UMA & ANR.versusTHE STATE REP. BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

                [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1757 : 2024 INSC 809

                         Uma & Anr.
                             v.
    The State Rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police
                     (Criminal Appeal No. 757 of 2015)
                               22 October 2024
           [Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma,* JJ]


                           Issue for Consideration
       Whether the High Court was able to demonstrate perversity and
       non-appreciation of the materials on record by the Trial Court while
       reversing its finding of acquittal.

                                  Headnotes†
       Penal Code, 1860, s.120B, 302, 201; Tamil Nadu Prohibition of
       Harassment of Women Act, 1998, s.4A – Appellants acquitted
       by Trial Court – High Court in impugned judgment reversed
       the finding of acquittal and convicted the Appellants – Held,
       High Court has demonstrated perversity and non-appreciation
       of the materials on record by Trial Court – Appeals dismissed:
       Held: The Trial Court acquitted the Appellants as it concluded
       that the prosecution had not proven the case beyond reasonable
       doubt; in the absence of ocular evidence, the Trial Court did not
       consider it appropriate to award due to the medical evidence; and
       held the motive to be highly artificial and unbelievable – Findings
       reversed by the High Court after thorough re-appreciation of the
       evidence on record – Post mortem report supported the case of
       homicide on account of clear motive and presence of Appellants
       at the time the incident occurred – Appellate Court must not
       ordinarily reverse the finding of acquittal, unless perversity and
       non-appreciation of the materials on record is demonstrated –
       Prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and
       established chain of circumstances – Conclusion of guilt can be
       drawn. [Para 28]

       Circumstantial Evidence – Five golden principles – Panchsheel
       of proof – Prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable
       doubt:


* Author
1758                                                          [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


    Held: That the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable
    doubt, established the complete chain of circumstances including
    the – (i) motive (ii) presence of the Appellants at the time of incident
    (iii) false explanation in the statement under Section 313 of the
    CrPC (iv) the conduct of the Appellants before and after the incident
    & most pertinently (v) the medical evidence which in all human
    probability only correspond to the guilt of the Appellants. [Para 21]

    Circumstantial Evidence – When offence is committed in
    the privacy of a house, where accused is said to have been
    present – Two important consequences play out – Section
    106 of Indian Evidence Act – Appellants have not discharged
    their burden:
    Held: Two important consequences that play out when an offence
    is said to have taken place in the privacy of a house, where the
    accused is said to have been present – Firstly, the standard of
    proof expected to prove such a case based on circumstantial
    evidence is lesser than other cases of circumstantial evidence,
    and secondly, the accused would be under a duty to explain as to
    the circumstances that led to the death of the deceased – limited
    shifting of the onus of proof – If accused remains quiet or offers a
    false explanation, then such a response would become an additional
    link in the chain of circumstances – Appellants have not discharged
    their burden that the injuries sustained by the deceased were not
    homicidal and not inflicted by them. [Para 24]

    Reliance on medical evidence:
    Observation of the Trial Court that in absence of a direct occurrence
    witness, motive to commit the crime and the evidence being purely
    circumstantial in nature, the medical evidence becomes of less
    consequences – Not a fairly plausible view. [Para 27]

                              Case Law Cited
    Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [1985] 1
    SCR 88 : (1984) 4 SCC 116; Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of
    Maharashtra [2006] Supp. 7 SCR 156 : (2006) 10 SCC 681 –
    relied on.

                                 List of Acts
    Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860; Evidence
    Act, 1872.
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                        1759

                            Uma & Anr. v.
        The State Rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police

                            List of Keywords
     Reversal of Judgment of Acquittal; Circumstantial Evidence.

                           Case Arising From
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
     757 of 2015
     From the Judgment and Order dated 04.03.2015 of the High Court
     of Judicature at Madras at Madurai in CRLA No. 161 of 2011
     With
     Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 2016

                        Appearances for Parties
     Kathirvelu, Sr. Adv., T. R. B. Sivakumar, Beno Bencigar, Vairawan
     A.S, Jeyamohan, Sudhakaran, Alagiri Karunanidhi, Rohan Singh,
     P. Soma Sundaram, Advs. for the Appellants.
     N.R. Elango, Sr. Adv., Sabarish Subramanian, C. Kranthi Kumar,
     Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Naman Dwivedi, Sarathraj B, Danish Saifi,
     P. V. Yogeswaran, Advs. for the Respondent.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                               Judgment

     Satish Chandra Sharma, J.

     Introduction
1.   These appeal(s) assail the correctness of the Final Judgment/Order
     dated 04.03.2015 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras at
     Madurai (the “High Court”) in Criminal Appeal (MD) No. 161 of
     2011 titled State Vs Uma & Ors. whereby the judgement of acquittal
     dated 19.10.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast
     Track Court No.1, Thoothukudi (the “Trial Court”) in Sessions Case
     No.300 of 2009, has been reversed and consequently, Appellant
     No.1/Accused No.1 has been convicted and sentenced to undergo
     imprisonment for life under Section 120B and 302 of the IPC together
     with a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Indian Rupees Ten Thousand); and
     Appellant No.2/Accused No.3 has been convicted and sentenced
     to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 120B read with 302
1760                                                     [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                    Digital Supreme Court Reports


     of the IPC together with a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Indian Rupees Ten
     Thousand). Pertinently, Ravi i.e., Accused No.2 was convicted and
     sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 120B and
     302 of the IPC together with a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Indian Rupees
     Ten Thousand) (the “Impugned Order”). Ravi i.e., Accused No.2
     has assailed the correctness of the Impugned Order before this
     Hon’ble Court by way of a separate criminal appeal i.e., Criminal
     Appeal No. 67 of 2016. As the appeal(s) arise out of a common
     judgement, they have been heard together; are being disposed of
     by this Judgement.

     Case of the Prosecution
2.   It is the case of the prosecution that on 23.08.2008, Ms. Rajalakshmi
     (the “Deceased”) was murdered by her husband, Mr. Ravi (Accused
     No.2) and her aunt & uncle i.e. Ms. Uma (Accused No.1) and Mr.
     Balasubramanian (Accused No.3).
3.   The factual matrix reveals that the marriage between the deceased
     Rajalaksmi and the Accused No.2 had been solemnized at Arthi
     Thirumana Mandapam, Vilathikulam on 10.02.2008. At the time of
     marriage, 50 sovereign of gold jewels; and vessels and other items
     worth Rs.50,000/- (Indian Rupees Fifty Thousand) were given to the
     Husband and his family. As revealed by P.W.-1, Mr. Chandrakasan
     (PW-1), the adoptive father of the deceased in his examination,
     one week after the marriage, the Deceased had informed him,
     that Accused No.2 continuously harasses her & treated her like a
     servant. It was further stated that Accused No.2 used to consume
     alcohol, play cards, and also had an illegal illicit relationship with
     his aunt, i.e., Accused No.1. P.W.-1 in the Complaint (Exhibit P-1)
     and his examination as P.W.-1, stated that on one occasion Accused
     Nos. 1 and 2 along with Deceased came to his house, and Accused
     Nos. 1 and 2 slept together in a single bedsheet in the hall while
     the Deceased slept in the bedroom. It later came to his knowledge
     through the Deceased that this was not an usual practice at the
     Appellants’ home.
4.   On 23.08.2008, one Arunachalam had informed P.W.-1 that the
     Deceased has consumed paint and had been taken to the local
     hospital. It was upon receiving the said information, P.W.-1 and his
     wife (P.W.-2) had come down to Government Hospital, Kovilpatti and
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                           1761

