JUDGMENT : ILESH J. VORA, J. 1. This acquittal appeal preferred by the State of Gujarat under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘ Cr.P.C .’, in short) is directed against judgment and order dated 13.08.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, in Sessions Case No. 338 of 2006, wherein, respondents-original accused no. 2 and 3 along with accused No.1 came to be tried for offences punishable under Sections Sections 302 and 394 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘ IPC ’, for short). At the end of trial, the trial Court acquitted Bijrajsingh @ Bijju Ajitsingh Chudasma – original accused no. 2 and Hasmukhkumar Dineshbhai Rawat – original accused no. 3 from all the charges. However, the court below convicted the accused no. 1 for the offence of murder and robbery. 2. The facts and circumstances, giving rise to this appeal are as under: 2.1 Deceased Pintoo was resident of Meghaninagar, Ahmedabad and he was passionate to wear golden chains and rings and he was used to wear two golden chains, rings and keep with him the latest mobile phone. The father of the deceased was custom officer and mother settled at Canada. The deceased was living with his elder brother Rajdeepisingh Siddhu (PW-1). The deceased generally used to sit at the Pan Shop in the area of Meghaninagar. The respondent accused along with accused no. 1 belonged to same area and used to visit the pan shop, where the deceased usually come for time pass. 2.2 In the aforesaid facts, the respondents along with the accused no. 1 Rakesh and juvenile accused Vijay planned to rob the deceased and in order to call him at the secluded place, the minor accused Vijay had called on the mobile of the deceased that, one girl Vanita wants to meet him on 05.04.2006 at about 9- 00 PM and she will waiting for him near I.G. compound, Meghaninagar. The call was made from nearby STD PCO booth owned by Dilip Vachheta (PW- 6). The plan was successful. The respondents accused and his companion obtained a clutch wire of two wheeler from Dipak Prajapati (PW-8), who is doing repairing work of vehicles in the name of style of “Jay Ambe Auto Service’. On the day when deceased was called, he had worn three golden chains and two golden rings and one silver ring. The plan was successful. The respondents accused and his companion obtained a clutch wire of two wheeler from Dipak Prajapati (PW-8), who is doing repairing work of vehicles in the name of style of “Jay Ambe Auto Service’. On the day when deceased was called, he had worn three golden chains and two golden rings and one silver ring. He had bought new Bajaj Pulsar Bike. As per the plan, the deceased went to the place of incident. The accused in connivance with each other and in order to rob the deceased, killed him by strangulation using the clutch wire and thereafter, taken away the jewellery worn by the deceased along with Nokia mobile and his wallet wherein, cash amount of Rs.4500/- was lying. The accused after the death of the deceased, took his dead body and threw it near warehouse of PWD situated in the I.G. Compound, Meghaninagar, Ahmedabad. The death was caused between 9-30 to 11-00. On the day of incident, at the pan shop, the deceased had conversation with his brother PW-1, who went to see the movie with his friends. When the brother PW-1 after 12-00 PM, came to his house, the presence of the deceased was not found and his mobile phone was switched-off. The PW-1 in the morning came to know that, the dead body of the deceased was lying in the I.G. Compound. The Meghaninagar Police was also informed and the police officials came at the spot. The clutch wire, which was used for strangulation, was found at the neck of the deceased. The PW-1 noticed that, the jewellery and other valuable including Mobile were not found on the body of the deceased and on seeing the nature of injuries, he lodged an FIR against the unknown person for the act of robbery and murder of his brother. The office was registered at Meghaninagar Police Station. The investigation was commenced. The IO PW-15 Mr. Jadav came to know that the respondents and accused Rakesh committed murder of the deceased and on preliminary investigation, their involvement was surfaced. The accused were arrested and when the principal accused Rakesh was in police custody, he made a disclosure statement which led to the recovery of gold jewellery , cash amount of Rs.4500/-, Nokia mobile phone and the voucher of the goldsmith – Mahakali Jewellers. The accused were arrested and when the principal accused Rakesh was in police custody, he made a disclosure statement which led to the recovery of gold jewellery , cash amount of Rs.4500/-, Nokia mobile phone and the voucher of the goldsmith – Mahakali Jewellers. During the course of investigation, the IO recorded the statement of the garage owner who had provided old clutch wire and goldsmith - Dilip Soni (PW-10) and other witnesses. The pulsar bike was found at the instance of the principal accused Rakesh, as it was parked by him at the parking area of Trimurti Apartment, Meghaninagar. The injuries found on the body of the accused were confirmed by the Doctor Hitesh Patel (PW-5). The cause of death after the post-mortum opined by Dr. Manish Galani (PW-2) that, death had occurred in between 9 to 11 prior to day one of the autopsy and cause of death is due to asphyxia, as a result of strangulation. In such circumstances, after completion of the investigation, the chargesheet came to be filed against three accused including the respondents for the offences, as enumerated above and so far as juvenile accused Vijay is concerned, the chargesheet was filed before the Juvenile Court. 