JUDGMENT 1. - By leave, the State has come up in appeal against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu dated 15-2-1979 by which accused Mool Chand was acquitted of the offences U/Secs. 302 and 309 IPC. The State challenges the acquittal. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as stated by the eye-witness Ram Singh (Pw. 3) is that the deceased Smt. Kasturi aged about 45 years at the time of her death was the wife of the accused Mool Chand. A few days before the incident, she went to her parent's village without asking the accused. She lived with her parents for some days and then returned to her husband's village Bhukana P.S. Chirawa District Jhunjhunu. At about 8.30 a.m. on 27-10-1978, the deceased and the accused were working in their field. All of a sudden, the accused caught hold of her wife Smt. Kasturi, facibly dragged her towards the well situate nearby and dropped her into it. Thereafter the accused dropped himself also into that well. Ram Singh (PW. 3) who was working nearby in his field raised cries and many persons viz. Pw. 2 Gulab Chand, PW. 4 Kumari Sajna, aged about 8 years (daughter of the accused), Prahlad (Pw. 5), Ramji Lal (PW. 6), Kurda Ram (Pw. 7) Mala Ram (Pw. 8) and Norang (Pw. 10) hearing the cries rushed to the well. They took out the accused alive from the well and found Smt. Kasturi dead. When the accused was asked by these persons as to what had happened, he confessed his guilt before them and said that on account of anger he dropped his wife into the well. PW. 2 Gulab Chand who was the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat drew up report Ex.P. 2 of the incident and send it to police station Chirawa with Manohar. The police registered a case and took up the investigation. The Investigating Officer Tulsi Ram (PW. 11) arrived on the spat, inspected the site and prepared the site plan as well as the inquest report of the victim's dead body. The post mortem examination of the victim's dead body was made at about 10.30 a.m. on 28-10-1978 by PW. 1 Dr. D.D. Chandna the then Medical Officer In charge, Government Hospital, Chirawa. 11) arrived on the spat, inspected the site and prepared the site plan as well as the inquest report of the victim's dead body. The post mortem examination of the victim's dead body was made at about 10.30 a.m. on 28-10-1978 by PW. 1 Dr. D.D. Chandna the then Medical Officer In charge, Government Hospital, Chirawa. The Doctor was of the opinion that the death had taken place due to shock caused by multiple injuries and also due to asphyria caused by drawing. The Doctor prepared the post mortem examination report Ex.P. 1. The accused was arrested. On the completion of the investigation, the police submitted a challan against the accused in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Chirawa who in his turn committed the case for trial to the court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges U/Secs. 302 and 309 IPC to which the accused pleaded not guilty and faced the trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and filed some documents. In defence, the accused adduced no evidence. On the conclusion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge held the charges not established against the accused. The accused was consequently acquittal of the offences he was charged with. Aggrieved against the acquittal of the accused, the State has come up in appeal and challenges the acquittal. 3. The cause of death of the victim as stated by PW. 1 Dr. Chandna has not been challenged before us either by the prosecution or by the accused. We, therefore, need not touch the evidence of Dr. Chandna at length. Suffice it to say that the death of Smt. Kasturi was not natural. We may however and that the death may be homicidal or accidental. The death was homicidal in case the accused dropped her down into well. The death may well be accidental or suicidal in case Smt. Kasturi fell down into the well on her own accord. 4. In order to establish the charges against the accused, the prosecution examined two eye witnesses viz. PW. 3 Ram Singh and PW. 4 Kumari Sajna. Kumari Sajna is the daughter of the accused. Naturally, therefore, she turned hostile and stated nothing against the accused connecting with the death of the victim. PW. 3 Ram Singh claimed to have seen the incident. He stated that he had seen the accused forcibly dragging his wife Mst. PW. 3 Ram Singh and PW. 4 Kumari Sajna. Kumari Sajna is the daughter of the accused. Naturally, therefore, she turned hostile and stated nothing against the accused connecting with the death of the victim. PW. 3 Ram Singh claimed to have seen the incident. He stated that he had seen the accused forcibly dragging his wife Mst. Kasturi towards the well and then dropped in her down into it. He also stated that the accused thereafter himself fell down in the well. The prosecution also examined witnesses to prove that when the accused was taken out of the well by the persons who collected there, made a confession before all of them that on account of anger, he had dropped down his wife Kasturi into the well and then he himself fell into it. The witnesses speaking about this extra judicial confession of the accused are PW3 Ram Singh, PW5 Prahlad, PW6 Ramji Lal, PW7 Kurda Ram, PW8 Mala Ram and PW10 Norang. The learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the evidence of the eye witness Ram Singh (PW 3). He also disbelieved the evidence of the above witnesses relating to the extra judicial confession of the accused. We have heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Amicus Curiae. We have also gone through the case file carefully. 