                            Uma & Anr. v.
        The State Rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police

     found the dead body of the deceased in the mortuary. Subsequent
     thereto, P.W.-1 gave a written Complaint to the Sub Inspector of
     Police (P.W.-15) exhibited as Exhibit P-1, which was registered as
     Crime No. 183 of 2008 under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal
     Procedure, 1973. It is highlighted that none of the accused persons
     i.e., the Appellants, informed the P.W. 1 or the family of the deceased
     of her death.
5.   The contents of the Complaint, reveal glaring details of the disturbing
     circumstances & troubles that the Deceased was being subjected
     to, by the Appellants at the time of her marriage and the said
     details, have been substantiated & corroborated by P.W.-1 in his
     cross-examination. The wife of P.W.-1 i.e., Ms. Sooriya Kalavathi has
     also adduced identical circumstances in her evidence, which affirm
     the allegations of the de-facto complainant. Notwithstanding thereto,
     such evidence needs to be tested on the anvil of consistency with
     the circumstances.
6.   Since the Deceased had passed away within a period of 6 (six)
     months from the date of her marriage, the Investigating Officer (the
     “IO”) (P.W.-20) had also made arrangements to conduct enquiry by
     Revenue Divisional Officer (P.W.-l7). Although the Inquest Report
     marked as Exhibit P.14, stated that the death had not occurred due
     to demand of dowry, it is the case of the Prosecution, that Accused
     No.1 and Accused No.2 strangulated the neck of the Deceased with
     a saree. It is further alleged that Accused No.3 poured kerosene into
     the mouth of the Deceased. It is the case of the prosecution that
     with the intention to camouflage the incident, the accused persons
     i.e., the Appellants poured paint and kerosene into the mouth of
     Rajalakshmi to make the death appear like suicide.
7.   The said assertion of the prosecution is substantiated with medical
     evidence which reveal ante-mortem injuries sustained by the
     deceased. The Postmortem Report i.e., Exhibit P-3 prepared by
     Dr. Venkatesh, P.W.-10 reveals that 3 external injuries over the left
     upper arm, left shoulder, right shoulder and neck & the hyoid bone
     was found to be broken. The relevant extract of Postmortem Report
     is reproduced as under:
          "1.   Multiple contusions over left arm upper 1/3rd and left
                shoulder (anterior aspect) each of size 2 x 2 cms (3 Nos)
1762                                                     [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                    Digital Supreme Court Reports


          2.   Multiple contusions right shoulder (anterior aspect)
          3.   Contusion in front of neck 6 x 2 cm extending from
               right sternocleidomastoid to left sternocleidomastoid.”
8.   P.W.-10, Dr. Venkatesh, in his examination-in-chief further makes it
     clear that the fracture on the hyoid bone was found broken before
     the demise of the Deceased. He disclosed that the death of the
     Deceased occurred from suffocation in breathing. There was no
     chance of consuming liquid for a person whose hyoid/Navaldi bone
     had been fractured and the person could have died due to pressure
     on the neck & problem in breathing. The relevant extract of his
     examination-in-chief is reproduced as under:
          “I started the Postmortem at 4.15 p.m. Rigor Mortis present
          in hands and legs. The dead body was kept lying on its
          back. There are external injuries.
          It was broken on the inner side. Food pipe was found
          callus. At 5.15 p.m., the Postmortem was completed.
          Internal organs of the dead body were sent to Chemical
          analysis. Navaldi bone was sent to the professor. In the
          Navaldi bone investigation, it was found broken before the
          death. Based on the report, Chemical Analysis Department,
          there is no poison found on the internal ~ organs, I have
          stated the said information in the Postmortem Report. I
          opined the aforesaid person would have died due to the
          pressure given to aforesaid person on his neck and I issued
          the Postmortem Report Ex.P.3. Visera Report is Ex.P.4.”
                                     …….
          The wounds 1 and 2 noted in the Post Mortem Report would
          have caused due to the pressure made on his neck. Blood
          clots in the neck and the congestion in the food pipe due
          to pressing of the neck. The fracture of Navaldi bone found
          on the internal side is caused due to the pressure made
          on the neck. There is no chance of liquid consumption to
          a person whose Navaldi bone was fractured. There is no
          chance for demise of a person whose Navaldi bone was
          fractured. Breathing problem may be caused and then the
          death may occur.”
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                       1763

                             Uma & Anr. v.
         The State Rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police

9.   P.W.-11, Muppidathi, Scientific Assistant, who prepared the Viscera
     Report, also deposed on 18.09.2008 that there was no poison found
     in the internal organs of the deceased and it was her ultimate opinion
     that the Deceased appeared to have died of compression over neck.
     The Postmortem Report prepared by Dr. Venkatesh, Assistant Doctor
     (P.W.-10) as well as Exhibit P-4 (Visera Report) prepared by the
     Muppidathi, Scientific Assistant, clearly establish that the Deceased
     had sustained external as well as internal ante-mortem injuries, which
     could not have been a natural consequence of consuming paint, as
     alleged by the Appellants.
10. A cumulative reading of the medical record along with deposition
    of P.W.-1 to P.W.-4 create a chain of circumstances, that establish
    that the death of the deceased is homicidal. It has been submitted
    by the Prosecution that the injuries sustained by the Deceased are
    ante-mortem in nature, and in view of the fact that the Deceased and
    the Appellants were related and more importantly, resided together
    at the time of occurrence it was incumbent upon the Appellants to
    prove as to how the death of the Deceased occurred in view of the
    burden contemplated under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act
    1872 (the “Evidence Act”). In this context, it is the Prosecution’
    case that the Appellants have not only failed to offer any alternative
    explanation so as to the cause of death of the Deceased, but also
    failed to dent to Prosecutions’ version vis-à-vis their sole presence
    at the scene of the alleged offence, thereby being unable to negate
    the contention that no one else could have inflicted the said injuries
    on the body of the Deceased.
11. It is the case of the Prosecution that the Appellants had a clear
    motive to eliminate the Deceased i.e., the illicit/incestuous relationship
    between Accused no. 1, Ms. Uma and Accused No.2, Mr. Ravi,
    which has subsequently become a stumbling block between the
    Deceased i.e., Rajalakshmi and the aforenoted Appellants. This
    naturally, swelled the common intention of the accused persons to
    murder the Deceased. This factum coupled with the narrative of
    P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 read together with the medical evidence as well
    as the deposition of the doctors substantiates the culpability of the
    accused persons to murder the Deceased. It is urged that the case of
    the Prosecution does not rest on circumstantial evidence alone and
    corresponds to circumstances so complete, that they point towards
    the guilt of the Accused Persons/Appellants.
1764                                                       [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


     Findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate/High Court
12. The Trial Court has concluded that the case of the Prosecution
    is not proved beyond reasonable doubt and hence, the Appellant
    are entitled to an acquittal. It was observed despite the medical
    evidence on record, Courts can prefer to accept the eyewitness
    testimony(ies) in preference to the opinion of a medical expert. In
    the absence of any direct ocular evidence, the Trial Court did not
    consider it appropriate to award due to the medical evidence. The
    Trial Court, came to the conclusion that the motive alluded to the
    Appellants i.e., of being embroiled in an illegal/illicit relationship was
    held to be highly artificial and unbelievable. In these circumstances
    together, the Trial Court held that the Appellants were not guilty of
    the offences under sections 120B, 302, 201 IPC and Section 4A of
    the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act.
13. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the Trial Court, an appeal came
    to be preferred before the High Court. The High Court has reversed
    the findings of the Trial Court; and convicted the Appellant(s) for inter
    alia the murder of the Deceased i.e, Rajalakshmi. In its considered
    opinion, the High Court after a thorough re-appreciation of the entire
    evidence on record, held that the Postmortem Report supported the
    case of the Prosecution that the death of Rajalakshmi was homicidal
    on account of the clear motive ascribed to the Appellants, and the
    presence of the Appellants at the time of occurrences of incident. The
    aforenoted conclusion was substantiated on the basis of evidence
    of P.W-1 to P.W.-4.