3. After due framing of charge and upon accused pleading not guilty, trial commenced before the Additional Sessions Judge, City Court, Ahmedabad. 4. In order to prove the case against the respondents, prosecution has examined 15 witnesses and exhibited 21 documents to prove its case as per the following table: Oral evidence PW 1– Exh. 10 Rajdipsinh Kavarpalsinh Sidhu, complainant PW 2– Exh. 12 Dr. Manish Bachubhai Gelani, medical officer PW 3– Exh. 14 Babubhai Girdharbhai Prajapati, panch witness PW 4– Exh. 19 Rajeshkumar Santrambhai Kahar PW 5– Exh. 20 Dr. Hitesh Shaileshbhai Patel, medical officer PW 6– Exh. 28 Dilipbhai Pravinbhai Vachheta, panch witness PW 7– Exh. 49 Dharmeshkunmar Shankarlal Raval PW 8– Exh. 50 Dipak @ Pinto Uprajbhai Prajapati PW 9– Exh. 53 Pannalal Shivlal Soni PW10–Exh. 54 Dilipbhai Ambalal Soni PW11–Exh. 56 Ishwarbhai Babubhai Parmar, panch witness PW12–Exh. 61 Prahladbhai Madhavlal Patel, panch witness PW13–Exh. 70 Hardik Dineshchandra Gandhi PW 14–Exh.71 Kanchansinh Pushpatsinh PW 15–Exh. 76 Nageshkumar Ramkrushna Jadav, investigating officer Documentary evidence Exh. 11 Original complaint Exh. 77 Report written to officer in-charge Exh. 78 Report to FSL officer to visit crime scene Exh. 15 Inquest panchanama Exh. 57 Panchanama of crime scene Exh. 61 Prahladbhai Madhavlal Patel, panch witness PW13–Exh. 70 Hardik Dineshchandra Gandhi PW 14–Exh.71 Kanchansinh Pushpatsinh PW 15–Exh. 76 Nageshkumar Ramkrushna Jadav, investigating officer Documentary evidence Exh. 11 Original complaint Exh. 77 Report written to officer in-charge Exh. 78 Report to FSL officer to visit crime scene Exh. 15 Inquest panchanama Exh. 57 Panchanama of crime scene Exh. 58 Panchanama of seizure of clothes from the dead body Exh. 68 Panchanama of search and seizure of the accused Exh. 29 Panchanama of seizure of articles voluntarily produced by accused Rakesh @ Jaggo Vinubhai Parmar Exh. 69 Panchanama of voluntary production of red pulsar bike by accused Rakesh @ Jaggo Vinubhai Parmar Exh. 59 Panchanama of voluntary production of clutch wire by accused no. 1 Rakeshkumar and accused no. 2 Bijrajsingh Exh. 21 Injury certificate of accused no.1 Rakesh Exh. 22 Injury certificate of accused no. 2 Bijrajsingh Exh. 23 Injury certificate of accused no. 3 Hasmukhbhai Exh. 24 Injury certificate of Vijaykumar Exh. 13 Post Mortem Note Exh. 79 FSL Forwarding note Exh. 80 Receipt of FSL muddamal Exh. 81 Cover letter of FSL and FSL opinion Exh. 82 Receipt of FSL muddamal Exh. 83 FSL opinion alongwith FSL letter Exh. 84 Serological report 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the respondents and the principal accused Rakesh were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C . to which, they stated that, they were innocent of all the charges and in connivance with the police official, they had been falsely arraigned in the case and as such, they are innocent and have not committed any offence. 6. After hearing the parties, the court below came to the conclusion that, the various circumstances as referred by the prosecution have been proved and forms a chain pointing only to the guilt of the accused No.1 Rakesh and convicted him for the offence of murder and robbery. So far as respondents accused are concerned, they have been extended the benefit of doubt and acquitted from the charges. 7. Being dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal qua accused nos. 2 and 3, the State has come up with the present appeal. 8. We have heard Mr. Jay Mehta, learned APP for the appellant-State and Dr. Hardik Raval, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the respondents-accused. 9. Mr. 7. Being dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal qua accused nos. 2 and 3, the State has come up with the present appeal. 8. We have heard Mr. Jay Mehta, learned APP for the appellant-State and Dr. Hardik Raval, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the respondents-accused. 9. Mr. Jay Mehta, learned APP appearing on behalf of the appellant-State submitted that the judgment of the acquittal, is against the settled principles of law and appreciation of the evidence. The Court below while giving the benefit of doubt, failed to appreciate that the intention of the respondents accused and the accused No.1 Rakesh were common and in order to rob the deceased, they jointly called upon the deceased at the place under the pretext that, one girl Vanita invited him nearby IG compound and before the deceased could reached there, the accused had obtained the clutch wire from the garage owner PW-8 Dipak Prajapati and thereafter, when deceased came to place of occurrence, he was strangulated to death with the clutch wire. The act of murder was done by accused in furtherance of their common intention and the same is proved by cogent and reliable evidence. The principal accused Rakesh from where the valuables and other things of the