ORDER

1. This appeal arises from the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwalior dated 21.06.2011 in Criminal Appeal No. 213 of 2003 by which the appeal filed by the respondent herein against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court came to be allowed and the respondent herein stood acquitted of offence punishable under Section 302 and 201 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (in short the "IPC").

2. The State of Madhya Pradesh being dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the High Court is here before this Court with the present appeal.

3. It appears from the materials on record that the respondent herein is the husband of the deceased. He got married with the deceased on 23rd June, 1999. At the time of the incident the deceased was pregnant by 14 weeks. The other three co-accused are father-in-law, mother-in-law and the brother-in-law.

4. The father-in-law came to be acquitted. The brother-in-law could not be put to trial as he absconded and the mother-in-law came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the IPC.

5. We need not delve much into the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, as we intend to remand the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration.

6. It appears from the materials on record that the Trial Court while holding the respondent herein guilty of the offence of murder of his wife took into consideration the following five circumstances emerging from the evidence on record:-

(i) motive

(ii) the deceased was last seen in the company of the respondent herein

(iii) It's a case of homicidal death

(iv) the incident occurred inside the house

(v) failure on the part of the respondent no.1 to offer any plausible explanation in his further statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC.

7. The medical evidence on record indicates that the cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation. We have looked into the oral evidence of the Doctor PW-1 M.S. Sevariya.

8. We are thoroughly disappointed with the manner in which the High Court heard the appeal and delivered a judgment acquitting the respondent herein of the charges enumerated above.

9. The High Court seems to have looked into nothing. There is no discussion worth the name as to why the judgment of the Trial Court could be termed as perverse or contrary to the evidence on record.

10. All that the High Court seems to have done is to explain the well settled principles governing a murder trial based on circumstantial evidence and as usual citing Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116.

11. It was expected of the High Court to explain as to why and on what basis it reached the conclusion that the incriminating circumstances looked into by the Trial Court for the purpose of holding the respondent herein guilty of offence were not sufficient enough to point a finger towards the guilt of the accused.

12. In an appeal before the High Court against the judgment and order of conviction, it is expected of the Appellate Court to re-appreciate and reevaluate the entire evidence properly and more particularly when the High Court reaches the conclusion that the Trial Court committed an error in holding the accused guilty of the alleged offence.

13. We remind the High Court of the following observations made by this court in State of Gujarat vs. Bhalchandra Laxmishankar Dave reported in (2021) 2 SCC 735:-

"5. We have gone through the detailed judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned trial court and also the evidence on record laid down by the prosecution as well as the defence. We have perused the impugne