Honble PRASAD, J.–The present appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pali in Sessions Case No. 17/80 dated 27.7.83. (2). The incident, which is subject matter of the present controversy is the death of one Om Prakash husband of accused Shanti. Rameshwar Prasad father of the deceased lodged a First Information Report with Police Station, Jaitaran on 2nd February, 1980 alleging that he has been informed by one Ramjan Bux and Mishrilal Daroga that his son Om Prakash has been murdered. He did not believe them and went to the house of Om Prakash where he found the house closed. He tried to trace Om Prakash but he found his shoes in the house and thereby suspected that he could not have gone out because he had only one pair of shoes which was lying in the house. After the search when Om Prakash was not found he questioned Ramjan Bux about his knowledge. Ramjan Bux informed Rameshwar Prasad that Mishri Lal Daroga informed him yesterday night that he has heard Mishri Lal Meghwal talking about the death of Om Prakash. On the basis of this First Informa- tion Report investigation was conducted and charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons. Charges were framed under Sections 302 & 201 I.P.C. against Mangu Singh and Shanti and under Section 201 I.P.C. against Smt. Sundri and Prem Das accused. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. At the trial the prosecution examined 24 witnesses. There was no direct evidence available and the story of the prosecution was based on circumstantial evidence. From the evidence adduced by the prosecution trial court felt that the prosecution evidence can be classified in the following kind of circumstantial evidence :- 1. Extra judicial confession; 2. Accused sighted with the body of the deceased; 3. Acceptance of guilt by accused Shanti before her mother and brother, who are accused in the case; 4. Foul smell was felt in the house of the deceased and blood stained earth was recovered; 5. Recovered articles in the shape of rope, screw driver, axe and `Tagari; 6. Mangu Singh being seen with the deceased soon before the occurrence. (3). On all these counts the trial court felt that the prosecution has failed to establish its case and acquitted the accused. Recovered articles in the shape of rope, screw driver, axe and `Tagari; 6. Mangu Singh being seen with the deceased soon before the occurrence. (3). On all these counts the trial court felt that the prosecution has failed to establish its case and acquitted the accused. It is against this acquittal that the State has come in appeal and wants that the accused should be convicted of the charges levelled against them. (4). Counsel for the State has urged that P.W. 2 Mishrilal and P.W. 5 Rawatiya have categorically stated about the confession being made by accused Shanti before them and therefore the circumstance of extra judicial confession stands established. P.W. 6 Umrav Bux speaks about bad smell and P.W. 4 Chhagan Lal speaks about the accused carrying a `Beeta on the cycle and not responding to his queries. These witnesses should be believed according to the counsel for the State and conviction be recorded. (5). Counsel for the respondents accused persons have urged that the evidence of P.W. 2 Mishrilal is highly inconsistent. According to his examination in chief, he alleges that while taking Rawata on cycle, Rawata informed him about the incident, but in his cross-examination he has admitted that in his statement given to the police he has stated that accused Shanti told him, that the deceased had come home in a drunken state and after taking food he slept. In the morning when she checked, she found him dead. This was the police statement of this wit- ness regarding which he says that he had given this statement before the police, which is correct. If this witness stands by his police statement, which is in direct contravention of his statement given in court that he was informed by Rawata, then whole prosecution case deserves to be thrown over board. (6). The learned counsel for the accused have levelled critism against P.W. 5 Rawatiya by saying that he has claimed that Shanti had informed him about the incident for the first time and confessed the guilt. But in his police statement Ex. D6 he has stated that it was Mishriya who told him about the death of Oma deceased for the first time. Also in Ex. D8 he has given it to the police that on way Mishriya informed him that Oma has been killed. He also denies his statement in Ex. But in his police statement Ex. D6 he has stated that it was Mishriya who told him about the death of Oma deceased for the first time. Also in Ex. D8 he has given it to the police that on way Mishriya informed him that Oma has been killed. He also denies his statement in Ex. D8 that he asked Shanti that whatever Mishriya says whether that is right or wrong. His statements before the police Ex. D6, 7 & 8 are in direct contradiction with the statement given in court. Therefore this witness is of no consequence. (7). Regarding witness Chhagan Lal (P.W. 4) he only says that he saw the accused persons carrying a `Beeta on cycle. That does not mean that `Beeta which was being carried was a dead body. Therefore, this witness is of no consequence. Similarly this has been urged that Umrav Bux (P.W. 6) is only a witness of hearsay and in these circumstances the prosecution has not been able to bring home the guilt to the accused. (8). We have considered the arguments of counsel for the parties and have perused the record. (9). The foremost question before us is that we are here in appeal against acquittal and if the prosecution evidence is capable of two views then the acquittal is not likely to be disturbed. The strongest point which the prosecution has urged in its favour is in the shape of extra judicial confession of accused Shanti, made be- fore Rawatiya and Mishriya. According to witness Rawatiya when he asked the accused about the cause of her sorrowness Shanti admitted the crime before him. This witness in his police statement has stated that he was informed by Mishriya about the death of Oma first. If this part of the story is correct, that he was informed for the first time by Mishriya then, he knew about the death of Oma prior to admission of the guilty by Shanti. If this was known to this witness then the question of sorrowness of accused generating the question from this witness does not arise. In these circumstances this does not appear probable that any extra judicial confe- ssion was made by accused Shanti before this witness. (10). Another witness of extra judicial confession is Mishriya (P.W.2). This witness deposed that Rawatiya informed him about the incident. In these circumstances this does not appear probable that any extra judicial confe- ssion was made by accused Shanti before this witness. (10). Another witness of extra judicial confession is Mishriya (P.W.2). This witness deposed that Rawatiya informed him about the incident. This witness in his police statement has stated that he was informed by accused Shanti that the deceased had come home in a drunken state and after taking food he slept and thereafter died in sleep. Regarding the story given by this witness in his police statement, he claims that he had correctly given the statement to the police. If this version given by this witness is correct then there is no question that this witness was informed by Rawatiya about the incident. The version given by this witness in police knocks out the bottom of the prosecution case. Therefore, the alleged extra judicial confession made by the accused is not established by the prosecution evidence. It was rightly excluded from consideration by the trial court. (11). Once the extra judicial confession was excluded from consideration there remained the evidence of Chhagan Lal witness, who was hardly a witness of anything because he saw that the accused were carrying some thing in a `Beeta on the cycle. The `Beeta has not been identified and therefore what was being carried was not identified by this witness. His evidence is also of no consequence. (12). The witnesses, who say that they felt foul smell are the witnesses who speak of their inferences. These witnesses narrate the story before the court that the murder was committed on 27th January and the report was lodged on 2nd Feb- ruary. They do not explain as to why did they remained silent from 27th January to 2nd February. The conduct of these witnesses is unnatural and therefore the trial court has rightly disbelieved their testimony. (13). In view of the aforesaid discussion we are of the considered view that the trial court has committed no error in rejecting the prosecution case. We are in appeal against acquittal. We would be slow to interfere with the finding of the acquittal unless a strong case is made out. (14). Consequently, we disagree with the counsel for the State and uphold the acquittal recorded by the trial court. Appeal of State is, therefore, rejected.