GOHIL, J. ( 1 ) STATE of Madhya Pradesh, after obtaining leave, has preferred this appeal against judgment of acquittal dated 18-4-1994 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Vidisha in Sessions Trial no. 68/91 whereby respondent has been acquitted from charge under Section 302 of IPC. ( 2 ) AS per prosecution story, one mahesh Tiwari was working as Sector supervisor at Primary Health Centre, pipalkheda and prior to it he was attached at Primary Health Centre, Nateran. He was residing at village Ahmed Nagar from where, he used to go to Primary Health centre Pipalkheda on foot. On 12-10-1990, he left his house at 6 AM to go to primary Health Centre, Pipalkheda. On the same day, at about 7. 30 AM, brijmohan and Virendra both were going to Vidisha from Ahmednagar on a bicycle. They reached near the field of Kailash narayan Tiwari which was situated two kilometers (*sic matter) from Ahmed nagar. They found that in the way, near the well, Mahesh was lying on the ground with his mouth downwards. They called him but he did not respond. Then virendra touched him and noticed that he was bleeding from left side of his chest. Thereafter, they left that place. It is the case of the prosecution that thereafter Virendra went to the nearby field of awadh Narayan (PW 13) and one Jagdish who were ploughing their fields by Tractor and informed them that Mahesh was lying dead. Thereafter, Avadh Narayan came there and noticed that Mahesh (hereinafter referred to as deceased only)was dead and near his dead body one country made pistol ("katta") and a bag were lying. It was also the case of the prosecution that one Munna Bhai was also ploughing his field at a distance of 30 fts. and one Baldeo was also ploughing his field at a distance of 400 fts. Thereafter, Virendra, who happens to be the nephew of the deceased, went to police station Satpada and lodged FIR (Ex. P/8 ). On the basis of aforesaid report, crime was registered and matter was investigated. ( 3 ) RAJENDRA Singh Bhadoriya (PW 9); Station House Officer, Police Station satpada, prepared spot map (Ex. P/13), seized blood stained earth vide seizure memo (Ex. P/14) and also seized a bag, a diary and a letter vide Ex. P/16. P/8 ). On the basis of aforesaid report, crime was registered and matter was investigated. ( 3 ) RAJENDRA Singh Bhadoriya (PW 9); Station House Officer, Police Station satpada, prepared spot map (Ex. P/13), seized blood stained earth vide seizure memo (Ex. P/14) and also seized a bag, a diary and a letter vide Ex. P/16. One letter written by the deceased which was treated as homicidal note was also seized by the police and marked as Ex. C1. One. 12 bore country made pistol and an empty cartridge was also seized from the spot. The content of the letter (Ex. C1) reads as under :-"mere GOLI DR. ANIL KUMAR madvaiya, NATERAN PHC KE ne MAARI HAI. " dead body of the deceased was referred for post mortem and the said letter was also referred for examination by the hand writing expert. For the purpose of identification of hand writing of the deceased, a copy of TA bill alleged to be in the hand writing of deceased was also seized and both were referred to the hand writing expert. As per the report of hand writing expert, the hand writing on TA bill as well as document (Ex. C1) was found to be similar. After investigation, chargesheet was filed. ( 4 ) DURING trial, respondent abjured his guilt. Prosecution examined as many as fifteen witnesses. The trial court after considering the prosecution evidence found that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the respondent by producing evidence beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the respondent against which State has filed this appeal after obtaining leave. ( 5 ) AFTER hearing rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties we have minutely perused and scrutinized the evidence on record and findings and judgment recorded by the trial Court. ( 6 ) TRIAL Court found that there is no dispute that the deceased died but it is not a case of homicidal death but it is a case of suicide. The Court has found that it was not possible for the deceased to write such a note of homicide (Ex. C1)after receiving gun shot injury in the chest. Trial Court also found that the prosecution has failed to prove that handwriting of the TA bill was of the deceased as Dr. The Court has found that it was not possible for the deceased to write such a note of homicide (Ex. C1)after receiving gun shot injury in the chest. Trial Court also found that the prosecution has failed to prove that handwriting of the TA bill was of the deceased as Dr. S. M. Gupta (PW 15) has not given any firm opinion that the hand writing on the TA bill was of the deceased. Therefore the trial Court found that in view of the aforesaid evidence, the evidence of hand-writing expert cannot be treated as reliable. Trial Court also considered various other circumstances inter alia that the relationship of the deceased who was working as Supervisor at Primary Health centre, Natern at the relevant time with the wife of the respondent who was also working as a lady doctor at Primary heath Centre, Nateran were not cordial and the deceased was not regularly attending the Primary Health Centre and because of that, the incharge lady doctor used to warn the deceased to come in time and to work properly. Manoram tiwari (PW 5), wife of the deceased has deposed that the deceased was having four daughters. One was married