JUDGMENT : BENIWAL, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred laying a challenge to the judgment of acquittal dated 19.09.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nathdwara, in Sessions Case No.27/2003 ( State of Rajasthan Vs. Shri Fateh Lal ), whereby the accused-respondent, namely, Fateh Lal has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. 2. The matter pertains to an incident which had occurred in the year 2003 and the present appeal has been pending since the year 2007. 3. The facts in nutshell are that an FIR was lodged by the complainant Ganesh Lal with allegation that on 08.08.2003 at around 7.00 A.M., he saw some smoke coming out from the house of one Rang Lal Mahajan. Some persons were gathered outside the house of Rang Lal Mahajan, however, his house was locked. Later, his brother Fateh Lal got the keys and opened the door. He along with other persons entered the house, wherein Rang Lal Mahajan was lying dead and blood was oozing out from his nose. His hand was lying on the pillow and smoke was also coming out of the burnt pillow. It was reported that someone murdered Rang Lal and has locked his house. 3.1. On the said report being filed, police started investigation and after completing investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused-respondent for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC to which he denied and sought for trial. The learned Trial Court on the basis of the charges framed against the accused- respondent examined as many as 23 prosecution witnesses, 35 documents and two defence witnesses. After examining the entire record, the learned Trial Court proceeded to acquit the accused-respondent for the offences alleged against him. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-State while challenging the impugned judgment made the following submissions:- (i) the deceased Rang Lal and accused Fateh Lal were real brothers. When smoke was seen coming out of the house of Rang Lal, the complainant-Ganesh Lal and other persons enquired about the keys of the house and at that point, accused Fateh Lal stated that he had a second key. When smoke was seen coming out of the house of Rang Lal, the complainant-Ganesh Lal and other persons enquired about the keys of the house and at that point, accused Fateh Lal stated that he had a second key. Thereafter, lock was opened by Fateh Lal and therefore, it is clear that it was Fateh Lal who committed the murder of his brother Rang Lal and locked the house; (ii) the motive behind the above crime is apparent as Rang Lal had renounced the world and had become a ‘Sadhu’. The accused-Fateh Lal was having eyes on the property belonging to Rang Lal and he wanted to grab the share of Rang Lal and, therefore, he is the only person who could have benefitted from the above crime. Therefore, the surrounding circumstances also point towards the involvement of the accused-respondent in the crime in question; and (iii) the bloodstained clothes of the accused-respondent after recovery were sent to Forensic Lab and as per the FSL Report (Ex. P/20), the bloodstains found on the clothes of accused-respondent matched the blood group of deceased Rang Lal which further connects the accused-respondent to the crime. 4.1 On the basis of the above submissions, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-State submitted that the prosecution was able to fully establish the circumstances in which accused- respondent committed the crime. Though, there was no eye- witness to the incident, however, the chain of circumstances clearly establish the fact that it was the accused-respondent who murdered Rang Lal in order to grab his property. Despite such evidence being available on record, the learned Trial Court committed serious error in acquitting the accused-respondent and, therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment deserves to be reversed and the accused-respondent be convicted for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the accused-respondent made the following submissions:- (i) though it is undisputed that the deceased Rang Lal and accused-respondent Fateh Lal were real brothers, however, there was no property dispute between the brothers as Rang Lal had already renounced and relinquished all his share in property in favour of Fateh Lal and therefore, the motive which the prosecution has shown is not at all established in order to connect the accused-respondent with the crime. Further, DW-1 Shankar Lal has deposed that deceased and accused had cordial relationship. Further, DW-1 Shankar Lal has deposed that deceased and accused had cordial relationship. The Investigation Officer in the present case has also deposed that there was no property dispute between the accused-respondent and the deceased Rang Lal; (ii) the bloodstained clothes as recovered from the accused- respondent also do not support the prosecution story as these bloodstains were sustained by accused when the body of the deceased Rang Lal was shifted from house to ambulance and thereafter to hospital. The accused-respondent helped to shift the deceased and since blood was oozing out from the body of Rang Lal, the accused-respondent also sustained some bloodstains on his clothes. This factum of accused-respondent being present at the spot when the ambulance came was supported by prosecution witness namely PW-1 Ganesh Lal; (iii) PW-7 Ratan Lal is last seen witness and he deposed that at around 6-7 P.M. on the previous day of incident, he had seen that one Shankar Gameti and deceased Rang Lal were consuming Ganja and there was some quarrel between them. Even this last seen witness do not support the prosecution story as accused- respondent was not present when such quarrel took place between Shankar Gameti and Rang Lal. Other than this witness, the prosecution has not produced any evidence to show that accused and deceased were last seen together; and (iv) the bloodstained clothes were recovered two days after the incident and meanwhile, they were already washed and, therefore, the FSL report with regard to the bloodstained clothes becomes highly doubtful and loses its credibility. 5.1 In response to the issue of having key, learned counsel for the accused-respondent submitted that Ranglal was Sadhu and he, on and off, keep coming and going oaut of the house and they had two keys, one with Ranglal and other with accused-respondent Fatehlal. 