Heera Lal, before whom the extra-judicial confession was made, conveyed the same to PW-22 Satya Narayan, who attended the funeral of the deceased. Before the cremation, the information was further conveyed to the brother of the deceased. As a consequence, the cremation was halted and PW-1 Raghuveer Singh was sent to inform the police. Thereafter, the police and medical team reached the spot, conducted the post-mortem and the body of Madan Singh was cremated. 3.4. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the evidence available on record clearly established that the accused- respondent and deceased Madan Singh were last seen together. They consumed liquor together, and had a quarrel over food and some money. Learned counsel submitted that motive to kill Madan Singh was very clear and the possession of money was proved as Madan Singh had gone to the Krishi Mandi to sell agricultural produce and was having about Rs.10,000/- in his pocket. 3.5. While concluding the arguments, learned State counsel submitted that this is a case based on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution successfully established a complete chain of circumstances/events. The prosecution has led cogent evidence to prove that the accused-respondent and the deceased Madan Singh were last seen together before the incident happened and in addition, there is an extra-judicial confession by the accused- respondent and a recovery made at his instance makes a clear case of conviction. It was argued that the learned trial Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record and therefore, the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court deserves to be reversed. 4. Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Chandan Singh Jodha, appearing for the respondent, submitted that: 4.1. The prosecution has completely failed to establish the guilt of the accused-respondent. He contended that the prosecution could neither prove the factum of the extra-judicial confession nor establish through concrete evidence that the deceased Madan Singh and the accused-respondent were last seen together. Furthermore, there was no credible supporting evidence to suggest that the accused-respondent committed the murder on account of any motive. 4.2. The alleged recovery of the liquor bottle, claimed to be the weapon used in the offence was made after a lapse of two months and that too from an open place. It was stated that the two recovery witnesses were PW-18 and PW-22. 4.2. The alleged recovery of the liquor bottle, claimed to be the weapon used in the offence was made after a lapse of two months and that too from an open place. It was stated that the two recovery witnesses were PW-18 and PW-22. As far as PW-22 Satya Narayan is concerned, he turned hostile during the trial, whereas the second witness to the recovery proceedings i.e. PW- 18 Chotu Ram deposed that although he witnessed the recovery, however, neither recovered bottle was sealed nor the site map was not prepared in his presence. In such circumstances, the recovery is rendered doubtful and cannot be relied upon to link the respondent with the alleged offence. 4.3. It is the prosecution’s case that PW-6 Heera Lal informed PW-22 Satya Narayan about the extra-judicial confession made by the respondent. Satya Narayan further told the fact to the brother of the deceased and despite the complainant having knowledge of this fact, the name of the accused-respondent was conspicuously absent from the FIR which casts serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution story and indicates that the narrative is an afterthought and has been concocted subsequently. 4.4. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned trial Court has thoroughly appreciated the evidence available on record and rightly concluded that neither the extra-judicial confession nor the “last seen together” theory was convincingly established by the prosecution. 4.5. PW-6 Heera Lal and Ram Narayan PW-11 have been considered as most important witnesses, but their statements suffer from serious contradictions, particularly regarding the “last seen” aspect, so as to establish the guilt of the accused respondent. 4.6. PW-23 Dr. Kamal Bajaj, who opined that if a person is heavily intoxicated and falls under such circumstances, it could lead to cerebral hemorrhage and concussion of the brain. Thus, the medical evidence does not conclusively point to a homicidal death. 4.7. It was also submitted that the allegation of absconding by the accused-respondent post-incident is not borne out by the evidence on record. PW-9 Anandi Lal deposed that the respondent was on duty on 15.11.1989 till 4:00 PM and returned the next day, i.e., 16.11.1989 at 10:45 AM. Similarly, PW-26 Naveen Chaturvedi testified that the respondent was on sanctioned leave. Hence, the allegation of abscondence immediately after incident is unfounded and without merit. 4.8. PW-9 Anandi Lal deposed that the respondent was on duty on 15.11.1989 till 4:00 PM and returned the next day, i.e., 16.11.1989 at 10:45 AM. Similarly, PW-26 Naveen Chaturvedi testified that the respondent was on sanctioned leave. Hence, the allegation of abscondence immediately after incident is unfounded and without merit. 4.8. Based on the above submissions, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the learned trial Court, after a comprehensive appreciation of the entire evidence available on record, has rightly acquitted the accused-respondent. The findings recorded are well-reasoned and do not suffer from any legal infirmity. Therefore, no interference is warranted in the impugned judgment and the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is true that the present case is based entirely on circumstantial evidence. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 29 witnesses, produced 18 documents, and exhibited two articles. Out of the said witnesses, the most material witnesses whose statements are required to be considered are: PW-1 Raghuveer Singh (complainant), PW-2 Ram Lal (salesman at the liquor shop), PW-3 Gopal Singh (brother of PW-28 Arjun Singh), PW-6 Heera Lal (alleged witness to the extra-judicial confession), PW-11 Ram Narayan (bus driver and another witness to the said extra-judicial confession), PW-22 Satya Narayan (the first person informed about the confession), PW-28 Arjun Singh (present at the liquor shop prior to the incident), and PW-23 Dr. Kamal Bajaj (medical expert). These witnesses are of particular significance in the context of the circumstantial evidence forming the basis of the prosecution story. 7. The single injury which resulted in the death of the deceased Madan Singh was a head injury and as per the prosecution story the injury was caused by the liquor bottle. It is evident from the record that the alleged bottle was recovered at the instance of the accused-respondent after a lapse of two months from the date of the incident, and that too from an open space. In order to examine whether the prosecution has successfully established the recovery of the alleged weapon, the statements of two material witnesses PW-22 Satya Narayan and PW-18 Chotu Ram are first considered. In order to examine whether the prosecution has successfully established the recovery of the alleged weapon, the statements of two material witnesses PW-22 Satya Narayan and PW-18 Chotu Ram are first considered. 7.1 PW-22 Satya Narayan, who was projected as a key witness to the recovery, deposed that although a bottle was recovered in his presence following the arrest of the accused-respondent, the bottle shown to him in Court was broken, whereas the one recovered in his presence was intact. As such, he could not confirm that the bottle exhibited in Court was the same as the one recovered. Consequently, he was declared hostile. 7.2 The other witness to the recovery, PW-18 Chotu Ram, stated that the bottle was recovered at the instance of the accused Sumer Singh. However, he was unable to confirm whether the recovered bottle was sealed in his presence. Furthermore, he did not assert that any site plan was prepared in his presence. 7.3 In light of such conflicting and inconsistent statements, it cannot be said that the prosecution has successfully proved the recovery of the weapon i.e. the liquor bottle allegedly used in the commission of the offence. 8. As regards the alleged extra-judicial confession of the accused-respondent, it is noted that PW-6 Heera Lal deposed that the accused-respondent told Ram Narayan to convey to Heera Lal that he had killed Madan Singh. PW-11 Ram Narayan has not supported the version as stated by PW-6 Heera Lal, wherein it was alleged that upon the accused making such a statement, Ram Narayan laughed. Furthermore, the assertion made by PW-6 Heera Lal that the accused-respondent confessed to having killed Madan Singh is also not supported by the testimony of PW-11 Ram Narayan. 8.1. Additionally, the statements of PW-22 Satya Narayan and PW-27 Narayan were examined with a view to ascertain the veracity of the alleged extra-judicial confession. However, both these witnesses have turned hostile, thereby rendering their testimonies unreliable. In light of the contradictory testimonies of PW-6 Heera Lal and PW-11 Ram Narayan and the unreliability of PW-22 Satya Narayan and PW-27 Narayan, it cannot be said with certainty that the prosecution has been able to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused-respondent made a voluntary extra-judicial confession admitting his guilt before PW-6 Heera Lal and PW-11 Ram Narayan. 9. 9. Learned counsel for the State has fervently contended that the prosecution has successfully connected each link in the chain of circumstances, thereby establishing a complete and unbroken chain of events which conclusively points to the guilt of the respondent-accused and proves that it was he who committed the murder of the deceased Madan Singh. 