deceased were recovered on the basis of disclosure statement made by him under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and relying on the other incriminating circumstances, he has been convicted for the murder and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The evidence adduced against the accused Rakesh and the respondents are common and similar. The court below without assigning any acceptable and cogent reasons acquitted the respondents accused giving benefit of doubt, which is against the evidence on record and settled law of appreciation. The Court below, ought to have held that the respondents accused participated in the act and their overact with the co-accused Rakesh is proved and established and therefore, they are also vicariously liable for the offence of murder. In such circumstances, Mr. Jay Mehta, learned APP would urge that the incriminating circumstances proved against the accused Rakesh are also established fully against the respondents accused which led to the conclusion that the ingredients of Section 34 of the IPC are proved and they are responsible for the charge of murder and robbery. 10. Mr. In such circumstances, Mr. Jay Mehta, learned APP would urge that the incriminating circumstances proved against the accused Rakesh are also established fully against the respondents accused which led to the conclusion that the ingredients of Section 34 of the IPC are proved and they are responsible for the charge of murder and robbery. 10. Mr. Jay Mehta, learned APP, has submitted that, the view taken by the trial Court while extending the benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitting them are unreasonable and against the evidence on record and the findings are perverse and arbitrary. Thus, therefore, he prays that there being merits in this acquittal appeal and same may be allowed and the accused respondents have been held responsible. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel Dr. Hardik Raval, opposing the contentions of the State has contended that, the court below has rightly acquitted the respondents accused, as there is no sufficient evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove their guilt. The accused Rakesh, who was the master mind and had a motive to rob the deceased. Thus, except casual reference of the accused made by the material witnesses, nothing substantially proved against the respondents that, there was meeting of mind and overt-act with the principal accused. That, in order to bring a case under Section 34, it is necessary that there must be a prior conspiracy or per-meditation, then, the common intention can formed in the course of occurrence. Therefore, the factors necessary to attract Section 34, it is bounded duty of the prosecution to establish the common intention and participation of the accused in the common of offence. Therefore, the circumstances, whatever relied by the prosecution have not proved against the accused and in absence of any overtact on their part, the accused cannot be held liable for the act of principal accused. 12. In the circumstances, as referred, Dr. Hardik Raval, learned advocate prayed that there being no merits in the appeal and same may be dismissed. 13. Before proceeding to re-appreciate the evidence, it would be appropriate to brief account of the settled legal position while dealing with the appeal against the acquittal. 14. 12. In the circumstances, as referred, Dr. Hardik Raval, learned advocate prayed that there being no merits in the appeal and same may be dismissed. 13. Before proceeding to re-appreciate the evidence, it would be appropriate to brief account of the settled legal position while dealing with the appeal against the acquittal. 14. Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ravi Sharma v State (Government of N.C.T. Delhi and another), (2022) 8 SCC 536 has considered and discussed the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka , (2007) 4 SCC 415 , which are as under : "42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: (1) An appellate court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseology are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasis the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court." 15. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court." 15. Likewise in the same judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has touched and dealt with as to what is meant by perverse findings by taking recourse to the earlier decisions in the cases of Arulvelu and another v. State , (2009) 10 SCC 206 ; Babu v. State of Kerala (2010) 9 SCC 189 and Anwar Ali and another v. State of Himachal Pradesh , (2020) 10 SCC 166 16. Similarly, while dealing with the aspect as to what is meant by "possible view", the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ravi Sharma (supra) , by referring to the Judgments in the cases viz. N.Vijay Kumar v. State of Tamil Nadu , (2021) 3 SCC 687 ; Murugesan v. State , (2012) 10 SCC 383 , Hakeem Khan v. State of M.P. , (2017) 5 SCC 719 , observed that "if the "possible view" of the trial Court is not agreeable for the High Court, even then such "possible view" recorded by the trial Court cannot be interdicted. It is further held that as long as the view of the trial Court can be reasonably formed, regardless of whether the High Court agrees with the same or not, verdict of the trial Court cannot be interdicted and the High Court cannot be supplant over the view of the trial Court". 