(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C, to allow the Criminal Appeal and set aside the order passed in C.A.No.97 of 2011 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Trichy dated 07.08.2013 reversing the judgment of conviction imposed in C.C.No.180 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate VI, Trichy, dated 29.09.2011.)

1. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli, in Criminal Appeal No.97 of 2011, dated 07.08.2013.

2. On careful perusal of records, it is found that, based on the complaint given by PW1, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Mr.Dinakaran, attached to the CBCID, registered Ex.P26 First Information Report in Crime No.01 of 2004 for the offences punishable under Section 420, 397 read with Section 120(b) of IPC. He placed the First Information Report before PW18 Mary John, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, CBCID, who took up the investigation of the above case. On 01.02.2005, at around 2.00 p.m., he visited the place of occurrence and prepared Observation Mahazar and Ex.P27 Rough Sketch in the presence of witnesses Krishnamurthy, Govindan, Arumugam, Muruganandam, Thirumathi Sumathi, Selvi, Saranya, T.Narayana, Suresh Babu, Gopal Reddy, and Mohan Lal and recorded their statements. On 26.03.2004, he approached the Chithoor Union Bank Manager Krishna Reddy and applied for getting the copy of the application given by the first Accused Raja, alias K.V.Rajendran for obtaining bank account with the said bank. He obtained the said document and got it identified by the defacto complainant. Thereafter, on 28.06.2004, as per Government Order vide G.O. No.45/DIG/CBCID, he handed over the investigation to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Shanthanam.

3. PW19 Shanthanam, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, took up further investigation of the above case. On 01.07.2004, he examined the Sub-Inspector of Police, CBCID, Dinakaran, who registered the First Information Report and Mary John, the Inspector of Police, CBCID, who had conducted the initial investigation and recorded their statements. Thereafter, on 11.07.2004, he obtained the agreement entered into between the de facto complainant and the Accused. On 26.07.2004, he examined one Narayanan, the Superintendent of Police, IIDI, Surendra Babu, Inspector of Police, District Crime Record Bureau, and Gunasegara Reddy, Vice Principal, Chithoor and recorded their statements.

4. On 11.08.2004, at around 13.00 hours, he arrested Accused Nos.1 to 4 near the taxi stand situate at Trichi Railway Station in the presence of witnesses Mohammed Abdullah, Revenue Inspector, Uraiyur, and Dhanabalan, the Village Administrative Officer. At around 13.00 hours, the first Accused gave a confession which he recorded in the presence of the same witnesses. At 3.30 p.m., the second Accused Raja gave a confession and he recorded the same and at around 5.30 p.m., recovered a sum of Rs.100/- from the second Accused under the cover of mahazar. At around 5.30 p.m., he recorded the confession of A3 Nagaraj and recovered a sum of Rs.100/- under the cover of mahazar. Between 8.00 and 8:30 p.m., he recorded the confession given by A4 Christuraj and recovered a sum of Rs.20/- under the cover of mahazar. The Accused were brought to the police station and thereafter forwarded to judicial custody. From 17.08.2004 to 23.08.2004, he had obtained the police custody of the Accused for seven days. Based on the confession of the Accused A1 Manohar recorded on 18.08.2004, he examined one Alappatti Venkata Subbaiya, Nellur and recorded his statement.

5. On 19.08.2004, he examined one Jothi Aasari, Madasamy, Duraisamy, Dhananjaya Reddy, Venkatesa Babu, Ruba Harisha, Jayendran and Jabbar Basha and recorded their statements. On 19.08.2004, between 9.30 and 11.30 hours, he conducted search in the house of the first Accused, Manohar, in the presence of witnesses and recovered 35 Sovereigns of gold, a TV VCD, sofa, and grinder to the tune of Rs.2,25,000/-, five fake gold biscuits and one Hero Honda Splendor bearing Registration No.TN 05 A 4106. Further, he recovered a sum of Rs.65,875/-, which was deposited in ICICI Bank, Tirupati Branch. Thereafter, between 3.30 p.m., and 6.30 p.m.,, he conducted a search in the house of A3 Nagarajan and recovered two fake gold biscuits under the cover of mahazar.

6. On the same day, at around 4.45 p.m., he recovered one Omni van bearing Registration No.AP 03 M 1269 in the presence of witnesses. On the same day, at around 5.55 p.m., he recovered the registers maintained by the Prasanth hotel, in which the Accused had stayed at Tirupathi. Further, on 20.08.2004, he recovered the receipt evidencing the filling of petrol at Petrol Bank, Tirupathi. Further, he recovered the receipt evidencing the parking of the bike at the cycle stand. On the same day, from the third Accused Rajendran, he recovered two fake gold biscuits in the presence of witnesses. He recovered Ex.P.28 statement of account of the second Accused Raja from the Union Bank, Chithoor.

7. On 14.09.2004, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Trichy had conducted an identification parade with regard to A1, A2, and A4, in which the witnesses Muruganandam, Venkata Subramani Asari, Jabbar Basha and Krishnamurthy have participated and identified the Accused. On 17.09.2004, he caused the statements of witnesses Muruganandam and Jabbar Basha to be recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. through the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Trichy. He forwarded the recovered articles and Form 95 to the Court. Thereafter, on completion of the investigation, on 15.07.2005, he laid the final report before the Court as against Accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 120(B), Section 419 read with Section 109 and Section 201 of IPC.

8. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Trichy, had taken cognizance of the said final report and issued summons to Accused Nos.1 to 4. On their appearance, copies of the documents relied on by the prosecution were furnished to them under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. After hearing both sides, the Trial Court framed the charges against Accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 120(B) of IPC and Section 419 read with Section 109 of IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the Accused. The Accused denied the said charges and therefore, they were ordered to be tried by the Trial Court.

9. On the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW19 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P28 were marked and M.O.1 to M.O.30 were also marked.

10. After hearing both sides, the learned Judicial Magistrate VI, Tiruchirappalli, found the Accused guilty of the offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 120(B) of IPC and Section 419 read with Section 109 of IPC and imposed one year of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo three months of simple imprisonment with regard to the offence under Section 420 r/w. Section 120(B) of IPC and for the offences punishable under Section 419 read with Section 109 IPC, the Trial Court imposed one year of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo three months of simple imprisonment. The Trial Court directed the Accused to undergo the said sentences concurrently.

11. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, Accused Nos.1 to 4 filed an appeal before the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Tiruchirappalli, in C.A.No.97 of 2011. In the appeal, the I Appellate Court found the appellants not guilty and acquitted them of the charges. Aggrieved by the said order of acquittal, the defacto complainant, M.Krishnamurthy, came up with the present appeal.

12. In this appeal, the State is represented by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and notice was issued to the respondents 2 to 5/ Accused Nos.1 to 4 before the Trial Court, they were represented by their counsel. The counsel for the appellant was heard at length. He filed written submission also. The fifth respondent had also filed the written submission. Pending appeal, the third respondent/second Accused Raja alias Rajendran alias K.V.Rajendran, died on 19.08.2022. The death certificate of the said Accused was also produced. Therefore, this Court has already recorded that the appeal against the third respondent/A2 is abated. Notice to the second respondent was effected through paper publication, but he did not appear to object to this appeal. The Trial Court records and the records of the I Appellate Court were called for and perused.

13. Point for determination:

Whether the order of acquittal passed by the Appellate Court is sustainable?

Answer:

14. On careful perusal of the records, it is found that it is the case of the prosecution that Accused Nos.1 and 3 belong to Tirupathi, the second Accused belongs to Chittoor and the fourth Accused belongs to Tiruchirapalli. They have entered into a conspiracy to cheat the public by way of selling fake gold biscuits as genuine gold biscuits. In furtherance of the said conspiracy, they made the defacto complainant, Krishnamoorthy to believe that they were giving him original gold biscuit at a low cost and accordingly, they impressed him by giving one original gold biscuit at a low cost. Thereafter, they asked him to come to Tirupathi and received Rs.5,50,000/- from him and handed over 30 numbers of fake gold biscuits. Subsequently, they snatched away the said fake gold biscuits under the guise of robbery through some other third persons. Therefore, the action of respondents 1 to 4 was punishable under Section 420 read with Section 120(B) of IPC and Section 419 read with Section 109 of IPC and Section 201 of IPC. To substantiate the said case, the prosecution has projected the witnesses PW1 to PW19 and Ex.P1 to P18 were marked. MO1 to MO30 were also marked.

