JUDGMENT : MAULIK J. SHELAT, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed by the State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the judgement and order dated 19th February 2004 passed by the Sessions Court, Jamnagar (hereinafter referred to as “Trial Court”) in Sessions Case No. 48 of 2003. By way of the impugned judgement and order, the accused has been acquitted under Section-302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) by the Trial Court. 2. The short facts of the prosecution case are as under: 3. The alleged incident took place on 1st March 2003 in afternoon hours in the house of the first informant, who happens to be the husband of the deceased Parmeshwariben, wherein he has disclosed that the deceased sustained an accidental injury from falling in the house while doing domestic work, she sustained injuries and she was taken to the hospital at about 16:00 hours on 1st March 2003, itself and the doctor concerned declared her dead at about 16:30 hours. 4. The police appears to have been informed about the accidental death as per Section-174 of the CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”), whereby, Accident Case No.24 of 2003 has been registered by the City B-Division Police Station, Jamnagar City. It is the further case of the prosecution that during the investigation and after recording the statements of prosecution witnesses, it came to light that there was a quarrel between the first informant and the deceased on 1st March 2003 at around 13:30 hours, but in such statements were not reveal any such fact that she sustained any accidental injury due to giddiness. 5. Furthermore, the post-mortem report was received by the police which confirmed the fact that there was a strangulation mark on her neck and due to which, she succumbed to such bodily injury and died due to asphyxia on account of ligature strangulation. 6. The police after completion of investigation filed chargesheet against accused under section-302 of IPC and JMFC, Jamnagar committed the case to be tried as Session Case. 7. To prove the case against the accused, the prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence: Oral Evidences of Prosecution Sr. No. Name and Particulars Exh. 1. Nilesh Bijalbhai 13 2. Pravinbhai Devshibhai Jadav 14 3. Jayesh Amanbhai 15 4. Vijyaben Bijalbhai 17 5. Gangaben Pandebhai 18 6. 7. To prove the case against the accused, the prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence: Oral Evidences of Prosecution Sr. No. Name and Particulars Exh. 1. Nilesh Bijalbhai 13 2. Pravinbhai Devshibhai Jadav 14 3. Jayesh Amanbhai 15 4. Vijyaben Bijalbhai 17 5. Gangaben Pandebhai 18 6. Karnagar Dureswami Pillai 20 7. Chidambaram Tan Pillai 22 8. Dr. R. G. Datta 7 9. Aadam Ibrahim Sama 47 10. Vipul Pravinbhai Parmar 48 11. Shivraj Tangvel 49 12. Bijal Gordhan Sitapara 50 13. Seleyan Tangayan 51 14. Dharmendrasinh Lakhubha Zala 52 15. Jayendrasinh Jorubha Jadeja 56 Documentary Evidences of Prosecution Sr. No. Name and Particulars Exh. 1. Original complaint 54 2. Letter informing the CMO about the arrival of the deceased's body 24 3. Letter to the Executive Magistrate regarding the inquest of the deceased's body 25 4. Letter to C.T.B. regarding the deceased's body 26 5. Inquest Panchnama 9 6. Police report to be sent to the Civil Surgeon along with the body sent for postmortem examination 10 7. Letter regarding post-mortem examination of the deceased 8 8. Letter for taking blood sample of deceased 12 9. Post mortem report 11 10. Letter for taking blood sample of the accused 27 11. Regarding the consent of accused consent for blood sample 28 12. Statement of Mrugesh Pillai 29 13. The PSI's report for filing the Accidental Death (AD) entry 30 14. Panchnama of scene of offence 53 15. Report made by the PSO to register a case against the accused 31 16. Copy of the station diary entry dated 2/3/03 32 17. Letter from PSI to the Superintendent of Police regarding sending an FSL officer to the scene of incident 33 18. Report of Mobile Laboratory 34 19. Letter to the Deputy Director of F.S.L. Junagadh for the examination of evidence 35 20. Dispatch record of muddamal sent for examination 36 21. Certificate of Power of Attorney 37 22. Acknowledgment of receipt of muddamal 38 23. Acknowledgement of receipt of analysis report from Deputy Director, FSL 39 24. Acknowledgement list for receiving the biology report from the Deputy Director, F.S.L 40 25. RFSL's report 41 26. Letter to PI 'B' Division Jamnagar, regarding dispatch of F.S.L. report from Forensic Lab, Junagadh 42 27. Evidence Analysis Report 43 28. Letter for correction in F.I.R. 45 29. Letter for preparing Map 46 8. Acknowledgement list for receiving the biology report from the Deputy Director, F.S.L 40 25. RFSL's report 41 26. Letter to PI 'B' Division Jamnagar, regarding dispatch of F.S.L. report from Forensic Lab, Junagadh 42 27. Evidence Analysis Report 43 28. Letter for correction in F.I.R. 45 29. Letter for preparing Map 46 8. After appreciating the evidence made available on record, the Trial Court has acquitted the accused from the charge under Section-302 of the IPC levelled against him. 9. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court, the prosecution has filed the present Criminal Appeal. 10. We have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Ronak Rawal, who has taken us through the various oral as well as documentary evidence which are on record. We have also independently examined and re-appreciated the evidence of the prosecution made available on the record. 11. Though served, none appeared for the accused. Nonetheless, considering fact that appeal is of year 2004, and our final conclusion is not going to prejudice the interest of accused, we have decided appeal on its merit. 12. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PROSECUTION: 12.1. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor Mr. Rawal would submit that the findings of the Trial Court are contrary to law and it has not properly appreciated the evidence on record, whereby committed a serious error of law in acquitting the accused which should be corrected by this Court in its Appellate jurisdiction. 12.2. Learned APP Mr. Rawal would further submit that the prosecution has proved the charges beyond doubt inasmuch as the death of the wife of the accused was not accidental one, which is confirmed and proved from the reading cause of death given by the doctor in the postmortem report. 12.3. Learned APP Mr. Rawal would further submit that there was a quarrel between the accused and his wife on a petty ground on the issue of watching cricket match on TV and due to such a reason, the accused committed serious crime as he has strangulated the deceased with rope which was recovered from his house. 12.4. Learned APP Mr. Rawal would further submit that the accused was found inside the home and the death took place of his wife inside the house, the accused was supposed to discharge initial burden to prove the injury was an accidental one, which he failed to prove. 12.4. Learned APP Mr. Rawal would further submit that the accused was found inside the home and the death took place of his wife inside the house, the accused was supposed to discharge initial burden to prove the injury was an accidental one, which he failed to prove. So, the Trial Court could not have acquitted him. 12.5. So, learned APP Mr. Rawal would request this Court to allow the present appeal by upsetting the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. 13. We have gone through the records and after re-appreciating the evidence and keeping in mind, the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court of India while deciding these set of appeals, we deem it appropriate to decide the appeal accordingly. 14. Before dealing with merit of the appeal, at this stage, we would like to remind ourselves the position of law propounded by Supreme Court of India in its various decisions, whereby it has laid down several criteria while deciding the present appeal. 15. One of the recent pronouncement, in which, the Supreme Court of India in a case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Others vs. State of Karnataka [ (2024) 8 SCC 149 ] , has held as under: “39. This Court in the case of Rajesh Prasadv. State of Bihar and Another, (2022) 3 SCC 471 encapsulated the legal position covering the field after considering variouse arlier judgments and held as below: - "29. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court culled out the following general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal in the following words: (Chandrappa case [ Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 ] "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, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE , 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. (2) The CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE , 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 phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise 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." 40. 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 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. 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 misreading/omission to evidence on record; is based on a consider material 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. 