     Submissions of the Parties
14. It is the case of the Appellant that it is settled law that a judgment
    by the Trial Court could have only been reversed by the High
    Court if the view taken was not a plausible view on the evidence
    on record or there is an error apparent/perversity. The High Court
    in the present case has not given any reason why the view taken
    by the Trial Court was not a sustainable or plausible view as it not
    commented on any findings of the Trial Court nor has marshaled
    all evidence before itself before coming to the conclusion of guilt of
    the Appellants. It was submitted that, in cases where another view
    is possible, the more liberal outlook ought to be preferred and must
    not ordinarily be displaced.
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                     1765

                            Uma & Anr. v.
        The State Rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police

15. It was further stressed that the case of the Prosecution is entirely
    based on a presumption, insofar as there was no material to establish
    the alleged story of P.W.-1; and there is no evidence on record to
    establish the motive of the Appellants to murder the Deceased. It
    was contended that there was nothing on record to establish that
    the Appellants were residing together and were present at the time
    of occurrence of the said incident.
16. The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant(s) submitted
    that that the presence of the tin of paint is demonstrable from the
    Observation Mahazar (Ex P.8), however there is also nothing to show
    that the Appellants had inflicted the injuries on the Deceased. In this
    respect, it is also stated the observation made by the Hon’ble High
    Court vis-à-vis the shift of burden of proof under Section 106 CrPC
    to prove a certain fact, strictly within the knowledge of the Appellants
    is wholly erroneous.
17. It is further submitted that the entire case of the Prosecution rests
    upon a confession of the Appellant No.1, however the same is struck
    by Section 27 of the Evidence Act and hence cannot be admissible
    in the court of law in order to bring home the guilt of the present
    Appellants.
18. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent
    State defended the Impugned Order, it was submitted that that the
    Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in a proper manner; and
    consequently, this glaring error led to the acquittal of the accused
    persons i.e., the Appellants. It was further submitted that the
    testimonies of P.W.-3 and P.W.-4 were incorrectly rejected by the
    Trial Court as purely circumstantial, whereas the entire set of facts
    read together with the medical evidence, strictly point towards the
    guilt of the Appellants. It was further submitted that once a grave
    error is found in the decision of the Trial Court, the High Court was
    fully empowered to re-appreciate the entire evidence and reach a
    different conclusion.

     Analysis & Conclusions
19. The case of the Prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence, the
    testimonies of P.W.-1 to P.W.-4 read with the reports of medical
    examination (Exhibit P.3), Postmortem Report (Exhibit P.4.) and the
1766                                                      [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


     evidence of the doctors. Admittedly there are no direct eyewitness
     to the said incident. In such cases, an inference of guilt must be
     sought to be drawn from a cogently and firmly established chain of
     circumstances.
20. This Court in its decision in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State
    of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116, has laid down following five
    golden principles, which constitutes the panchsheel of proof, for
    a case based on circumstantial evidence: insofar as the facts
    so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of
    the guilt of the accused, and the circumstances should be of a
    conclusive nature and tendency; they should exclude every possible
    hypothesis except the one to be proved; 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. The prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt,
    established the complete chain of circumstances including the;
    (i) motive (ii) presence of the Appellants at the time of incident
    (iii) false explanation in the statement under Section 313 of the CrPC
    (iv) the conduct of the Appellants before and after the incident & most
    pertinently (v) the medical evidence; which in all human probability
    only correspond to the guilt of the Appellants.
22. At the outset, the medical evidence in the present case, clearly
    shows that the Deceased i.e., Rajalakshmi had sustained multiple
    ante-mortem injuries, including external injuries over the left upper
    arm, left shoulder, right shoulder and neck. Pertinently, the Deceased’s
    hyoid bone was also found to be broken. P.W.-10. in his deposition
    discloses that the death of the Deceased occurred from suffocation
    in breathing & there was no chance of consuming liquid for a person
    whose hyoid/Navaldi bone had been fractured. It was deposed that
    Deceased could have died due to pressure on the neck & problem
    in breathing. P.W.-11 also noted that no poison found in the internal
    organs of the Deceased and it was her ultimate opinion that the
    deceased appeared to have died of compression over neck. The
    medical record clearly establishes that the Deceased had died due to
    external injuries, which could not have been a natural consequence
    of consuming paint, as alleged by the Appellants.
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                     1767

                            Uma & Anr. v.
        The State Rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police

23. The presence of the Appellants at the time and place of incident is
    demonstrable from their conduct before and after the incident. In
    their defence under section 313 CrPC, the Appellants have stated
    that all 3 of them had went to Keela Earal to attend a function in the
    Tractor Company. They returned home only at 6 P.M. and found the
    deceased in an unconscious stage and they took her to the hospital.
    Admittedly, the Appellants had taken the deceased to the local
    hospital, however, none of the Appellants have been able to establish
    an alibi at the time of the incident. The silence of the Appellants in
    informing P.W.-1 or the family of the deceased of her death, also
    speaks volume of their conduct. Undisputedly, the Appellants and
    the Deceased resided together since the marriage of the Deceased
    to Accused No.2, which substantiates their presence at the time
    of occurrence of the incident; and consequently the invocation of
    Section 106 of the Evidence Act cannot be faulted.
24. In the case of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra
    [2006] Supp. (7) S.C.R. 156, this Court has pointed out that there
    are two important consequences that play out when an offence
    is said to have taken place in the privacy of a house, where the
    accused is said to have been present. Firstly, the standard of proof
    expected to prove such a case based on circumstantial evidence is
    lesser than other cases of circumstantial evidence. Secondly, the
    appellant would be under a duty to explain as to the circumstances
    that led to the death of the deceased. In that sense, there is a limited
    shifting of the onus of proof. If he remains quiet or offers a false
    explanation, then such a response would become an additional
    link in the chain of circumstances. In terms of Section 106 of the
    Evidence Act, the Appellants have not discharged their burden that
    the injuries sustained by the deceased were not homicidal and not
    inflicted by them.
25. There is also enough evidence adduced by the Prosecution to
    hold that the Appellants had the clear motive to eliminate the
    Deceased. An illicit/incestuous relationship between Accused
    No.-1 i.e., Ms. Uma and Accused No.-2 i.e., Mr. Ravi had become
    known to the Deceased Rajalakshmi & her family, and she had
    become a stumbling block in the relationship, which swelled the
    common intention of the Appellants to murder her. The factum that
    the Deceased has passed away within six months of her marriage
    also becomes a relevant consideration to attribute culpable intent
1768                                                            [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                         Digital Supreme Court Reports


     of the Appellants. Although, the motive of Mr. Balasubramanian
     remains unclear, his aid & assistance in the commission of the
     crime cannot be ruled out.
26. We are hence of the opinion that the Prosecution has been able to
    prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that the Accused Nos. 1
    and 2, with the aid & support of the Accused No.3 have murdered
    the deceased Rajalakshmi and strangulated her to death.
27. The collusion & motive of the accused person certainly synthesizes
    with the medical evidence on record, false explanation by the
    Appellants and the entire chain of circumstances, not leaving any
    link missing for the Appellants to escape from the clutches of justice.
    In our considered opinion, the observation of the Trial Court that
    in absence of a direct occurrence witness, motive to commit the
    crime and the evidence being purely circumstantial in nature, the
    medical evidence becomes of less consequences, thus cannot be
    a fairly plausible view. The Trial Court has simply discarded the
    consistent testimonies of prosecution witnesses P.W.-1 & P.W.-2
    as being simply based on presumption; whereas the High Court in
    appeal has extensively dealt with each charge framed against the
    Appellants, the grounds on which the acquittal had been based and
    has dispelled those grounds with reasons.
28. Although, this Court is conscious of the fact that an Appellate Court
    must not ordinarily reverse the finding of acquittal, the High Court
    has been able to demonstrate perversity and non-appreciation of the
    materials on record. On a fresh appreciation of evidence, we also
    find ourselves unable to agree with the findings of the Trial Court
    and are of the considered view that the circumstances in this case
    are conclusive and a conclusion of guilt can be drawn.
29. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the Appeals stand dismissed.
    Interim applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

     Result of the case: Appeals dismissed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Prastut Mahesh Dalvi, Hony. Associate Editor
                                 (Verified by: Shibani Ghosh, Adv.)