TALAPATRA,J. - (1.)Heard Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. A. Roy Barman, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State and Mr. J. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.2 & 3.
(2.)This is an appeal under proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 20.02.2014 delivered in S.T. 111 of 2009 by the Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, [Court No.4]. By the said judgment dated 20.02.2014, the respondents No.2 and 3 have been acquitted from the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The appellant being 'the victim' of the offence as his son was murdered by strangulation [see the post-mortem report examination report] between 7.30 O'clock on 15.05.2009 and 8 am in the morning of 16.05.2008. On discovery of the dead body of his son, namely Suman Debnath aged about 15 years he had informed the Officer-in-Charge, Airport Police Station in writing disclosing that on the body of the victim's son there were several injuries. Even there was an injury around the neck of his deceased son. Based on the said written complaint dated 16.05.2008, Airport P.S. Case No.33 of 2008 was registered under Section 302 of the IPC against the unknown suspects. After completing the investigation, the final report under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. was submitted against the respondents No.2 & 3. According to the police, there were adequate amount of incriminating materials against those respondents to be prima- facie satisfied that they had committed the said murder. On taking cognizance, the police papers were committed to the court of the Sessions Judge who framed the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC against the respondents No.2 and 3 However, they had denied the charge, pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried in accordance with law.
(3.)In order to substantiate the charge as stated, the prosecution has adduced as many 27 [twenty seven] witnesses including the appellant [PW-1] and introduced 17[seventeen] documentary evidence including the post mortem report [Exbt.17] and the inquest report [Exbt.1] in the evidence. From the defence, no witness was examined. However, one excerpt from the statement as recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. of Gouri Debnath [PW-20] has been admitted in the evidence at their instance as Exbt. A. After recording the evidence, the accused persons were examined separately under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C . to have their response in respect of the incriminating materials that surfaced in the prosecution evidence. The trial was carried out by the Addl. Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No.4 and on completion of the trial, the Addl. Sessions Judge having appreciated the evidence, has found that the prosecution has grossly failed to establish the charge against the accused persons to the hilt or beyond reasonable doubt. Even the plea of proving by the circumstantial evidence had fallen through. The trial court has held that the chain of circumstantial is not only incomplete but it does not lead to anywhere infer that the accused persons are guilty of the charge. It has been observed that even if, the defect in the investigation is found and beyond the defects, the evidence is aplenty based on which someone can be convicted, such inference can be unhesitatingly drawn. But in this case, the prosecution could not prove the charge even beyond the defect. It has been observed by the trial court in respect of the circumstantial evidence in the following manner:
"In the present case the circumstances, appeared from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, as discussed above did not form a complete chain of evidence to show that in all human probability the murder of Suman Debnath was committed none other than the accused persons."

The trial court has further observed that the story of quarrel of the accused persons with the deceased is also not corroborated by any other eye witness. To complete the chain of circumstances, the prosecution has again failed. It has also failed to prove the theory of last seen together as well.

;