5.2 Learned counsel appearing for the respondent while relying on the above submissions submitted that prosecution has completely failed to connect each dot so as to finally connect the accused-respondent with the crime. The chain of circumstances at every stage is full of doubt and, therefore, prosecution has completely failed, not only to connect the circumstances but even to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt so as to convict accused-respondent under Section 302 IPC. The chain of circumstances at every stage is full of doubt and, therefore, prosecution has completely failed, not only to connect the circumstances but even to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt so as to convict accused-respondent under Section 302 IPC. Counsel thereafter submitted that the learned Trial Court has appreciated the entire record, so also the prosecution witnesses and rightly reached to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt so as to convict the accused-respondent under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. In view of the submissions made by the respective parties, it clearly emerges out that the present case is based totally on circumstantial evidence. A complete chain of circumstances needs to be established to prove guilt of an accused so as to convict the accused for offence under Section 302 IPC. In the present case, the last-seen witness PW-7 Dr. Ramesh Chandra has deposed that he had seen Rang Lal at around 6-7 p.m., the day before the incident, however, this witness does not support the prosecution story as the accused-respondent was not present in the evening, day before when some quarrel took place between Rang Lal and one Shankar Gameti. That being so, the prosecution has not been able to establish or to connect the accused-respondent based on ‘last seen theory’. 8. As far as the motive as alleged by the prosecution against the accused-respondent for committing the crime is concerned, it is to be noted that the Investigation Officer has categorically deposed that there was no property dispute between the deceased and the accused-respondent. That apart, there is no evidence on record to hint any dispute pending between the brothers. It is noted that the Investigating Officer has been examined twice as prosecution witness as PW-15 and PW-23. The Investigating Officer (PW-23) has stated that the deceased had already transferred his property in favour of accused-respondent vide Ex.C/1. The fact that the deceased Rang Lal who had already renounced the world and was a Sadhu coupled with the fact that all the property rights, whatsoever, were already transferred in favour of the accused-respondent, clearly reflects that there was nothing to indicate that accused Fateh Lal had any ill-intention to kill his brother Rang Lal. The fact that the deceased Rang Lal who had already renounced the world and was a Sadhu coupled with the fact that all the property rights, whatsoever, were already transferred in favour of the accused-respondent, clearly reflects that there was nothing to indicate that accused Fateh Lal had any ill-intention to kill his brother Rang Lal. 8.1 PW-2 Ganesh has also deposed that Rang Lal was residing in back portion of the house of the accused and Rang Lal often used to stay and sleep with him and thus, the relations between the two were cordial. 9. The statement of PW-1 Ganesh Lal, who is the first informant, is self-contradictory. At one point of time, he stated that Fateh Lal opened the lock and then they went and saw Rang Lal lying dead with blood oozing out from his nose. At the same time, in the cross-examination, he stated that when police arrived at the house of deceased, the same was locked from outside. Such contradictory statement makes the deposition unreliable. It is to be noted that PW-2 Ganesh, PW-3 Mangi Lal, PW-10 Mangi Lal, PW-11 Ranglal S/o Kalulal and PW-12 Manna Lal turned hostile and, therefore, the prosecution story itself becomes weak. Coupled with this, the key witness of the prosecution i.e. PW-7 Ratanlal to establish ‘last seen’ theory also does not support the prosecution story as Rang Lal was last seen with Shankar Gameti and not with the accused-respondent. The statement of PW-5 Sohan Singh is also worth nothing. It may be stated that PW-5 Sohan Singh is ‘panchnama’ witness to ‘naksha moka’, however, he deposed that police though inspected the site but ‘panchnama’ was not prepared in his presence and he simply signed the papers. PW-1 in his statement deposed that he along with accused- respondent and others had opened the lock and had found Rang Lal lying dead and, thereafter, he had informed the police. PW-15 Ganpat Lal narrates the story which runs contrary to what was deposed by PW-1 Ganesh Lal. He deposed that Fateh Lal had the key and opened the lock and saw Rang Lal lying dead with blood coming out from his head. He has also deposed that Fateh Lal helped in shifting the dead body to the ambulance, however, later at that very moment, PW-15 said that Fateh Lal did not join in shifting the dead body of the deceased. He has also deposed that Fateh Lal helped in shifting the dead body to the ambulance, however, later at that very moment, PW-15 said that Fateh Lal did not join in shifting the dead body of the deceased. This self-contradictory statement of PW-1 with regard to the shifting of body and the presence of Fateh Lal, raises doubt as to involvement of the accused. 10. Further, the Investigation Officer when examined as PW-23 deposed that lock of the house was already opened before the police reached the place of incident. This version of PW-23 read with the statement made by him as PW-15, prima facie reflects contradiction. On one hand he states that when the police reached the spot, the house of Rang Lal was locked whereas on other hand, he states that lock of the house was already opened at the time when the police reached the spot. That being so, the investigation itself creates shadow of doubt on the prosecution story and, therefore, the same cannot be treated to be trustworthy. 11. We have also examined the findings given by the learned Trial Court and the reasoning given so as to acquit the accused- respondent and find that the learned Trial Court has committed no error so as to extend benefit of doubt to the accused-respondent in view of the serious contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses. In the present case, neither the motive was established nor the prosecution was able to establish the theory of ‘last seen’ and that being so, there is no reason to interefere with the well-reasoned order passed by the learned Trial Court. 12. 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 (Criminal Appeal No. 1162/2011, decided on 12.02.2024) and Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No. 985/2010, decided on 19.04.2024), 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 (Criminal Appeal No. 985/2010, decided on 19.04.2024), 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.” 13. The learned Trial Court passed the impugned judgment of acquittal of the accused-respondents under Sections 302 and 201 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. 14. 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed 17. Keeping in view the provision of Section 437-A Cr.P.C./ Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.), 2023, the accused-respondent is directed to furnish a personal bond in a sum of Rs.25,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount, before the learned Trial Court, which shall be made effective for a period of six months, to the effect that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against this judgment or for grant of leave, the accused-respondent, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court as soon as he would be called upon to do so. 18. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Record of the learned Trial Court be sent back forthwith. 19. This Court is thankful to Mr. Vikram Choudhary, who has rendered his assistance as Amicus Curiae on behalf of the accused-respondent, in the present adjudication.