UMA & ANR. versus THE STATE REP. BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1757, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Issues
[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.)