17. The prosecution case is based purely on circumstantial evidence. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the onus upon the prosecution to prove the chain of circumstances beyond all manner of doubt. The Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra [ (1984) 4 SCC 116 ] , laid down golden principles to be followed in a case based on circumstantial evidence. Para-153 of the judgment reads as under: "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. Para-153 of the judgment reads as under: "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: "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.” 18. In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that the death of deceased Pintoo was homicidal in nature. According to opinion of Dr. PW-2, who had conducted the PM on the body of the deceased, the external injuries were sufficient in ordinary course to cause the death and the death could be possible with the clutch wire found on the body of the deceased. According to case of the prosecution, on 05.04.2006, the deceased was called at the place of occurrence on the pretext that, one girl Vanita intents to meet him. The deceased at relevant time, worn three golden chains, two golden rings and one silver ring. He had purchased a red Bajaj Pulsar Bike before day one of the incident. According to case of the prosecution, on 05.04.2006, the deceased was called at the place of occurrence on the pretext that, one girl Vanita intents to meet him. The deceased at relevant time, worn three golden chains, two golden rings and one silver ring. He had purchased a red Bajaj Pulsar Bike before day one of the incident. He was also having cash amount of Rs.4500/- in his wallet and was using a Nokia mobile phone. The deceased as per the plan, reached at the place of occurrence. It is further case of the prosecution that the respondents accused and accused Rakesh strangulated to him with the clutch wire and thereafter, they robbed the valuables worn by the deceased and other things. The IO PW-15 during the course of investigation on the basis of the disclosure statement of the accused Rakesh, discovered and recovered the valuables vide panchnama Exh. 29. The witnesses, namely PW-6, PW-7, PW-8, PW-9 and PW-10 have supported the case of the prosecution. The goldsmith, who had sold the golden chain, PW-10, in his testimony, stated that, the bill Exh. 31 was being issued by him, as after receiving the substantial amount from the deceased, he prepared a golden chain, as per the requirement and identification mark given to him. 19. The Court below after careful consideration of the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the complicity of the accused Rakesh was the mastermind of the crime, has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. We are agree wit the findings recorded by the court below, so far accused no. 1 is concerned. The conviction appeal filed by Rakesh- accused no. 1 No. 661 of 2009, wherein, we have examined the entire evidence in detail and upheld the judgment of the conviction and sentence recorded by the court below. So far as involvement of the respondent accused are concerned, we are not satisfied with the evidence adduced by the prosecution, as except casual reference of identification in the court done by the witnesses, nothing substantial brought on record to prove their participation in the offence. The respondents accused were being charged for the act of murder and allegation against them to the effect that, the act of murder was done in furtherance of common intention of all. The respondents accused were being charged for the act of murder and allegation against them to the effect that, the act of murder was done in furtherance of common intention of all. In the facts of the present case, on re-analysis of the evidence, we do not find any circumstances giving rise to infer that the accused had shared a common intention. The incident took place on 05.04.2006. On the basis of disclosure statement, valuables found from the house of the accused Rakesh on 07.04.2006. The Bajaj Pulsar bike also recovered at the behest of the accused Rakesh. Thus, if there would have any common intention of the respondents accused, then, after the incident, they could demand their share from the accused Rakesh. In such circumstances, the Court below has rightly appreciated the evidence in its true prospective and findings of acquittal cannot be said to be a perverse or against the evidence on record and the judgment does not suffer any infirmity and findings are reasonable and based on evidence on record. 20. For the aforementioned reasons, in our considered opinion, the trial Court carefully scrutinized the entire evidence and documents on record and arrived at the correct conclusion and therefore, we are in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and result of acquittal and hence, we do not to interfere with the same. 21. Resultantly, the acquittal appeal stand dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. R&P, if any, be sent back to the trial Court forthwith.