RAMESH BABULAL DOSHIversusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT

                      RAMESH BABULAL DOSHI                                       A
                                v.
                      THE STATE OF GUJARAT

                               MAY 2, 1996

              (M.K MUKHERJEE, S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.)                                B

       Code of Criminal Procedure 1973,-S.379-Appeal against reversal of
acquittaf-Trial Court acquitting appellant of charge of murder-High Court
reappraising evidence and convicting the appellant without considering trial
court's findings-Held, reasons given by trial court's were cogent and convinc-   c
ing and the High Court's approach in reappraising evidence was patently
wrong.

       Criminal trial-Circumstantial evidence-After initial search of
premises of accused two days after event only a pair of blood stained trousers
recovered-Keys of house left with brother~ in-law of accuseti-Second search      D
after five days leading to recovery of articles containing stains matching
victim's blood group-Appellant not having access to flat-Held, the entire
story of search and recovery of the. articles was a myth.

       Criminal triaf-Circumstantial evidence-Theory of last seen-Held, on       E
facts, even if proved did not by itself lead to the only conclusion that the
appellant was guilty.                     ·

      In seeking to prove the .charge that it was the appellant who had
111urdered the deceased, who carried on business in diamonds, at his house
in Surat on September 2, 1980, the prosecution relied upon, inter alia, the F
following circumstances : that the appellant, who also dealt in diamonds,
and the deceased were seen moving on a scooter between 12 noon and 1.30
p.m. on the fateful day; that the following morning the appellant was seen
going out with others with a trunk in whichthe dead body of the deceased
was subsequently recovered and that some of the articles that were seized G
from the appellant's house on the morning of September 9 were found to
contain human blood of Group A which also was the blood group of the
deceased. The Trial court after discussing the evidence at great length held.
that the prosecution could not satisfactorily prove any one of the cir-              •
cums!ances and accordingly acquitted the appellant and the three other
co-accused.                                                                   H ·
                                     265
    266                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A         The High Court on a reappraisal or the evidence and without con-
    sidering the findings of the trial court, reversed the acquittal of the
    appellant while confirming the acquittal of the co-accused. The High Court
    found each or the three circumstances mentioned above to be conclusively
    proved.
B
          Allowing the appeal, this court

          HELD : 1.1. The reasons given by the trial Court for recording the
    order or acquittal in favour of the appellant are cogent and convincing and
    the High Court was not at all justified in disturbing the same by reapprais-
e   ing the evidence. The entire approach of the High Court in dealing with
    the appeal was patently wrong for it did not at all address itself to the
    question as to whether the reasons which weighed with the Trial Court for
    recording the order of acquittal were proper or not. [276-G, 277-E]

D         1.2. The mere fact that a view other than the one taken by the trial
    Court can be legitimately arrived at by the appellate Court on reappraisal
    of the evidence cannot constitute a valid and sufficient ground to interfere
    with an order of acquittal unless it comes to the conclusion that the entire
    approach of the trial Court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal
    or the conclusions arrived at by it were wholly untenable. [271-F-G]
E
          2. Each of the reasons given by the trial court for disbelieving the
    three witnesses said to have seen the appellant carrying the trunk are clear,
    cogent and convincing. [274-A]

F          3. The entire story or search and recovery of a lot of articles from
    inside the flat on September 9 was a myth as it was stated to have taken
    place despite the following tell-tale circumstances, viz., admittedly the flat
    of the appellant was searched in the night between September 4 and 5, 1980
    by the police by breaking open the lock; at the time except a pair of trousers
    nothing incriminating was found; the flat was locked again and the for
                                                                                     l·
G   reasons unable to be fathomed, the keys were kept with the brother-in-law
    of the appellant; the appellant had no access to the flat till it was searched
    again on September 9. [275-G·H]

          4. That the appellant was last seen with the deceased stood proved
Ii. did not further the prosecution case for, by itself, it did not lead to the
                R.B. DOSHI v. STATE [M.K. MUKHERJEE,J.)                 267

only conclusion that the appellant was guilty of the offence alleged against   A
him. (276-F]

         CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDIC"I'ION: Criminal Appeal No.
32 of 1988.

     From the Jud;,'111ent and Order dated 15/16.10.87 of the Gujarat High     B
Court in Cr!. A. No. 746 of 1981.

     Maganbhai Barnt, Mahesh Agarwala, Alu[ Sharma, G.P. Srivastava
and E.C. Agarwala for the Appellants.

         Y.P. Adhyaru, Ms. Hemantika Wahi and Avikar Raj for the Respon·       C
dents.

         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      M.K. MUKHERJEE, J. This Appeal under Section 379 Cr. P.C. is
directed against the judgment dated October 15/16, 1987 rendered by the        D
Gujarat High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 746 of 1981 whereby it
reversed the acquittal of the appellant of the charges under Sections 302,
201, 212, 364, 365 and 397 !PC recorded in his favour by the Sessions Judge,
Surat and convicted and sentenced him nnder Section 302 and 201 IPC,
while upholding the acquittal of three others who were arraigned with him.     E
     2. The prosecution case, so far as it is relevant for disposal of this
appeal, is as under :

       (a) Khodibhai Amarshi Patel (the deceased) used to reside in the
city of Surat along with his wife Raiben (PW 2) and two children and carry F
on business in diamonds. On September 2, 1980 (which was the!anmastami
day) he left his residence in the morning with a packet containing diamonds
worth Rs. 60,000 after informing his wife that a person was waiting for him
in the market. As he had not returned home till 3 P.M. his wife requested
Shamjibhai Manjibhai (P.W. 8) to enquire of his whereabouts. Shamjibhai G
first went to the office of Gordhanbhai Patel (P.W.l), a cousin of the
deceased, where he found Manjibhai Devjibhai (PW 10) sitting. He (PW
10) disclosed that at noon time he had seen the deceased near the market,
sitting on the pillion of a scooter which was being driven by Ramesh (the
appellant). They then went in search of the deceased in the market and
other places but could not trace him out. Ultimately Gordhanbhai went to H
    268                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A   the Chowk Bazar Police Station at or about 11.45 P.M. and lodged a
    missing information (Ext. 63).

          (b) In the meantime, some people of Patel community, to which the
    deceased belonged, having learnt that he was missing also started searching
    for him. In course of the search some of them when to the flat .of the
B   appellant, which was on the fourth floor of a building named
    "Y agnapurush', at Rampura. On their query the appellant informed them
    that along with the deceased he had gone to the office of Jayantibhai
    Master to show him some diamonds but as his office was closed they came
    back and on the way the deceased got down at Rampura.
c         (c) On the following day, that is, on September 3, 1980 attempts were
    again made tu trace out the deceased but without success. However, in
    course of the search Gordhanbhai learnt from Mukesh Chandra Maganlal
    Parekh (PW 9) that on the previous day at or about l P.M. he had also
    seen the deceased going towards Athwa with the appellant, on a scooter.
D   Gordhanbhai then went to the police station ai or about 11.30 P.M. and
    lodged a formal complaint (Ext. 14) alleging that the appellant had kid-
    napped the deceased lo grab the diamonds he was having with him. Police
    Inspector Chandravadan Himatlal Jaiswal (P.W. 31) recorded that infor-
    mation and registered a case thereupon. He then went to the flat of the
E   appellant but found it closed from outside.

          (d) As the appellant was not traceable on the next day (September
    4, 1980) also Sri Jaiswal started making enquiries about his relatives
    including his brother-in-Law R.R. Seth who was residing at Shrinath Apart-
    ment, Timeliswad, Nanpura. In the meantime the investigation of the case
F   was handed over to Police Inspector Mr. AN. Vaghela (P.W. 43).

         (e) After taking over investigation Inspector Vaghela, alongwith R.R.
    Seth and panchas went to his (appellant's) flat in the early hours of
    September 5, 1981 only to find it still locked. After breaking open the lock
G   he searched the flat but found nothing incriminating except a pair of
    blood-stained trousers (Art. No. 1) hanging from a peg which he seized
    under a panchnama (Ex.53). After Completion of search he locked the
    apartment and handed over the key to Sri Seth.

          (f) On the same day, at or about 2.00 P.M. he (P.W. 33), received an
H information that one trunk emitting foul smell was lying in the outskirt of
               R.B. DOSHI v. STATE [M.K. MUKHERJEE,J.]                   269

the city by the side of Udhna-Magdalla Road. He therefore left for that A
place and reaching there found a trunk (Art. 2) lying in a bush, at a
distance of 10 feet from the road. He broke open the lock in presence of
panchas and therein saw a decomposed body tied with string. He held
inquest upon the dead body and gal its photographs taken. He then sent
the dead body to the Civil Hospital for post-mortem examination. While B
in the hospital the dead body was identified by Jivajibhai Premjibhai as that
of his brother-in-law Khodabhai (the deceased).

      (g) In that night Bhupendrabhai Chunilal (since acquitted) was ar-
rested but as the appellant could not be traced in Surat, Sub-Inspector
Devkar (P.W. 32) was sent to his native place in the district of Banaskanlha    C
to apprehend him. Ultimately, he succeeded in arresting the appellant
alungwith his father and one Bharatkumar (since acquitted) from village
Rajpur on the following morning. On search a packet containing diamonds
was found in the pocket of the trousers the appellant was wearing.

      (h) On September 9, 1980 Mr. Vaghela alongwith panchas and Anil D
Kumar Mehta, Junior Scientific Assistant, Forensic Scientific Laboratory\
went to the Flat of the appellant accompanied by him (who was in police
custody then) and seized a number of articles including a chair, blanket,
trousers and a bush-shirt from its different rooms all of which were found
blood stained. Besides, he got photographs of blood-stains found on the         E
wall and the floor taken.

      (i) On compl<:tion of·investigation chargesheet was submitted against
the four persons arrested during investigation, including the appellant, and
in due course the case was committed to the Court of Session.
                                                                                F
     3. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against
him and contended that he had been implicated in the case on mere
susp1c1on.

      4. To sustain the charges levelled against the accused persons the G
prosecution rested its case on, in absence of any eye witness, circumstantial
evidence. To prove that the dead body of Khodabhai was found in a trunk
by the side of Udhana Magdalla Road, in the vicinity of the city of Surat
on September 5, 1980 between 1.30 and 2 P.M. with multiple injuries on
his person, which clearly indicated that he was murdered, the prosecution
examined amongst others, Jivrajbhai (PW 22), brother-in-law of the H
    270                   SUPREMF C'OURT REPORT'.-> [ l'N6J SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A   deceased who identified the dead body, Pulice lnspectur Vaghela (PW 33),
    who held inquest, and Dr. Singal (PW-l 7) who held post mortem examina-
    tion thereupon. We need not, ho\vever, detail or discuss their evidence as
    the concurrent findings of the learned Courts bdow in this regard is based
    on proper appreciation of the evidence. Indeed, this part of the prosecution
    case was nut challenged by the defence.
B
            5. That bring~ us to the cruci'1l question whether the prosecution has
    succeeded in conclusively proving that the appellant committed the murder
    and then removed the dead body at the place where it was found lo screen
    himself from legal punishment. To brini; hurne the above accusations the
C   pro:--cl'.Ulion relied upon the following circumstances:

          (i) The appellant, who abo dealt in diamond>, and the deceased
    were seen moving on a scooter bct\veen 12 noon an<l 1.30 P.M. on Septem-
    ber 2, 1980;

D         (ii) Thereafter, on the same day, between 1.30 P.M. to l.45 P.M. the
    deceased was seen talking with the appellant in his (appellant's) flat, on
    the fourth floor of the building 'Yagnapurush';

          (iii) On the following morning, (at or about 7.30 A.M. on September
    3, 1980) the appellant wa, seen going out of 'Yagnapurush' along with
E   others with a trunk (Article No. 2), in which the dead body of Khadabhai
    was subsequently recovered on September 5, 1980;

          (iv) In the night between September 4/5, 1980 a pair of blood- stained
    trousers (Article No. 1) was seized from the flat of the appella11t;

F         (v) Diamonds (Article No. 8) worth Rs. 63,000 were recovered from
    the pocket of the trousers the appellant was wearing at the time of his
    arrest on September 7, 1980;

          (vi) Some of the articles that were seized from the Flat of the
G   appellar.t in the morning of September 9, 1980 were found to contain
    human blood of Group A, which was the blood group of the deceased also;
    and

          (vii) A piece of string which was also seized from the flat of tbe
    appellant on September 9, 1980 was similar to the string with which the
H   deadbody of Khodabhai was found tied.
              R.B. DOSHI v. STATE [M.K. MUKHERJEE, J. J               271

       6. The trial Court discussed the evidence adduced by the prosecution A
in support of each of the above circumstances at great length (the judgment
runs through 178 Pages) and held that the prosecution could not satisfac-
torily prove any one of them. In setting aside the above judgment and
convicting the appellant the High Court recorded the following findings:
                                                                            B
        "In our view therefore, the prosecution has proved beyond
        reasonable doubt that the accused and deceased were seen
        together on a scooter on 2.9.80. Thereafter they were seen in the
        block of accused No. 1at1.30 p.m. Accused No. 1 was seen panicky
        at about 4.00 lo 4.30 p.m. On the next day i.e. on 3rd September,
        1980 the accused along \vith other persons was seen going with C
        metalic box similar to article No. 2 in which the dead body of
        Khodabhai was found. The box was lifted by two persons i.e. one
        handle was held by accused No. 1 and other was held by an other
        person. From the apartment of accused No. 1 number of articles
        as stated above containing human blood group A were found. The D
        blood of the deceased Khodabhai is also A. These circumstances,
        in our view, prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused No.
        1 (the appellant) is guilty for the offence punishable under Sections
        302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.''

      7. Before proceeding further it will be pertinent to mention that the E
entire approach of the High Court in dealing with the appeal was patently
wrong for it did not at all address itself to the question as to whether the
reasons which weighed with the trial Court for recording the order of
acquittal were proper or not. Instead thereof the High Court made an
independent reappraisal of the entire evidence to arrive at the above F
quoted conclusions. This Court has repeatedly laid down that the mere fact
that a view other than the one taken by the trial Court can be legitimately
arrived at by the appellate Court on reappraisal of the evidence cannot
constitute a valid and sufficient ground to interfere an order of acquittal
unless it comes to the conclusion that the entire approach of the trial Court G
in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal or the conclusions arrived
at by it were wholly untenable. While setting in judgment over an acquittal
the appellate Court is first required to seek an answer to the question
whether the findings of the trial Court are palpably wrong, manifestly
erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. If the appellate Court answers
the above question in the negative the order of acquittal is not to be H
    272                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A   disturbed. Conversely, if the appellate Court holds, for reasons to be
    recorded, that the order of acquittal cannot at all be sustained in view of
    any of the above infirmities it can then-and then only-reappraise the
    evidence to arrive at its own conclusions. In keeping with the above
    principles we have therefore to first ascertain whether the findings of the
    trial Court are sustainable or not.
B
           8. Of the various incriminating circumstances alleged against the
    appellant (detailed earlier) the two which in our opinion, are clinching are
    circumstances No. (iii) and (vi). To prove the former the prosecution relied
    upon the evidence of Dahyabhai Ratanji (P.W. 3), the watchman of
c   'Yagnapurush', and Dhirubhai Babula! Shah (P.W. 4) and Smitaben (P.W.
    6), residents of that building. P.W. 3 deposed that on September 3, 1980
    at or about 7.30 A.M. he had seen the appellant going upstairs alongv.ith
    another man and a little later saw !hem coming down the staircase with a
    big trunk wherefrom blood coloured drops were trickling and the younger
D   brother of the appellant (since acquitted) wiping out the steps of the
    staircase to remove those drops. After going out of the building they talked
    to a person standing by the side of rickshaw stationed nearby. One or two
    minutes thereafter that person left the place \vith the rickshaw and then
    the appellant and others proceeded ahead. PW 3 next stated that a little
    later he had asked Dhirubhai Babula! Shah (P.W. 4), as to why those
E   persons had come at that lime to which Dhirnbhai's answer was that as he
    was sleeping he did not know anything. In cross-examination he admitted
    that till his statement was recorded by the police on September 7, 1980 he
    had not disclosed to anybody what he had seen in the morning of Septem-
    ber 3, 1980. He further admitted thal though in the evening of 'third'
F   (obviously referring to September 3, 1980) and also in the night of Septem-
    ber 5, 1980 police officers and other persons had come in search of the
    appellant and had remained in his flat for some time and that though at
    that time he knew that the appellant was involved in the offence he did
    not spe;_ik to them about the appellant's movement that morning. Accord-
    ing to PW 3 he went to the police station on September 6, 1980 on being
G summoned by them and was detained there from 12 noon of that day till
    l.00 A.M. on the following day, when he was released after his statement
    was recorded. He also admitted that even though Nathuhhai had earlier
    asked him of the whereabouts of the appellant he did not tell him anything.
    In vic\V of the answers so given by hin1 in cross-examination the trial Court
H   observed that it was difficult to believe that if really he had seen Ramesh
                  R.B. DOSHI v. STATE [M.K. MUKHERJEE, J.]                273

     going down the building with the trunk on September 3, 1980 he would not A
     disclose the same to the police and other people who had been coming to
     the flat of the appellant since the night of September 2, 1980 in search of
     the appellant, more so when he was the watchman of that building. It
     further observed that the fact that he made his disclosure as late as on
     September 7, 1980, after he was detained for 13 hours by the police, made B
     his testimony suspect. For the above reasons the trial Court expressed its
     inability lo rely upon his testimony.

            9. The trial Court next discussed the evidence of Dhirubhai Babula!
     Shah (P.W. 4), resident of flat No. 28, which is on the same floor as that
     of the appellant. He stated that when he was brushing his teeth while      c
     standing in the gallery he saw the appellant talking with a riskshawpullar
     on the road in front of the building and a galvanised steel trunk lying

..   nearby. Besides the appellant he saw his younger brother and some other
     persons standing there. He next stated that a few minutes later he saw the
     appellant and one person holding the trunk and going away. The trial Court D
     discussed his evidence at length keeping in view the various material
     contradictions brought on record with reference to his statement recorded
     under Section 161 Cr. P. C. and concluded that though right from Septem-
     ber 3, 1980 till the morning of September 5, 1980 he had several oppor-
     tunities to divulge what he had seen he did not disclose the same either to
     the police or the members of the Patel Community who had come to meet E
     the appellant suspecting his involvement in the disappearance of Khodab-
     hai. The trial Court further noticed that PW 4 admitted that the police had
     called him and several other persons at the police station on 6th September
     and detained them in one room till the afternoon of 7th September, 1980
     \Vhen they were a1lo\ved to go after interrogation. The tria1 Court next F
     observed that PW 4 had also tried to improve upon his police version, in
     view of the various contradictions appearing in the evidence of this witness
     which had been brought on record. For all these reasons the trial Court
     did not feel inclined to rely upon the same. Similar was the comment by
     the trial Court regarding the other winess, namely, Smitaben (P.W. 6), who
     claimed to have seen the appellant and other persons standing near the G
     rickshawpullar with a trunk while brushing her teeth standing on the
     balcony. This witness also stated that the police had taken her for recording
      her statement between 3.00 P.M. to 4.00 P.M. on September 6, 1980 and
     before that day she did not disclose those facts to the Patcls who had come
     in search of the appellant. The trial Court also referred to the various H
    274                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A   material contradictions brought on record with reference to her statement
    recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. Having carefully gone through the
    evidence of these three witnesses we find that each of the reasons given by
    the trial Court for disbelieving them are clear, cogent and convincing.

          10. While on this point we may refer to another decisive finding
B recorded by the trial Court which takes the wind out of the sail of the
    prosecution case. As already noticed, prosecution sought to establish that
    as the deceased was seen alive and talking to the appellant in his 11at at or
    about 1.30 P.M. on September 2, 1980 and the trunk carrying his deadbody
    was seen being taken out of the building on the following morning the
c   appellant must have committed the murder in his 11at in between this
    period. In laying bare the utter absurdity of this claim of the prosecution
    the trial Court first referred to the evidence ol' Manjibhai Devijiblrni (P.W.



D
    LO), Savjibhai (P.W. 20) and Dahyabhai Ratanji (PW 3), the watchman,
    wherein they had claimed to have gone to the flat of the appellant to
    inquire about the deceasccl and met him (the appellant) at different hours
                                                                                     ..
    of the night between September 2 and 3, 1980 and drew the following
    conclusions :

            "Now when the prosecution witnesses Manjibhai Dcvjibhai and
            Savjibhai Naranbhai were searching for Khodabhai and were
E           knowing that accused No. 1 knew about Khodabhai and they had
            gone thrice to the flat of accused No. 1 and stood outsides as they
            knew lhat if they were to admit that they had entered the flat then
            they would have to further aclmit that they did not find Art. i'lo.
            2- the trunk containing the dead body of Khodabhai in the tlat at
F           that time. But I do not think that when they have gone thrice to
            the flat of accused No. 1 Ramesh then they woulcl not have entered
            the llat and that they would nol have notice Art. 1'LL 2, the trunk
            if it were in the flat. Now the medical evidence shows that the head
            injury found on the dead body of deceased Khodabhai could be
            caused by hard and blunt substance and the incised wounds found
G           on the dead body of Khodabhai could be caused by sharp-cutting
             instrument, an<l therefore in order to cau~~ head injuries and
             incised wounds, hard blunt substance and sharp-cutting instru-
             ments were used. Now flat 'lo. 29 is situated by the side of 11at
             No. 28, and !lat No. 30 is abo situated by the side of flat No. 29
H            and that flats Nos. 31 and 32 are situated opposite to llats No. 28,
              R.B. DOSHI v. STATE [MK MUKHERJEE, J. J                   275

        29, and 30 and that there is a common wall between llats Nos. 29 A
        and 30 and the entrance door of flats No. 29 and 30 is falling on
        1-1/2 feet balcony where there is staircase and that opposite to
        Yagnapurush apartment and leaving the road, there is industrial
        apartment. Now deceased Khodabhai would have raised shouts
        and offered resistence in order to save himself from receiving the
                                                                           B
        injuries and that could have been heard by the prosecution wit-
        nesses, Dhirubhai Babula! Shah, Pravinchandra Babaldas Parikh
        and Smitaben Pravinchandra as their flats are situated by the side
        of flat No. 29 of accused No. 1. Now P.W. 4-Dhirubhai Babula!
        Shah in cross-examination has stated that on the .Janmashatami
        day, between 12.00 noon to 4.30 P.M. he had not heard any sound        C
        coming from the flat of accused No. 1 Ramesh, P.Ws.
        Pravinchandra Babaldas Parikh and Smitaben Pravinchandra
        Parikh have stated that at about 4.00 P.M. on the Janamashtami
        day, accused No. 1 Ramesh had come to their flat. Now this cannot
        be the conduct of a murderer and therefore the prosecution story       D
        that Khodabhai was murdered in flat No. 29 between 1.30 to 4.00
        or 4.30 P.M. is most unnatural and improbable."

      11. The above conclusions of the trial Court and the reasons for
arriving at the same in our view are unexceptionable;. and , at the cost of
repetition, we would like to mention that the High Court did not even          E
consider these findings of the trial Court, much less, demonstrate that they
were not sustainable at all.

      12. Coming now to the circumstance No. vi, namely, recovery of
blood-stained clothes and other articles from the flat of the appellant in F
the morning of September 9, (1980) some of which were found to contain
group 'A' blood-which was also the group of the blood of the deceased -
we are constrained to say that the evidence adduced by the prosecution in
this regard was contrived to sustain the charges levelled against the appel-
lant. Admittedly the flat of the appellant was searched in the night between G
September 4 and 5, 1980 by the police after breaking open its lock. At that
time except a pair of trousers, nothing incriminating was found by the
police, much less seized. It is also the admitted case of the prosecution that
after the flat was searched it was locked again and the keys were kept with
none other than the brother-in-law of the appellant the reasons for which
we are unable to fathom. Be that as it may, it is also an admitted fact that H
    276                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A. since then the appellant had nu access tu his flat till it was searched on
    September 9, 1980. If inspite of these tell tale circumstances a lot of articles
    - containing 'Group A' blood - was found inside that flat on September 9,
    1980 - it only shows that the entire story of search and recovery uf the
    articles is a myth.

B         13. The matter can be viewed from another angle also. [f really the
    appellant had committed the murder inside his flat, as is the prosecution
    case, he \vould see that evidence which may implicate hirn \Vas nut available
    to the prosecution. In thi~ case it wa~ not at all difficult for him to ren1ove
    the articles allegedly found for he had about 6 days time al his disposal to
c get the same dune with the keys which were with his bruther-in-bw.
    1-lowev~r, the reasons given by the trial Court to disbelieve this part of the
    prosecution case are altogether different. Though the reasons of the trial
    Court in this regard cannot be said to he irnproper \VC need not pursue the
    n1atter further, having regard to the conclusions we have drawn fro1n the
    admitted facts of the case.
D
           14. Apart from the above t\Vo circumstances, namely, cir<.:umstances
    No. iii and vi, the only other circumstance which the High Court found on
    discussion of the evidence to have been conclusively proved was that the
    appellant was last seen with the deceased al 1.30 P.M. in his (appellant's)
E   flat (circumstance No. ii). Even if we proceed on the basis, notwithstanding
    the finding of the trial Court in this regard, that the above circumstance
    stands proved it does not further the prosecution case for by itself it does
    nut lead to the only conclusion that the appellant was guilty of the offences
    alleged against him.
F
           15. For the foregoing discussion we unhesitatingly hold that the
    reasons given by the trial Court for recording the order of acquittal in
    favour of the appellant are cogent and convincing and the High Court was
    nut at all justified in disturbing the ~ame by reappraising the evidence. The
    appeal is, therefore, allo\Ved. The appellant, \vho is on bail, is discharged
G   from his bail bonds.

    S.M.                                                           Appeal allowed.