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 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. Crl. A. No.757 of 2015 Page 11 of 1620. This Court in its decision in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra,