( 1 ) (CRIMINAL Appeal under Section 378 (3) and (1) Cr. P. C. against the Judgment dated 18/11/1998 in S. C. No. 370 of 1995 on the file of the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagarkurnool) state preferred this appeal, aggrieved by the acquittal recorded by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagarkurnool in Sessions Case No. 370 of 1995 by his judgment dated 18. 11. 1998. ( 2 ) RESPONDENT herein accused was charged with Sections- 366, 376, 392 and 306 I. P. C. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kollapur had taken the same as P. R. C. No. 23 of 1995 and committed to the court of Session, Mahaboobnagar who had made over as S. C. 370 of 1995 to the Asst. Sessions Judge, Nagarkurnool. The learned Judge recorded the evidence of PWs. 1 to 13 and marked Exs. P. 1 and P. 12 and also Exs. D. 1 to D. 5 and also marked M. O. 1 and ultimately recorded the acquittal. ( 3 ) THE learned Additional Public Prosecutor Osman Shaheed placed strong reliance on the evidence of PW. 1 and would contend that the deceased Hymavathi had stated to PW. 1 that she was kidnapped on 7. 11. 1993 by the accused, when she was waiting for bus near girls High School at Wanaparthy by inducing her and took her to Ganesh Lodge, Mahaboobnaagar, raped her and brought back her to village and threatened her not to disclose with anybody, and having disgusted wither life poured kerosene on her body and set fire herself to commit suicide. The learned A. P. P. would contend that the evidence of PW. 1 is so clear and categorical and he is V. A. O. who is disinterested and hence the evidence of PW. 1 to whom it is said that the dying declaration was made by the deceased definitely can be relied upon. The learned A. P. P. also would contend that apart from this aspect of the matter, there is another crucial aspect M. O. 1 pusthala thadu of gold. PW. 12 C. I of police and PW. 10 had deposed about the seizure of M. O. 1 from the accused and in view of the recovery, the evidence of PW. 1 is well corroborated especially in the absence of any explanation from the side of the accused in this regard. PW. 12 C. I of police and PW. 10 had deposed about the seizure of M. O. 1 from the accused and in view of the recovery, the evidence of PW. 1 is well corroborated especially in the absence of any explanation from the side of the accused in this regard. The mere fact that certain witnesses were declared hostile would be of no consequence. ( 4 ) PER contra, Sri Satyam Reddy and Rammohan Reddy, the Counsel representing the respondent-accused had taken the Court through the findings recorded by the learned Judge and would contend that the confession of pusthula thadu (Ex. P7) is inadmissible and even otherwise, the evidence of PW. 10 and PW. 12 cannot be relied upon for this purpose. Reliance also cannot be placed on the evidence of PW. 1 The learned Counsel would also submit that at any rate, for want of evidence, acquittal was recorded and in view of the limitations imposed on the appellate Court in interfering with an order of acquittal recorded by the learned Judge, the said findings need not be disturbed. ( 5 ) THE episode of the prosecution is that the accused and the deceased are residents of Shakapur of Pangal Mandal. It is also the case of the prosecution that on 4. 11. 1993 deceased Hymavathi went to Nagavaram village to her elder sister (L. W. 5 P. Padma) and stayed there up to 7. 11. 1993 afternoon. On 7. 11. 1993 afternoon, the deceased Hymavathi left Nagaram village and went to her aunts house at vengalaraonagar colony, Wanaparthy and stayed there up to 5. 00 p. m. After 5. 00 p. m. , of the same day, she left the house of her aunt by name Karakala Saraswathi, in order to go to her native place Shakapur village and while she was waiting for bus near girls high school, at Wanaparthy at about 6. 00 p. m. the accused K. Ramulu came to that place and informed her that her cousin brother was calling her, on that pretext the accused took the deceased Hymavathi to the nearby lane and there, he gave some tablets forcibly to the deceased and after some time, when she became semi-unconscious stage he took her to Mahaboobnagar in a RTC bus and took a room in Ganesh lodge at Mahaboobnagara on the night of 7. 11. 11. 1993 and on the same night, the accused raped the victim-cum-deceased Hymavathi in the lodge. On the next day i. e. on 8. 11. 