15. On careful perusal of the evidence projected on the side of the prosecution, it is found that the appellant herein, the defacto complainant, was examined as PW1 before the Trial Court. PW1, in his chief examination, deposed that for the purpose of purchasing gold jewels in connection with the puberty function of his daughter, he had gone to New Lakshmi Jewellery, Trichy. He had acquaintance with one Muruganandham there. He informed PW1 that he had four persons at Tirupathi and that they would buy gold at a lower price. Therefore, he and the said Muruganandham, along with the fourth Accused, Christhudoss went to Tirupathi. They made PW1 to stay in a room. Muruganandham had got one gold biscuit and asked him to verify its purity and told that if it was pure gold, they would purchase it. Therefore, PW1 returned to Trichy and verified the said gold biscuit with one goldsmith. The said goldsmith informed him that it was pure gold.

16. PW1 further deposed that he had closed his fixed deposit kept at Lakshmi Vilas Bank, for Rs.5,50,000/- and had gone to Tirupathi with Muruganandham. Muruganandham made him stay in a room. He had gone and purchased 30 gold biscuits and handed over the same to PW1. They proceeded to Tamil Nadu by Omni van. In that Omni van, he, Muruganandham and the fourth Accused Christhudoss were travelled. Apart from that, two drivers were also there, whose names PW1 did not know. When they reached near the Chittoor check post, in front of them, five persons came in an Ambassador car and intercepted them. Among them, two persons were in police dress and the remaining were in civil dress. They informed them that they would check the vehicle. In the search, they found the gold biscuits purchased, which they seized and taken away. Thereafter, he returned to Trichy and enquired with Muruganandham. Since he did not get any reply over the phone, after one month, he gave Ex.P1 complaint to the respondent Police.

17. The said Muruganandham was examined as PW2. He, in his chief examination, deposed that he was serving as a social worker at the time of occurrence. Four months prior to the occurrence, he had known PW1. Three months prior to the occurrence, he got acquainted with A4, Christhudoss. The said Christhudoss informed him that he had retired as an auditor in August 2003. They had seen PW1 at the Bazaar area, Trichy Main Guard Gate, casually.

18. PW1 informed him that he came to the bazaar for purchasing gold jewels for his family function. He introduced the said Christhudoss to PW1. Christhudoss informed PW1 that his friend was doing jewellery business and he would introduce him and they could go with him and purchase gold. PW1 informed them that he would inform them after he reached his place. One week later, they met in the bazaar. PW1 came to Trichy bus stand. PW2 and Christudas met PW1 at the bus stand. Thereafter, PW2, A4 Christhudoss and PW1 went to meet the persons told by A4 at Tirupathi. On reaching Tirupathi, A4 Christhudoss called A2 Raja @ Rajendran over the telephone. He asked them to stay at Sarovar Lodge, situate at Tirupathi bus stand.

19. PW2 further deposed that before they booked a room, the second Accused, Raja, came to that lodge. They were waiting in a room. A2 Raja @ Rajendran informed that another person would come. Thereafter, after one hour, one Manohar, A1, came. A1 Manohar and A2 Raja informed them that they had good gold biscuits and that they would buy them from them and asked about the price. PW2, A4 and A2 came out from the room where A1 and A4 last stayed. After some time, they returned to their room. PW1 had given a sum of Rs.50,000/- to PW2, which he had given to A1 and obtained one gold biscuit. A1 informed them that after two days he would give gold in Kilo.

20. PW2 further deposed that PW2 and PW1 returned to Tiruchengode with the gold biscuit. On that night, PW2 stayed at PW1's house. On the next day, they returned to Trichy with that gold biscuit. They went to a goldsmith at Kammala Street, Trichy, and tested the gold biscuit. The said goldsmith, after verification, informed them that it was pure gold. They sold the said gold biscuit to the said goldsmith for a sum of Rs.58,000/- and the said Rs.58,000/- was taken by PW1. Thereafter, PW1 called PW2 and A1 and informed them that he would come in two days after arranging money.