42. The appellate Court, in order to interfere with the judgment of acquittal would have to record pertinent findings on the above factors if it is inclined to reverse the judgment of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court.” (emphasis supplied) 16. Now, keeping in mind the aforesaid ratio, we have gone through the impugned judgment and re-appreciated entire sets of evidence so as to confirm whether the accused could have been held guilty for commission of crime under Section-302 of I.P.C. Nonetheless, we could not find any infirmity either in findings so recorded by Trial Court and or its ultimate conclusion by which accused has not been convicted for the offence under Section-302 of I.P.C. This conclusion is supported by the following reasons: 16.1. It is remain undisputed fact before the Trial Court that none of the witnesses, including the family members of the deceased examined by the prosecution, have supported the case of the prosecution. 16.2. There are no eye-witnesses to the commission of crime who can confirm the factum of murder of deceased by the accused. It is remain undisputed fact before the Trial Court that none of the witnesses, including the family members of the deceased examined by the prosecution, have supported the case of the prosecution. 16.2. There are no eye-witnesses to the commission of crime who can confirm the factum of murder of deceased by the accused. The so-called eye-witness Chitraben Mrugeshbhai, who happens to be sister-in-law of deceased (sister of accused), who appears to have been residing nearby to the house of accused, is alleged to have seen his brother- accused, came out of her house at around 13:13 hours on 01/03/2003. It is also alleged that having heard the sound of quarrel between couple prior thereto, she went inside the house of accused where she found the deceased lying on the bed. For reasons best known to the prosecution, such witness was not examined before the Trial Court. So, there is no evidentiary value attached with her police statement which is otherwise not admissible in evidence. 16.3. The neighbors of accused, i.e. Vijayaben Bijalbhai (PW-5) and Gangaben Pandebhai (PW-6), were examined but they have not supported the case of the prosecution, having pled ignorance about the incident at all. 16.4. Nothing has been came out from the investigation and any other cogent and reliable evidence on record to substantiate that there was any animosity between the couple and intermittent quarrel, thereby no presumption could have been drawn against the accused for commission of crime. 16.5. It is true that as per the post mortem report, the death was not accidental one but due to asphyxia on account of ligature strangulation, but at the same time, such crime was only committed by the accused cannot be presumed, but heavy burden was upon the prosecution to discharge it, which according to us, the prosecution failed to discharge. 16.6. The Trial Court has also appreciated the evidence of brother of deceased, wherein it has been correctly observed that the brother of the deceased was also not able to throw any light in which circumstances, the death of his sister took place. No allegation of cruelty found levelled against accused. 16.7. 16.6. The Trial Court has also appreciated the evidence of brother of deceased, wherein it has been correctly observed that the brother of the deceased was also not able to throw any light in which circumstances, the death of his sister took place. No allegation of cruelty found levelled against accused. 16.7. The medical evidence which was collected and submitted before the Trial Court would not ipso facto prove the guilt of the accused and as such, there is nothing on record which can substantiate the fact that the accused was in fact inside the house and caused the death of his wife by strangulation. 16.8. The panchnama which was carried out by police at the scene of the offence i.e. the house of the accused and recovery of rope which was used for commission of crime is not proved by the prosecution as the panchas turned hostile. 17. Thus, the reasons which are stated by the Trial Court would lead to only one conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused and miserably failed to prove that he was in fact involved in the commission of the crime. 18. Having appreciated all these aspect of the case and after going through evidence and its re-appreciation, reasons assigned by learned Trial Court are found just and proper. According to us, the prosecution has failed to prove its case before Trial Court, and as such, we are in complete agreement with reasons assigned by the learned Sessions Court while acquitting the accused. 19. Considering these set of evidences on record and in light of the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as reproduced hereinabove, we are of the opinion that no error has been committed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, in Sessions Case No.48 of 2003 while acquitting the respondents. 20. The appeal is accordingly DISMISSED. Resultantly, the impugned judgment and order of the Trial Court is hereby confirmed. Bail bond, if any, shall stand cancelled. Record and proceedings, if called for, be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.