1993 morning the accused threatened the deceased under fear of death and snatched away gold chain from her person weighing about 2 tolas worth Rs. 15,000/- and sent her back from mahaboobnagar. On 8. 11. 1993 night, the deceased returned to her house at Shakapur village but due to untolerable act of the accused and also due to fear and threat of the accused, the deceased decided to end her life, she has taken extreme step to commit suicide and accordingly on 9. 11. 1993, morning at 6. 30 a. m. , she attempted to commit suicide by burning herself by pouring kerosene on her in her house and on hearing hue and cries of the deceased, the inmates of the house and on hearing hue and cries of deceased, the inmates of the house i. e. LW. 4 J. Laxmamma and other Lw. 9 and 10 J. Ravinder Reddy and Adam Venkatamma rescued the deceased. Immediately after the incident the brother of the deceased by name J. Thirupathi Reddy (LW. 2) informed about the incident to the village elders (complainant-LW-1 and LW. 8 M. Balaiah) and they visited the house of the deceased and enquired with the deceased about the reasons for her committing suicide. Then in the presence of M. Shivakumar and M. Balaiah and her relatives she informed about the offence committed by the accused on her. Immediately when the deceased was in lost breath she was shifted to Government Civil Hospital, Wanaparthy in a jeep for treatment with burn injuries, while she was undergoing treatment at Govt. Civil Hospital, Wanaparthy she was succumbed to burn injuries on 9. 11. 1993 at 14. 40 hours. On 15. 12. 1993, the absconded accused K. Ramulu was apprehended by the S. I of Police, Pangal and his staff at Wanaparthy Kaman Chowrasta and produced before the C. I. of Police, Wanaparthy. The accused was taken into custody and interrogated thoroughly and secured the presence of panchas K. Narayana Reddy and Puchala Venkateshwar Reddy and recorded the confessional statement of the accused and recovered the stolen gold chain weighing about 2 tolas worth Rs. 15. 000/- from the possession of the accused under the cover of panchanama in the presence of the above panchas. 15. 000/- from the possession of the accused under the cover of panchanama in the presence of the above panchas. After recovery of the stolen property, the accused was sent to Govt. Civil Hospital, Wanaparthy for examination and report. So, as per the facts and by the evidence collected and material on record per se, constitute the offence of kidnapped the deceased Jillela Hymavathi and committed rape on her and then stolen the gold chain under fear of threat and due to which the deceased disgusted with the life for the acts of the accused and committed suicide by burning herself. ( 6 ) THE prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 13 and marked Exts. P. 1 to P. 12 and Exs. D. 1 to D. 5 and M. O. 1 Ex. D. 1 is the portion in 161 Cr. P. C. statement of PW. 1, Exs. D. 2 and D. 3 are the portion, in 161 Cr. P. C. statement of PW. 2, Ex. D. 4 is the portion 161 Cr. P. C. statement of PW. 5, Exs. D. 5 is the portion in 161 Cr. P. C statement of PW. 4 PW. 5 deposed that he knows the deceased who died about three years back and he was not called by PW. 2 to his house. On that day at 7. 00 or 7. 30 a. m. , he went to the house of PW. 2 by hearing cries. By the time, he reached the house of PW. 2 and he found deceased Hymavathi was groaning with burn injuries and that she was not capable of speaking. PW. 1 was not present when he went to PW. 2s house and questioned the deceased Hymavathi. The decease Hymavathi, when he questioned her for attempting of committing suicide, she did not say anything to him and no doubt, this witness was declared as hostile. PW. 6 was also declared as hostile. PW. 7 the Supervisor in Ganesh Hotel, Mahaboobnagar from 1989 to 1994 clearly deposed that he does not know the accused person standing in the Court and he was examined by police and police verified the register of the lodge and he does not remember when the police enquire him, if the accused stayed in Room No. 48 of our lodge on dated 7. 11. 1993. 11. 1993. This witness was also declared as hostile and his statement was put in and marked as Ex. P. 4. PW. 9 deposed about the potency of the accused and issuance of certificate Ex. P. 6 PW. 10 deposed about Ex. P. 7 panchanama and recovery of M. O. 1 Much stress was placed by the prosecution on the evidence of this witness. PW. 11 is the Head Constable, who deposed about the registration of the crime in Ex. P. 8. P. W. 12 is the investigating officer, who deposed about all the details of investigation. This witness deposed that LWs. 24 John. Whessly, C. I. of Police verified the same and filed the charge sheet and he can identify the signature of the LW. 24 John Whessly, the C. I. of Police P. W. 12 was cross-examined at length and the contradictions had been proved PW. 13 is the Civil Asst. Surgeon, who conducted post mortem examination on the body of the deceased and PW13 specifically deposed that 100 percent burns present on the body and in the cross-examination, this witness specifically deposed that if there are 100 percent burns the persons may not be able to give any statement. DW. 1 was examined who deposed that she found Hymavathi died with burn injuries and she was the first witness after the incident occurred and after several villagers along with PW. 5 came there. By the time, he went there Hymavathi was not in a position to speak and she died. Thereafter, she was shifted to Wanaparthy Govt. Hospital and he was present there until Hymavathi body was shifted from the house of PW. 2. This witness, no doubt, was cross-examined and she had denied certain suggestions. PW. 2 is the brother of deceased Hymavathi. This witness had also deposed about the details of the case and also deposed about M. O. 1 the gold chain pusthula thadu and he rushed to the Sarpanch and V. A. O. informed and brought them to the place where his sister Hymavathi laid down. The Sarpanch and V. A. O. enquired about the commission of suicide by her. In their presence she disclosed the above the incident, during the treatment she died. PW. 13 is the mother of the deceased. She also deposed about PW. The Sarpanch and V. A. O. enquired about the commission of suicide by her. In their presence she disclosed the above the incident, during the treatment she died. PW. 13 is the mother of the deceased. She also deposed about PW. 2 returning to the house from the fields and she did not ask her about the reason for attempting to commit suicide. Again, when she questioned about cause of her attempt committing suicide, she refused to tell the reason. After PW. 1 and Sarpanch reached their house and questioned the deceased, she disclosed about the incident to the elders PW. 1 and others that the accused when her deceased daughter was coming from her sister via Wanaparthy and she was waiting for a bus, the accused took her into a lane nearby induced her that he wanted by her and threatened her by showing a knife and gave her sleeping pills and she was taken by the accused to Mahaboobnagar, kept her in a lodge and forcibly raped her and robbed gold chain (M. O. 1) from her deceased daughter. P. W. 4 the elder sister of the deceased, no doubt, deposed about the pre-incident happening. The evidence of PW. 1 is crucial. PW. 1 V. A. O deposed that he sent Ex. P1 through village servant Ex. P. 1 is hereunder: i, i. e. Srinivasarao, S/o Laxmikantha Rao, aged 49 years, Village Administrative Officer, Shakapuram village, state that today dated 9. 11. 1993 morning 7. 00 hrs. While I was At my house, our villager Thirupathireddy, S/o Ramachandra Reddy came and stated that his sister Hymavathi has closed the doors in her house and poured kerosene and set fire herself. Then we removed the doors and extinguished the fire, and laid his sister, and came to inform the mater to me. Then I went to the house of said Thirupathireddy, and enquired with the burnt Hymavathi in the presence of Sri Balaiah Sarpanch, she stated that On 4. 11. 1993 I went to my elder sister at Nagavaram, stayed 3 days in Nagar on 7. 11. Then I went to the house of said Thirupathireddy, and enquired with the burnt Hymavathi in the presence of Sri Balaiah Sarpanch, she stated that On 4. 11. 1993 I went to my elder sister at Nagavaram, stayed 3 days in Nagar on 7. 11. 1993 came to go to Shakapuram when I was at the Girls High School, my villager Kanamoni Ramulu, S/o Karronna, came to me and stated my brother is calling and took me to a side lane and threatened me and gave me two tablets and made me eat, after eating the tablets immediately I become intoxicant, then he took me to Mahabubnagar and kept me in Ganesh lodge and committed rape on me, and took the 3 tolas gold chain from my neck, and he kept me in the lodge in the entire night and in the morning asked me to go from Mahabubnagar, on which yesterday I came to Wanaparthy, reached to Shakapur in the evening in van. Saying so, stated that if the mater is revealed to any one he threatened to kill, as such I burnt myself with kerosene on saying so, myself, Sarpanch Balaiah, Thirupathireddy mother Krishnamma brought Hymavathi in a jeep and admitted in Govt. Hospital, she died. I recorded her statement in the presence of persons shown in panchanama in the village, as such request to take necessary action. This witness deposed that he is working as V. A. O. of Shakhapur since 1992 February and he sent the report to the police, Pangal about the incident on 9. 11. 1993. On that day LW. 2 Thirupathi Reddy and Neredi Kistaiah came to his house and informed that regarding burning of deceased Hymavathi, the sister of Thirupatahi Reddy. Then he immediately, rushed to the spot. By the time he went he found the deceased Hymavathi with burnt injuries laying down in the verandah of the house of LW. 2 Thirupathi Reddy. The entire villagers gathered at the house of Thirupathi Reddy. The deceased Hymavathi, when questioned by him and some villagers and Sarpanch etc. , she gave the statement about the incident and he reduced the same into writing in Ex. P. 1 and sent the report to the concerned police. The witness read over the contents of Ex. P. 1, wherein the deceased Hymavathi stated to him that she was kidnapped by the accused on 7. 11. , she gave the statement about the incident and he reduced the same into writing in Ex. P. 1 and sent the report to the concerned police. The witness read over the contents of Ex. P. 1, wherein the deceased Hymavathi stated to him that she was kidnapped by the accused on 7. 11. 1993 when she was waiting for bus near girls High School at Wanaparthy by inducing her and took her to Mahaboobnagar Ganesh Lodge, raped her and brought back her to village and threatened her not to disclose with anybody, and having disgusted with her life poured kerosene on her body and set fire herself to commit suicide. No doubt, V. A. O. had deposed that the deceased made such a statement before V. A. O. (PW. 1 ). This is the consistent stand taken by prosecution. ( 7 ) IT is pertinent to note that though it is stated that she made such a statement before V. A. O. in presence of others, none others were examined and the witnesses who were examined in this regard were declared hostile. Apart from this aspect of the matter, PW. 13 the Civil Asst. Surgeon, who conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased, specifically deposed in his cross-examination that if there are 100 percent burns the person may not be able to give any statement. The evidence of DW. 1 also is available to the effect that she was the first person to visit the spot and found the deceased with burn injuries and subsequent thereto only several other villagers along with PW. 5 came there and by the time she went there, the deceased was not in a position to speak and she died. Hence, the alleged dying declaration said to have been made by the deceased to PW. 1 (V. A. O) may have to be viewed with suspicion and at any rate, the accused cannot be convicted on the strength of such evidence. It is also pertinent to note that PW. 7 was also declared as hostile and hence absolutely there is no material to connect the accused with the offences, with which he had been charged with. No doubt, submissions at length were made in relation to the evidence of PW. 10 and PW. 12 and Ex. It is also pertinent to note that PW. 7 was also declared as hostile and hence absolutely there is no material to connect the accused with the offences, with which he had been charged with. No doubt, submissions at length were made in relation to the evidence of PW. 10 and PW. 12 and Ex. P. 7 and M. O. 1 and the recovery of pusthula thadu from the accused. Strong reliance was placed on decisions reported in Lachhman Ram etc. , v. State of Orissa AIR 1985 SC 486 , Kalpnath Rai v. State (Through CBI 1997 (8) SCC 732 ), Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) 2003 CRL. J. 2021 Nawab ali Jhinnu and another v. State of U. P. AIR 1994 SC 1607 , Bhupinder Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh 2004 CRK. J. 1, Jagarnath Giri and 4 Others v. State of Bihar 1991 (3) Crimes 95, Lachhman Ram etc. , v. State of Orissa 1985 CRL. J. 753. ( 8 ) PW. 10 deposed that the sacred thread or gold chain contain Pustelu is called Pustelu thadu. No doubt, this witness deposed that it is incorrect to suggest that Thirupathireddy i. e. PW. 2 is his nephew in relation. Balaswamy Reddy is not the son-in-law of his elder brother. In the chief-examination itself, PW. 10 deposed that in the presence of LW. 20 Venkateshwar Reddy and the C. I. of Police, they enquired the accused in the office about the commission of offence. On enquiry the accused confessed before them that he kidnapped the deceased Hymavatahi from Wanaparthy to Mahaboobnagar, kept her in Ganesh Lodge, Mahaboobnagar and raped her and snatched the gold chain M. O. 1 and accuse voluntarily produced M. O. 1 before them and the Inspector of Police drafted panchanama Ex. P. 7 recording the confession and recovery of M. O. 1 from the accused. This confession is said to have been made by the accused in the immediate presence of the police officer and hence the recovery of M. O. 1 from the accused as alleged by the prosecution itself would be doubtful. ( 9 ) APART from this aspect of the matter, this is an appeal as against an order of acquittal and findings in detail had been recorded by the learned Judge. ( 9 ) APART from this aspect of the matter, this is an appeal as against an order of acquittal and findings in detail had been recorded by the learned Judge. In a reported decision in Bhim Singh v. State of Haryana 2002 (10) SCC 461, it was held: an appellate Court entertaining an appeal from the judgment of acquittal by trial court though to reappreciate the evidence and come to an independent conclusion, it should not do so as a matter of routine. In other words, if from the same set of evidence two views are possible and if the trial court has taken one view on the said evidence, unless the appellate court comes to the conclusion that the view taken by the trial court is either perverse or such that no reasonable person could come to that conclusion or that such a finding of a trial court is not based on any material on record, it should not merely because another conclusion is possible reverse the finding of the trial court. In a decision reported in Dwaraka Dass and others v. State of Haryana (2003) 1 SCC 204 it was held: while there cannot be any denial of the factum that the power and authority to appraise the evidence in an appeal, either against acquittal or conviction stands out to be very comprehensive and wide, but if two views are reasonably possible, on the state of evidence: one supporting the acquittal and the other indicating conviction, then and in that event, the High Court would not be justified in interfering with an order of acquittal, merely because it feels that it, sitting as a trial court, would have taken the other view. While reappreciating the evidence, the rule of prudence requires that the High Court should give proper weight and consideration to the views of the trial Judge. But if the judgment of the Sessions Judge was absolutely perverse, legally erroneous and based on a wrong appreciation of the evidence, then it would be just and proper for the High Court to reverse the judgment of acquittal, recorded by the Sessions Judge, as otherwise, there would be gross miscarriage of justice. ( 10 ) IN the light of this position of law, especially taking into consideration of the findings which had been recorded in detail by the learned Judge and also the evidence of DW. ( 10 ) IN the light of this position of law, especially taking into consideration of the findings which had been recorded in detail by the learned Judge and also the evidence of DW. 1, the medical evidence and the doubt in relation to the recovery of M. O. 1, the findings recorded by the learned Judge cannot be said to be perverse, inasmuch as the said findings are based on the evidence available on record and merely because yet another view may be possible, on that ground alone the findings cannot be disturbed. ( 11 ) IN the present case, this court is satisfied that the findings recorded by the learned Judge are findings based on record only, and at any rate cannot be said to be perverse findings and hence this court as an appellate Court is not inclined to disturb the said findings. Mere strong suspicion as agaist he accused cannot be a substitute to legal proof of an offence with which the accused had been charged with. ( 12 ) HENCE, viewed from any angle, there are no grounds to interfere with any of the findings recorded by the learned Judge and the findings are hereby confirmed. The appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly, the same shall stand dismissed.