10. In the present case, certain facts remain undisputed, notably that the dead body of Madan Singh was found in the morning near the cremation ground and graveyard. The dead body was seen by several witnesses who have been examined before the Court. 11. PW-2 Ram Lal, in his testimony, stated that he was employed as a salesman at the liquor shop. On the date of the incident, he was present at the shop when the accused-respondent Sumer Singh, along with one Sharma and Heera Kumar, arrived there. At that time, PW-28 Arjun Singh was already present at the shop and was consuming liquor. According to PW-2 Ram Lal, a discussion ensued regarding the price of liquor. Sumer Singh objected to liquor being sold to Madan Singh at a lower rate while he was being charged a higher price. This led to a verbal altercation. Thereafter, Sumer Singh consumed liquor and subsequently Madan Singh also arrived. All of them then proceeded to the house of PW-3 Gopal Singh. PW-2 Ram Lal thereafter closed the shop and went for dinner. He later came back and reopened the shop and thereafter Madan Singh again came and asked for liquor. After being served, Sumer Singh and Sharma also arrived. Sumer Singh allegedly told Madan Singh that half a bottle would not serve the purpose and insisted on a full bottle of liquor, however, Madan Singh refused. It is alleged that at this point, Sumer Singh grabbed Madan Singh by the collar, following which PW-2 Ram Lal intervened and directed them to leave the liquor shop. Thereafter, they all went to the shop of PW-6 Heera Lal. 12. The testimony of PW-2 Ram Lal, at best, establishes that both Sumer Singh and Madan Singh consumed liquor on the date of the incident and had a minor altercation. However, it does not indicate the existence of any serious motive or provocation that could lead Sumer Singh to commit the murder of Madan Singh. 13. The statements of PW-3 Gopal Singh and PW-28 Arjun Singh were also examined. However, it does not indicate the existence of any serious motive or provocation that could lead Sumer Singh to commit the murder of Madan Singh. 13. The statements of PW-3 Gopal Singh and PW-28 Arjun Singh were also examined. Although their testimonies establish that the deceased Madan Singh and the accused Sumer Singh were seen together, the versions given by these two witnesses materially differ from the statements furnished by PW-6 Heera Lal and PW-11 Ram Narayan. 14. As per the testimony of PW-11 Ram Narayan, both the deceased Madan Singh, Narayan Lal and the accused Sumer Singh were having oral altercation and were using foul words against each other. He further states that there was quarrel between Heera Lal and Sumer Singh on Heera Lal refusing to make food available. PW-11 Ram Narayan further stated that all three namely Sumer Singh (accused), Madan Singh and Narayan Lal were intoxicated. According to him, Heera Lal took Madan Singh to his house so that he could sleep, and thereafter, Madan Singh did not return. PW-11 further stated that after Heera Lal left with Madan Singh and he was unaware of when Heera Lal returned. He also deposed that subsequent to Heera Lal's departure, the accused Sumer Singh and he (Ram Narayan) went to sleep together, and after 9:20 PM, Sumer Singh did not go anywhere and remained asleep. 15. On the other hand, PW-6 Heera Lal deposed that after he had gone to sleep, Sumer Singh came to him around 1:00 AM and asked for food. When he refused, Sumer Singh asked him to accompany him to the shop. On his insistence, he eventually followed Sumer Singh and thereafter Sumer Singh in presence of PW-11 Ram Narayan said that you convey to Heera Lal that he has killed Madan Singh. 16. The version of PW-11 Ram Narayan is entirely contradictory to that of PW-6 Heera Lal. Similarly, the testimonies of other prosecution witnesses also do not support the “last seen together” theory as sought to be established by the prosecution. 17. Learned trial Court has elaborately dealt with the evidence of the witnesses in an attempt to establish the chain of circumstances. However, in view of the contradictory statements discussed above, the "last seen together" theory as sought to be propounded by the prosecution was not established. 17. Learned trial Court has elaborately dealt with the evidence of the witnesses in an attempt to establish the chain of circumstances. However, in view of the contradictory statements discussed above, the "last seen together" theory as sought to be propounded by the prosecution was not established. Consequently, in the absence of a complete dots being connected, the accused cannot be held guilty. 18. As far as the alleged motive for committing the offence is concerned, it was argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased Madan Singh had gone to the Krishi Mandi on the same day to sell agricultural produce and was carrying a sum of Rs.10,000/- in his pocket. In support of this, the purchaser (PW-17 Jagdish Prasad) of the agricultural produce was examined and a receipt said to have been recovered from the pocket of the deceased was also exhibited as Ex.P/6. However, none of the witnesses supported the prosecution story to the extent of establishing a motive for the murder of Madan Singh on account of the said money. 