ORDER 1. This appeal arises from the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwalior dated 21.06.2011 in Criminal Appeal No. 213 of 2003 by which the appeal filed by the respondent herein against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court came to be allowed and the respondent herein stood acquitted of offence punishable under Section 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the "IPC"). 2. The State of Madhya Pradesh being dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the High Court is here before this Court with the present appeal. 3. It appears from the materials on record that the respondent herein is the husband of the deceased. He got married with the deceased on 23rd June, 1999. At the time of the incident the deceased was pregnant by 14 weeks. The other three co-accused are father-in-law, mother-in-law and the brother-in-law. 4. The father-in-law came to be acquitted. The brother-in-law could not be put to trial as he absconded and the mother-in-law came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the IPC. 5. We need not delve much into the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, as we intend to remand the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration. 6. It appears from the materials on record that the Trial Court while holding the respondent herein guilty of the offence of murder of his wife took into consideration the following five circumstances emerging from the evidence on record:- (i) motive (ii) the deceased was last seen in the company of the respondent herein (iii) It's a case of homicidal death (iv) the incident occurred inside the house (v) failure on the part of the respondent no.1 to offer any plausible explanation in his further statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC. 7. The medical evidence on record indicates that the cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation. We have looked into the oral evidence of the Doctor PW-1 M.S. Sevariya. 8. We are thoroughly disappointed with the manner in which the High Court heard the appeal and delivered a judgment acquitting the respondent herein of the charges enumerated above. 9. The High Court seems to have looked into nothing. We have looked into the oral evidence of the Doctor PW-1 M.S. Sevariya. 8. We are thoroughly disappointed with the manner in which the High Court heard the appeal and delivered a judgment acquitting the respondent herein of the charges enumerated above. 9. The High Court seems to have looked into nothing. There is no discussion worth the name as to why the judgment of the Trial Court could be termed as perverse or contrary to the evidence on record. 10. All that the High Court seems to have done is to explain the well settled principles governing a murder trial based on circumstantial evidence and as usual citing Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116 . 11. It was expected of the High Court to explain as to why and on what basis it reached the conclusion that the incriminating circumstances looked into by the Trial Court for the purpose of holding the respondent herein guilty of offence were not sufficient enough to point a finger towards the guilt of the accused. 12. In an appeal before the High Court against the judgment and order of conviction, it is expected of the Appellate Court to re-appreciate and reevaluate the entire evidence properly and more particularly when the High Court reaches the conclusion that the Trial Court committed an error in holding the accused guilty of the alleged offence. 13. We remind the High Court of the following observations made by this court in State of Gujarat vs. Bhalchandra Laxmishankar Dave reported in (2021) 2 SCC 735 :- "5. We have gone through the detailed judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned trial court and also the evidence on record laid down by the prosecution as well as the defence. We have perused the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the High Court to ascertain whether the High Court has conformed to the principles while exercising in the criminal appeal against the judgment and order of conviction. We find that the High Court has not strictly proceeded in the manner in which the High Court ought to have while dealing with the appeal against the order of conviction. 5.1. We find that the High Court has not strictly proceeded in the manner in which the High Court ought to have while dealing with the appeal against the order of conviction. 5.1. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the High Court, we find that, as such, there is no re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record in detail while acquitting the respondent-accused. The High Court has only made general observations on the depositions of the witnesses examined. However, there is no re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record in detail, which ought to have been done by the High Court while dealing with the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned trial court. 5.2. The High Court ought to have appreciated that it was dealing with the first appeal against the order of conviction passed by the learned trial court. Being first appellate court, the High Court was required to re-appreciate the entire evidence on record and also the reasoning given by the learned trial court while convicting the accused. Non-re-appreciation of the evidence on record may affect the case of either the prosecution or even the accused. Being the first appellate court the High Court ought to have re-appreciated the entire evidence on record without any limitation, which might be there while dealing with an appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial court. 5.3. An appellate court while dealing with an appeal against acquittal passed by the learned trial court, is required to 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. Therefore, while dealing with the cases of acquittal by the trial court, the appellate court would have certain limitations. Even in the case of acquittal passed by the learned trial court in Umedbhai Jadavbhai v. State of Gujarat, (1978) 1 SCC 228 , it is observed and held by this Court that:- "10. Therefore, while dealing with the cases of acquittal by the trial court, the appellate court would have certain limitations. Even in the case of acquittal passed by the learned trial court in Umedbhai Jadavbhai v. State of Gujarat, (1978) 1 SCC 228 , it is observed and held by this Court that:- "10. Once the appeal is entertained against the order of acquittal, the High Court is entitled to re-appreciate the entire evidence independently and come to its own conclusion. Ordinarily, the High Court would give due importance to the opinion of the Sessions Judge if the same were arrived at after proper appreciation of the evidence." The High Court would be justified against an acquittal passed by the learned trial court even on re-appreciation of the entire evidence independently and come to its own conclusion that acquittal is perverse and manifestly erroneous. However, so far as the appeal against the order of conviction is concerned, there are no such restrictions and the court of appeal has wide powers of appreciation of evidence and the High Court has to re-appreciate the entire evidence on record being the first appellate court. Keeping in mind that once the learned trial court has convicted there shall not be presumption of innocence as would be there in the case of acquittal." 14. In such circumstances referred to above, we set aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court and remit the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration of Criminal Appeal No. 213 of 2003. 15. The High Court shall take up the Criminal Appeal No. 213 of 2003 for hearing and decide the same in accordance with law within a period of three months from today. 16. Since we have set aside the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the High Court, it necessarily implies that the judgment of the Trial Court has come into force. In such circumstances, we direct the respondent to furnish fresh bail bond before the High Court. 17. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. 18. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.