21. PW2 further deposed that accordingly, after two days, PW2 had gone to PW1's house and from there they proceeded to Tirupathi for buying gold. PW1 informed him that he would bring a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Both of them stayed at the same Sarovar Lodge. When they had gone there, A4 Christhudoss was already staying in that lodge. After some time, A2, along with his friend, came there. A2 asked them whether the money was ready. PW1 and PW2 informed him that the money was ready. Immediately, A2 called A1 and asked him to come, thereafter, A1 came there and informed them that the gold biscuits were ready and he further informed them not to go by bus and that he would send a car.

22. PW2 further deposed that at around 1.30 p.m., a white-colour Maruti Omni car came, in which PW2, PW1, A4 and A2 boarded. In the said car, a driver and an assistant to the driver were already there. A1 informed the driver to proceed to the bypass junction. Accordingly, they went to the bypass junction by car. At the bypass, A1 Manohar handed over the gold biscuits, which were in ten packets. Since they had already tested one gold biscuit, they did not open the ten packets and each packet contained ten biscuits. In total, he handed over 100 biscuits and he said that the said gold biscuits are worth about Rs.9,00,000/- and he asked them to give Rs.5,00,000/- at once and the remaining amount was directed to be given to the driver of the Omni van.

23. PW2 further deposed that accordingly, PW1 handed over Rs. 5,00,000/- to A1. PW1 and A1 had written about the advance, total amount and balance amount on a sheet, on which PW1 obtained A1's signature. The sheet signed by PW1 was given to A1. This sheet signed by A1 was given to PW1. After one hour, they travelled in a car. A2 and A1 informed that they would get down from the car. Before they proceeded from the lodge, they informed PW1 that if anybody intercepted the vehicle in transit, they would tell them that they are going to Vellore by getting a lift in a van. But, they proceeded to Trichy by that van

24. When they reached 10 kilometres away from the Tamil Nadu border, a white-colour Ambassador car came in front of them. On seeing that, the driver drove the car slowly and stopped at the side. Four persons came out from the said car, in which one person was wearing a dress like the Andhra Police and the remaining three also looked like police personnel, but they were in civil dress. They asked what was in the vehicle. They checked PW1's bag. Since nothing was found in it, they threw it out. Thereafter, they asked him to open the suitcase which contained gold biscuits. The person who accompanied them as the driver opened the bag, which was shown to the Police. On seeing the gold biscuits, the persons in police dress attacked the driver. Thereafter, the said four persons took that suitcase containing gold biscuits and they threatened PW1 and others and asked them to run away from the place.

25. PW2 further deposed that the person in police dress took the said Maruti van and the others were boarded in the Ambassador car. They were shocked and did not know what to do next. Thereafter, they attempted to call A2 Raja and A1 Manohar. A2 Raja informed them, ''don't wait in the spot and go to their place" and he said that he would speak to A1 and would inform them. Thereafter, PW2 and A4 come back to Trichy. PW1 went to Tiruchengode. PW1 used to call frequently to PW2 and ask for the gold biscuit. PW2 asked about the same to A4. A4 used to call A1 and A2, but no reply came. Thereafter PW1 lodged complaint with the Police. In this connection, PW2 has given Ex.P29, 164 statement.

26. On the side of the prosecution, one Sumathi was examined as PW3. She is the wife of PW1. She stated that on 05.08.2003, her husband went to Trichy for buying gold and further she has spoken about the account maintained by her husband with LVB Bank at KSR School extension counter and withdrawal of a sum of Rs.2,50,000 from her account and Rs.2,50,000/- from her husband's account and thereafter, her husband PW1 has visited Tirupathi and after two days, he returned to home and told her about the happenings.

27. PW4 and PW5 are witnesses to Ex.P2 observation mahazar. PW6 is owner of the Sarovar Lodge and he had produced Ex.P3 receipt evidencing the stay of PW1 and PW2 at his lodge. PW7 is the Manager of NKN Lodge, he deposed that on 25.05.2001, A2 Raja had stayed at his lodge in room No.109. On 31.05.2003, he stayed at room No.110. He had produced the register as Ex.P4 and P5 in this regard. PW8 is the Principal of National Training Institute, Chittoor, in which A2 Raja @ Rajendran had worked as typist. He had spoken about the request for leave received from the courier from A2 for the period from 06.06.2004 to 11.06.2004 and again from 13.06.2004 to 26.06.2004.

28. PW9 is the then Revenue Inspector of Trichy South Zone, he, in his evidence deposed about the search and seizure made in the house of A1 Manohar and A2 Raja @ Rajendran and the recovery of the fake gold biscuits from their house.

29. PW10 Ilango, Senior Officer of ICICI Bank, Trichy Main Branch, has spoken about the clearing of a cheque for a sum of Rs. 66,875/- on 19.08.2004. PW11 has spoken about the lending of his car bearing registration No.AP 03 M 1269 to his driver, Jabbar Basha. In August 2003, the said Jabbar Basha had asked for the said vehicle for dropping his friends. Therefore, he gave the said vehicle.

30. PW12 has spoken about the fact that the Police came to his house and asked him to weigh the gold biscuits, in which 34 sovereigns of gold and other jewels were there. He had weighed the gold plated biscuits, which weighed 110 grams each. Thereafter, he had gone to the house of the second Accused, there also, he weighed the gold-plated biscuit, which weighed 110 grams each.

31. PW13 goldsmith has deposed that Muruganandam, Krishnamoorthi and Singaram came for selling a gold biscuit weighing 116 grams and 500 milligrams. He bought the said biscuit and gave Rs. 56,000/- for the same and the money was given to PW1. PW14 is the one who had directed PW1 and PW2 to PW13 for selling the gold biscuit.

32. PW15 is a conductor of the bus, in which PW1 and PW2 were said to have travelled to Tirupathi. PW15 did not support the case of the prosecution; therefore, he was treated as hostile.

33. PW16 Jayachandran, is the Manager of Prashanth Lodge at Tirupathi. He deposed that on 03.08.2003, one Ravikumar had booked room No.105 and two persons came to meet the said Ravikumar. He had produced Ex.P25 ledger evidencing the stay of the said Ravikumar.

34. PW17 Jabbar Basha, who is the driver of the school running at Nehru Nagar, Tirupathi, stated that one Nagarajan, who is a friend of PW17, asked him to drop his friends at Chittoor. According to him, five persons boarded the van. At the bypass, two persons got down. Two of them proceeded towards Chittoor. After Chittoor, an Ambassador car came and intercepted their vehicle, in which one person was in police uniform and another one was in civil dress. They attacked him and asked the person who came in civil dress to drive the vehicle. He was taken in the Ambassador car to Chittoor, which was followed by the Maruti van. In Chittoor, again he was transported to the Maruti van, in which they returned to Tirupathi. He was given a sum of Rs.500/- for the said job. They filled petrol for a sum of Rs.500/- when they proceeded to Chittoor. The said receipt was handed over to the Police.

35. PW18 Mary John, the then Inspector of Police, CBCID, has spoken about the registration of the FIR by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Dhinakaran, who had conducted the initial investigation. PW19 Shanthanam has spoken about the further investigation of the said case, arrest of the Accused, recovery from the Accused and laying of the final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate.

36. On going through the entire prosecution evidences, it is found that though the occurrence was said to have happened on 03.08.2003 and 06.08.2003, the information relating to the above occurrence was received by the CBCID police only on 01.05.2004 at 10.00 hours, almost with a delay of nine months. Further, the said information reached the Court only on 01.05.2004 at 5.30 p.m. There is absolutely no explanation for the said delayed registration of the FIR and its delayed dispatch to the Court. PW1 has not given any explanation for the said delayed information. The delay in registering the First Information Report and its delayed dispatch create initial doubts in the case of the prosecution.

37. Further, PW1, in his chief examination, has deposed that he had withdrawn a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- from his account and Rs.2,50,000/- from his wife's account and the same was given to PW2. PW2 had bought 30 gold biscuits and handed them over to PW1. However, PW2 in his chief examination has deposed that PW1 had handed over Rs. 5,00,000/-, which was treated as advance, for which, the Accused had given 10 packets, each containing 10 biscuits. Therefore, he bought 100 gold biscuits. Therefore, on close reading of the evidence of PW1 and PW2, they are found to be contrary with each other and it is not made clear whether it is 30 gold biscuits or 100 gold biscuits.

38. Further, from the reading of the evidence of PW1 and PW2, it is found that when they proceeded in the Maruti Omni van towards Tamil Nadu, an Ambassador car intercepted them, in which one person in Andhra Police uniform and another one in civil dress, stopped the car, searched them and took away the said gold biscuits. It is curious to note that the investigation agency has failed to recover the said Ambassador car. Not even the registration number of the said Ambassador car was brought on record. Further, the investigation agency has failed to identify the person who came in the Maruti car and robbed the gold jewels from him. Though the learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s.Suvarna Cooperative Bank Limited Vs. State of Karnataka and another in Crl.A.No.1535 of 2021 to show that merely because some of the persons might not have been chargesheeted, it cannot be a ground for quashing the proceedings, the present case is not one for quash. In this case, the gold biscuits said to have been robbed from PW1 were not recovered. While it is being so, the case of the prosecution that the Accused cheated PW1 by giving fake gold biscuits is not at all proved.

39. It is true that from the evidence of the Investigating Officer, the Revenue Inspector PW9 and the evidence of the Village Administrative Officer, it is found that two fake gold coins were said to have been recovered from A1 and A2 each. However, the prosecution has failed to establish that the said four gold coins which were said to have been recovered from A1 and A2 are the robbed one from PW1. No linking evidence was produced by the prosecution to prove that the gold biscuits robbed from PW1 are the one recovered from A1 and A2. The recovery of the said gold biscuits from A1 and A2, in the absence of any linking material, cannot be put against the Accused.

40. Further, though PW12, Gopi Achari, speaks about the weight of the said gold biscuits recovered, there is no evidence that he has tested the gold biscuits and found that they are spurious in nature. Absolutely, no material was produced before the Trial Court to show that the gold biscuits recovered from the Accused are either pure or gold-plated. No purity certificate was produced to establish the nature of M.O.27 and 28. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to establish that they are spurious in nature.

41. Further, it is not the case of the prosecution that the Accused A1 to A4 had impersonated and cheated the appellant by the said impersonation. In the absence of any evidence to show that the persons who intercepted the Maruti van travelled by PW1 were not real Andhra Police and were some other persons who impersonated as Andhra Police, the charge under Section 419 of IPC would not attract. It is not the case of the prosecution that the Accused herein had impersonated as Andhra Police. Even there is no evidence to show that they induced someone to act as Andhra Police or intentionally aided other co-Accused to act as Andhra Police. Except the police confession, no other material is produced to that effect. As per Section 25 of the Evidence Act, the confession given to the police is inadmissible in evidence except to the extent of the fact discovered pursuant to the said confession. Therefore, there is absolutely no evidence to prove the charge under Section 419 read with 109 of IPC.

42. Further, the learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjeev Vs. State of Kerala reported in MANU/SC/1232/2023 to state that the conspiracy is hatched in private or in secrecy. It is rarely possible to establish conspiracy by direct evidence. The existence of a conspiracy and its objects have to be inferred from the circumstances and the conduct of the Accused. However, in this case, absolutely, no material was produced before the Trial Court to show that A4 had a prior meeting with the other Accused to prove the charge of conspiracy.

43. As stated supra, the prosecution evidences have so many gaps and there is no explanation offered for the said gaps by the prosecution. Therefore, the First Appellate Court has rightly acquitted the respondents 2 to 5 herein. The appellant herein had not brought any circumstances to show that the First Appellate Court had gone wrong. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the judgment of the I Appellate Court needs no interference.

44. Accordingly, the judgment of acquittal passed by the First Appellate Court in C.A.No.97 of 2011 dated 07.08.2013 is hereby confirmed. In fine, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed.