(16) S.C.No.463/2009 (Judgment) on the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “ Subimal Sarkar Vs. Sachindra Nath Mondai, reported in AIR 2003, S.C.1108”. In the light of the ratio Advocate Shri Mote has also argued that the circumstantial evidence should form complete chain so as to infer that the said crime was committed by nobody else but by the accused. 32/­ Advocate Shri Mote has also argued that in an appeal against acquittal, inference against accused should be made sparingly in a situation where the findings of the trial Court are perverse and not possible on the evidence and if two views are possible, the one leading to acquittal should not be disturbed. For this purpose Advocate Mote relied on the ratio in the case of “Rathinam Alias Rathinan Vs. State of Tamilnadu and another, reported in 2011(SCC)11­11­140”. However in the honest opinion of this Court, the ratio cannot be applicable to this case, since this Court is not deciding any appeal. 33/­ Advocate Shri Mote has also relied on the ratio in the case of “Mustkeem alias Sirajudeen Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2011 Crimes, 118”. In that case, the material witnesses turned hostile and the recovery of the