5. There are some basic principles we should be constantly kept in view while hearing an appeal against the judgment of acquittal. They are that an accused is presumed to be innocent and this presumption of innocence gets reinforced by his acquittal. A finding on the question of fact should not be ordinarily interfered with. The reason is that the trial court has the advantage of seeing the (illegible) of the witnesses Where two reasonable views are possible on the evidence, the Appellate Court should accept the finding of the trial court and should not reverse that finding simply because another view can also be taken. An interference on the finding on a question of fact should not be made unless the conclusion of the trial court appears to be manifestly wrong resulting in grave miscarriage of justice. The finding must be palpably wrong which cannot be maintained on any reasoning before it can be disturbed by the Appellate Court. An interference on the finding on a question of fact should not be made unless the conclusion of the trial court appears to be manifestly wrong resulting in grave miscarriage of justice. The finding must be palpably wrong which cannot be maintained on any reasoning before it can be disturbed by the Appellate Court. Right from Sheo Swaroop's case (AIR 1934 Privy Council 227) to Satwant Singh v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1961 SC 713) , the consistent view of the Apex Court has been that an order of acquittal should not be reversed unless there are substantial and compelling reasons. In other words, the acquittal should not be ordinarily set aside. The acquittal should be set aside only when it becomes imperative to do so. 6. Here in the instant case, the learned Sessions (sic Judge) has assigned good and convincing reasons to discard the testimony of Pw. 3 Ram Singh. PW. 3 Ram Singh stated that he narrated the whole incident to Sarpanch Gulab Chand (PW. 2) before the F.I.R. Ex.P. 2 was written by the Sarpanch. He further stated that F I R. Ex.P. 2 was written in his presence. If it is so, the name of Ram Singh (Pw. 3) as eye witness must find place in the F.I.R. Ex P. 2 unfortunately the name of Ram Singh (Pw. 5) does not find place in Ex.p. 1. Rather the F.I.R. Ex.p. 1 is silent on the point that anybody had seen the incident. The prosecution has furnished no explanation as to why the name of Ram Singh (PW. 3) could not be mentioned in F.I.R. Ex P. 2. The omission of the name of Ram Singh (PW. 3) in F.I.R. Ex.P. 2 in itself rs sufficient to discard his claim of having witnesses incident, The learned Sessions Judge rightly discarded the claim of Pw. 3 Ram Singh to have seen the incident. His approach does not appear to be erroneous. 7. The learned Sessions Judge also discarded the evidence relating to the extrajudicial confession. The learned Sessions Judge has discussed at length the evidence of the witnesses who spoke about the extra judicial confession of the accused. 3 Ram Singh to have seen the incident. His approach does not appear to be erroneous. 7. The learned Sessions Judge also discarded the evidence relating to the extrajudicial confession. The learned Sessions Judge has discussed at length the evidence of the witnesses who spoke about the extra judicial confession of the accused. He found a number of contradictions, omissions and conflicts inter-se in the evidence of these witnesses Having scrutinised the evidence of these witnesses who spoke about the extra judicial confession, we are of the opinion that the reliance can be placed on what they deposed. An oral extra judicial confession is seen with suspicion because it is very easy to introduce an oral extra judicial confession. If the accused had dropped down his wife Mst. Kasturi into the well to furnish her forever, he would not have fallen himself into the well. After all he had the anger against his wife and not against himself. The sense of remorse could not have prevailed over the accused within a few seconds or simultaneously, with his dropping his wife into the well. These circumstances heavily speak against the prosecution. The learned Sessions Judge was, therefore right in rejecting the evidence of these witnesses about the extra judicial confession. The approach of the learned Sessions Judge was quite proper requiring no interference. 8. As we have stated above, as acquittal can be set aside only on compelling and substantial reasons. The order of acquittal should be interfered with only when it appears that it is manifestly wrong and cannot be supported on any ground. No case of such substantial and compelling reasons has been made out so as to persuade us to reverse the order of acquittal. In our opinion, the accused was rightly acquitted of the offences he was charged with. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, we find no force in this appeal. The appeal is consequently dismissed. Accused Mool Chand is in Jail, he will be immediately set forth at liberty if not wanted in any other case.Appeal dismissed. *******