ORDER : B.N. Srikrishna, J. - The State of Karnataka has challenged the acquittal of Nagraj @ Kumar @ Anand @ Selvam. He was tried by the Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge at Bengalore alleging that he committed rape on one Gowramma and later caused her death. The Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty of murder and sentenced him to death. In the appeal preferred before the High Court of Karnataka, the Division Bench interfered with the finding of Sessions Judge and held that the various charges against the accused Nagraj were not satisfactorily proved and he was accordingly acquitted. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the State. 2. Accused Nagraj married PW-17 Honnamma in the month of November, 1991. The accused was introduced to the father of PW-17 by one Govindaiha, who said that accused was a lorry driver and his first wife eloped with a cleaner and that he wanted to marry PW-17. After the marriage, the accused stayed in the house of PW-17 for a week and it is alleged that the accused represented to the members of the family of PW-17 that his relatives are staying at Bangalore and he would like to take PW-17 and others to Bangalore to visit his relatives. PW-17 Honnamma and her brother PW-19 and her elder sister Jayamma and Gowramma and some others left for Bangalore in the company of the accused. They reached Bangalore in the afternoon and accused told PW-17 Honnamma and other two ladies Jayamma and Gowramma to accompany him. The others were asked to wait and he promised to meet them at a beer shop. Accused and three women including his wife PW-17 thereafter went in an auto rikshaw to Bannerghata. On the way, another person stopped their auto rikshaw and accused had a talk with him for an hour. Thereafter the accused and three women proceeded further in the auto rikshaw and reached Bannergatta Circle. They alighted from the auto rikshaw and walked some distance through a Kacha road and reached near a field. It was about 12.30 in the night. The accused asked PW-17 to wait near the field and took the other women Jayamma and Gowramma with him and told PW-17 that he was going to his aunt's house to collect some clothes. PW-17 remained there and after one hour the accused came alone. It was about 12.30 in the night. The accused asked PW-17 to wait near the field and took the other women Jayamma and Gowramma with him and told PW-17 that he was going to his aunt's house to collect some clothes. PW-17 remained there and after one hour the accused came alone. From there, PW-17 and accused went to Hosur and reached there in the morning. The early morning, the accused pledged the ear ring, nose stud in the Pawn shop of PW-21. Then PW-17 asked the accused what happened to Jayamma and Gowramma. He replied that his friend Sangota had sexual intercourse with these two women and in that process he killed both of them. It is alleged that PW-17 was threatened not to speak anything about this incident otherwise she would have the same fate. 3. On 18th November, 1991, PW-1 Kenchappa when visited his field in the morning , found dead body of a woman. The dead body was partly eaten away by animal and it was in a highly decomposed state. The matter was informed to the Police and a case was registered. The dead body was sent for post mortem examination and the prosecution had also conducted the superimposition test. The photographs of the dead body were also taken. One saree and petticoat were recovered from the place where the dead body was found. PW-27 started investigation and on 20th February, 1992 he could apprehend the accused in a house belonging to one Murgesh. The accused was staying there with the PW-17. Accused was arrested and on the basis of the statement given by him, M.Os. 2 and 3 were recovered from the shop of PW-20. 4. The Sessions Court, based on the circumstantial evidence held that the accused committed the offence of murder. Main circumstance relied on by the Sessions Court was that the accused was last seen with the deceased Gowramma and the evidence of PW-17 and also the recovery of M.Os. 2 and 3 from the shop of PW-20. The fact that the accused was absconding for a period of two and half months was also taken note of as an incriminating circumstance to prove the guilt of the accused. 5. However, the Division Bench of High Court of Karnataka held that evidence adduced by the prosecution was not satisfactory. 2 and 3 from the shop of PW-20. The fact that the accused was absconding for a period of two and half months was also taken note of as an incriminating circumstance to prove the guilt of the accused. 5. However, the Division Bench of High Court of Karnataka held that evidence adduced by the prosecution was not satisfactory. It was held that the statement of PW-17 was discrepant and it was highly improbable to believe her version. The High Court also took the view that the statements made by PW-17 was not strictly admissible in view of Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Division Bench also noticed that the recovery of the incriminating articles was not effected strictly in accordance with law. The High Court also noticed that the accused was not properly examined under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code and all the incriminating circumstances were not put to him. On these premises, the High Court acquitted the accused. 6. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the respondent. The counsel for the appellant strenuously contended before us that the evidence adduced was sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. Our attention was drawn to the various circumstances which according to the learned counsel pointedly proved that the accused committed the murder. PW-17 in her statement deposed that she alongwith the deceased Gowramma and Jayamma accompanied the accused and they reached Bannerghata. It is observed by the Division Bench of the High Court that PW-17's evidence is improbable in the sense that she had to remain in the field alone and she would have insisted her husband to take her alongwith the other two women. The High Court was reluctant to place reliance on the evidence of PW-17. We do not think that the view taken by the High Court is not plausible. When two views are possible and the High Court has taken one view, unless it is clearly erroneous or highly improbable, perverse or improper or results in grave miscarriage of justice, this Court would not interfere with such finding. The recovery of M. Os. 2 and 3 would have proved the culpability to some extent but even the statement alleged to have been made by the accused was not brought into evidence. The recovery of M. Os. 2 and 3 would have proved the culpability to some extent but even the statement alleged to have been made by the accused was not brought into evidence. When the evidence of PW-17 is highly improbable, the circumstance that the appellant was last seen alongwith deceased also loses its credibility. Having regard to these facts and circumstances of the case, we do not think this is a fit case where this Court can interfere. The order of acquittal passed by the High Court is confirmed. 7. The appeal is dismissed.