during the life time of the deceased, another was married afterwards and the remaining two were still unmarried. Trial Court has also considered the circumstances that the deceased was prosecuted under S. 420, IPC for taking loan from a Bank dishonestly by inducing and cheating the bank and was under great stress and trouble. Therefore, after considering all the aforesaid circumstances, the trial court found that it is a case of suicidal death and not of homicidal death and accordingly acquitted the respondent. ( 7 ) WE have also found that Dr. Anand Kuniya (PW 3), who had performed autopsy of the dead body has clearly opined that the death was caused due to gun shot injury but he was unable to give any opinion whether it was a case of homicidal death or suicidal death. In the cross-examination he has deposed that immediately after receiving gun shot injury, the deceased must have died. It was not possible for the injured to write any note after receiving gun shot injury. The fire was made from a close distance as he found blackening on the clothes as well as near the wound. In the cross-examination he has deposed that immediately after receiving gun shot injury, the deceased must have died. It was not possible for the injured to write any note after receiving gun shot injury. The fire was made from a close distance as he found blackening on the clothes as well as near the wound. He also found that both the hands and palms of the deceased were stained with blood. ( 8 ) TRIAL Court found that if the homicidal note (Ex. C1) was written after receiving gun shot injury then there must have been some stains of blood on the paper, bag, pen and lead. It has come in the evidence that the paper on which the homicidal note was written, pen and lead which were found in the bag seized from the spot were not referred for chemical examination. No blood stains were found on the bag also. Trial Court has also considered the report lodged by Virendra (PW 4) who is nephew of the deceased. In the FIR it was not mentioned that any diary or any paper was lying near the body of the deceased. Therefore the trial Court found that the prosecution has failed to prove that the said letter (Ex. C1) was seized from the spot. Virendra (PW 4) has also admitted in his evidence that he cannot say whether any diary or paper was lying near the body of the deceased or not. Rajendra Singh Bhadoriya (PW 9)and Shiv Narayan Dubey (PW 8) those who are the witnesses of spot map (Ex. P/13)and seizure memo of bag, diary and paper (Ex. P16) have mentioned that diary was lying near the dead body whereas virendra Kumar Tiwari (PW 4) has submitted that before going to police and till the dead body was lifted he had not seen any diary or paper near the dead body. Therefore, the statement of the aforesaid witnesses Shiv Narayan Dubey (PW 8)and Rajendra Singh Bhadoriya (PW 9) are not supported by Virendra (PW 4) who is the nephew of the deceased. ( 9 ) RAMNARAYAN (PW 6) has stated that one hand of the deceased as stained with blood and he has admitted that his statement was recorded after 3-4 days. Kamta Prasad (PW 7) is the brother of the deceased. He was cited to prove that before death, the deceased had told him that dr. ( 9 ) RAMNARAYAN (PW 6) has stated that one hand of the deceased as stained with blood and he has admitted that his statement was recorded after 3-4 days. Kamta Prasad (PW 7) is the brother of the deceased. He was cited to prove that before death, the deceased had told him that dr. Madvaiya had threatened the deceased that he will see that he is killed. In the cross-examination he has stated that he had told this fact to the police that mahesh had told him that he was threatened twice but why this fact of threatening twice is not written in his case-diary statement he cannot give any reason. According to him, he was informed about the threatening one year before the incident. ( 10 ) SHIV Narayan Dubey (PW 8) is the witness of seizure memos (Ex. P/11 to Ex. P/16 ). In the cross-examination he had admitted that deceased was his uncle. Rajendra Singh Bhadoriya (PW 9), sub Inspector in the cross-examination has admitted that when he reached on spot, 15-20 persons were already present near the body of the deceased and both the hands of the dead body were stained with blood and the same fact has also been mentioned in Panchayatnama Lash (Ex. P/12) in which it is clearly mentioned that hands of the dead body were stained with blood. He has also admitted overwriting in document (Ex. P/16) on the date below his signatures. ( 11 ) J. L. Rathore (PW 10) is the hand-writing expert. In paragraph 23 of his cross-examination he has stated that he cannot say that document (Ex Q-1) can be written at the time of death or not. Ravi Kapoor (PW 12) has not supported the prosecution and has been declared hostile. Awadh Narayan (PW 13) had admitted that seizure memo of the bag was not prepared in his presence and the said diary was taken out from that bag. ( 12 ) DR. Ramesh Kumar (PW 14) has stated that he was on duty on 12-10-1990 at Primary Health Centre, Nateran as assistant Surgeon and Dr. Madwaiya and his wife both were also on duty from 8'o clock till 12'o Clock. He has further stated that he had taken half day leave to go to Vidisha because of Diwali and on that day Inspector of Satwada Police Station had come to inquire about Dr. Madwaiya. Madwaiya and his wife both were also on duty from 8'o clock till 12'o Clock. He has further stated that he had taken half day leave to go to Vidisha because of Diwali and on that day Inspector of Satwada Police Station had come to inquire about Dr. Madwaiya. That Inspector had told him that some accident has taken place and the same has not been reported at police station and Dr. Madwaiya had directly treated him. In the cross-examination he has stated that in the morning also at about 6-7 AM he had seen Dr. Madwaiya in his Quarter taking water from tap and Dr. Madwaiya was on duty from 8'o Clock in the hospital. ( 13 ) DR. S. M. Gupta (PW 15) has stated that documents (Ex. P/2 to Ex P/5)were seized from the hospital and they were in the hand-writing of M. P. Tiwari but he was unable to exactly identify the hand-writing of M. P. Tiwari thereon. In the cross-examination he has admitted that none of the documents were written in his presence and he was not in a position to say exactly that they were in the hand-writing of the M. P. Tiwari. ( 14 ) AFTER considering the aforesaid evidence, we are also of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the allegations against the respondent by producing evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Prosecution has failed to prove the signatures and hand-writing of the deceased on both the documents (Ex. Q. 1 and Ex. Q. 2 ). Prosecution has also failed to prove that document (Ex. C1) was written by the deceased after receiving gun shot injury. As per medical evidence, after receiving gun shot injury, the deceased must have died immediately and it was not possible for him to write the said note. It has come in evidence that both the hands of the deceased were stained with blood. Therefore, if any such note was written by him then there must be some blood stains on the paper of the said note. The said note was also not referred for chemical examination alongwith pen, lead and bag. There is no other evidence against the respondent except document (Ex. C1 ). There is no reliable evidence about enmity of the deceased with the respondent or his wife. There is no other direct evidence against the respondent in this case. The said note was also not referred for chemical examination alongwith pen, lead and bag. There is no other evidence against the respondent except document (Ex. C1 ). There is no reliable evidence about enmity of the deceased with the respondent or his wife. There is no other direct evidence against the respondent in this case. Admittedly, this is a case based on circumstantial evidence. No other incriminating circumstance has been proved by the prosecution against the respondent. The only incriminating circumstance is that of writing of homicidal note and that too has been discussed in detail by the trial court while recording it finding. The trial court has already discussed the medical evidence as well as the evidence of handwriting expert. There is also no reliable evidence on record that the said document (Ex. C1) was found near the dead body of the deceased and was seized from the spot and on the basis of the evidence on record, the trial Court has recorded the finding of acquittal which appears to be based on appreciation of evidence correctly. ( 15 ) WE are conscious of this fact that this is an appeal against acquittal. It is the settled position under the law that in an appeal against acquittal, the appellate Court is required to considered whether the findings recorded by the trial court are perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. An appeal against acquittal simply cannot be allowed on the ground that another view is possible from the same set of evidence on record. If two views are possible from the same set of evidence and if one view is taken by the trial Court, the appeal cannot be allowed simply on the ground that another view is also possible from the same set of evidence on record. If two views are possible from the same set of evidence and if one view is taken by the trial Court, the appeal cannot be allowed simply on the ground that another view is also possible from the same set of evidence on record. In the case of Hem Raj v. State of Punjab, the Hon'ble Supreme court has held as under :-"it is well settled that if on the basis of the same evidence two views are reasonably possible and the trial Court takes the view in favour of the accused, the appellant Court, in an appeal against acquittal, will not be justified in reversing the order of acquittal, unless it comes to the conclusion that the view taken by the trial court was wholly unreasonable or perverse and it was not possible to take the view in favour of the accused on the basis of evidence on record. "we have also examined the evidence in this case in the light of aforesaid principle. We are of the considered view that the view taken by the trial court is not wholly unreasonable or perverse. The trial Court has taken a view in favour of the respondent which is possible from the evidence on record. We have also found that in this case no other view is possible from the evidence on record. Prosecution has failed to prove the allegations against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. There is no evidence on record that document (Ex. C1) is written by the deceased himself or it was seized from the spot. ( 16 ) CONSEQUENTLY we find that there is no merit in this appeal. This appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Respondent is on bail. Sureties and bail bonds of the respondents stand discharged. Appeal dismissed. .