19. Furthermore, there is no evidence of any serious dispute having arisen between Madan Singh and Sumer Singh that could have provoked Sumer Singh to take the drastic step of killing Madan Singh. As per the evidence available on record, there was an oral altercation between Heera Lal and Sumer Singh at one point in time, and there is also evidence of an oral altercation between Sumer Singh and Madan Singh. It is also a fact that, on the intervening night of 15/16.11.1989, Sumer Singh, Madan Singh, and Narayan Lal were intoxicated. In view of the above factual circumstances, the prosecution could not establish its case and connect all the dots to finally conclude that it was the Sumer Singh who had murdered Madan Singh on the intervening night of 15.11.1989. 19.1 What emerges from the evidence is that there was merely a heated argument and quarrel regarding the rate of liquor and whether to purchase half or full bottle. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused had any motive to kill Madan Singh over the alleged money. Learned trial Court, therefore, rightly concluded that the motive, as alleged by the prosecution, was not established so as to hold the respondent-accused guilty for the offence under Section 302 IPC. 20. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused had any motive to kill Madan Singh over the alleged money. Learned trial Court, therefore, rightly concluded that the motive, as alleged by the prosecution, was not established so as to hold the respondent-accused guilty for the offence under Section 302 IPC. 20. Learned counsel for the State further contended that the conduct of the respondent-accused in absconding on the next day of the incident, i.e., 16.11.1989, indicated guilt. However, upon examination of the evidence, this contention is found to be baseless, as there is clear evidence on record to show that Sumer Singh went on duty on the next date and was later on medical leave. Hence, the allegation of absconding also remains unproved. 21. It is undisputed that the present is a case of circumstantial evidence and thus the guiding principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sharda v. State of Maharashtra [ (1984) 4 SCC 116 ] have to be established to prove guilt on basis of circumstantial evidence. The Hon’ble Apex Court while discussing the said principles in the recent case of Nusrat Parween Vs. State of Jharkhand ( AIR 2025 SC 105 ) observed as under: “7. It is a well-established principle of criminal jurisprudence that conviction on a charge of murder may be based purely on circumstantial evidence, provided that such evidence is deemed credible and trustworthy. In cases involving circumstantial evidence, it is crucial to ensure that the facts leading to the conclusion of guilt are fully established and that all the established facts point irrefutably to the Accused person's guilt. The chain of incriminating circumstances must be conclusive and should exclude any hypothesis other than the guilt of the Accused. In other words, from the chain of incriminating circumstances, no reasonable doubt can be entertained about the Accused person's innocence, demonstrating that it was the Accused and none other who committed the offence. The law with regard to conviction based on circumstantial evidence has been crystalised by this Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sharda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 , wherein it was held: 153. The law with regard to conviction based on circumstantial evidence has been crystalised by this Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sharda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 , wherein it was held: 153. 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 [ (1973) 2 SCC 793 ] where the observations were made: [SCC para 19, p. 807] 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, (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.” 21.1. The Hon’ble Apex Court while elaborating the principles in the cases of acquittal on basis of lack of circumstantial evidence in the case of Sangappa Vs. State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No.1715/2017; decided on 27.02.2025) observed as under: “19. The High Court labelled the Trial Court’s appreciation as “perverse” but, on closer inspection, we see that the Trial Court took a “possible view” of the evidence, one that carefully noted the lack of consistent last-seen evidence, the unreliability of key witnesses, and the failure to prove recoveries conclusively. The High Court labelled the Trial Court’s appreciation as “perverse” but, on closer inspection, we see that the Trial Court took a “possible view” of the evidence, one that carefully noted the lack of consistent last-seen evidence, the unreliability of key witnesses, and the failure to prove recoveries conclusively. In cases of circumstantial evidence, where the prosecution must prove each link in the chain beyond a reasonable doubt, the appellate courts should exercise extreme caution before reversing an acquittal. It is a fundamental judicial principle that the presumption of innocence, coupled with the benefit of doubt, should not be lightly set aside, and any interference with an acquittal is warranted only where the trial court’s findings are patently erroneous or manifestly unjust.” 21.2. In the present case, as discussed above, the prosecution has neither been able to prove motive nor ‘last seen theory’ as there are serious contradictions in the statements of witnesses. Further, the statements of PW-6 Heera Lal who has been regarded as the most essential witness to prove the extra- judicial confession of the accused, has serious contradictions with statements of PW-11 Ram Narayan. Furthermore, PW-22 Satya Narayan who was the key witness in the prosecution story turned hostile. Hence, keeping into the consideration the principles crystallized by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it cannot conclusively be observed that it is no one but accused who has committed murder of the deceased when the chain of circumstantial evidence is incomplete, also considering that the factum of accused absconding after the incident also remains unproved. 22. At this juncture, this Court deems it appropriate to reproduce the relevant portions of the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Mallappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka ( AIR 2024 SC 1252 ) and Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka (AIR 2024 SC 2252), as hereunder-: Mallappa & Ors. (Supra): “36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. Vs. State of Karnataka (AIR 2024 SC 2252), as hereunder-: Mallappa & Ors. (Supra): “36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarized as: (i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive inclusive of all evidence, oral or documentary; (ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge; (iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed; (iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal; (v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts; (vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court.” Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Ors. (Supra): “38. 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. 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.” 39. 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: (a) That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; (b) That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; (c) 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.” 23. Learned trial Court passed the impugned judgment of acquittal of the accused-respondents under Section 302 IPC, which in the given circumstances, is justified in law, because as per the settled principles of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforementioned judgments, to the effect that the judgment of the trial Court can be reversed by the Appellate Court only when it demonstrates an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in arriving at such decision; but in the present case, the learned trial Court, before passing the impugned judgment had examined each and every witnesses at a considerable length and duly analyzed the documents produced before it, coupled with examination of the oral as well as documentary evidence, and thus, the impugned judgment suffers from no perversity or error of law or fact, so as to warrant any interference by this Court in the instant appeal. 24. 24. The scope of interference in the acquittal order passed by the learned trial Court is very limited, and if the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court demonstrates a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforementioned judgment, and thus, on that count also, the impugned judgment deserves no interference by this Court in the instant appeal. 25. Learned trial Court has meticulously considered all relevant aspects, including motive, circumstantial evidence, the alleged extra-judicial confession and the accusation of absconding and upon a comprehensive appreciation of the entire evidence, rightly held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. 26. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and looking into the factual matrix of the present case as well as in light of the aforementioned precedent laws, this Court does not find it a fit case warranting any interference by this Court. 27. This Court has independently examined the evidence on record and finds no error in the impugned judgment on any of the grounds raised by the appellant in the present appeal. 28. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed 29. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.