( 1 ) THIS is an appeal filed against the order of acquittal, dated 24-4-2000 passed in G. C. No. 322 of 1993 on the file of the Special judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, guntakal. ( 2 ) THE appellant herein is the complainant and the respondents 1 to 3 are A-1 to A-3 before the Court below and therefore for the purpose of convenience, the parties to this appeal will hereinafter be referred to the judgment as complainant and A-1 to A-3 respectively. ( 3 ) THE relevant facts in brief are as follows: the Sub-Inspector of police, R. P. F. , bellary filed the charge sheet against the accused before the Special Judicial magistrate of First Class for Railways, guntakal alleging that on 20-1 -1993 at about 3. 25 p. m. on information that some unauthorized persons loaded coal ash in lorry bearing No. ADA-7145 and the lorry was detained at Obulapuram Railway Station, he along with his staff visited the scene of offence and on enquiry, A-1 admitted that the lorry was loaded with coalash and that he is working as cleaner in the said lorry along with driver A-2 and proceeding to Bellary and that a-3 engaged the lorry on hire for carrying the coal ash from Obulapuram railway station. It is further alleged that A-1 to A-3 and six other persons loaded the lorry with cola ash from the coal ash stock of Obulapuram Railway station plat-form on the night of 19-1-1993 and after completion of loading, the lorry with coal ash, they tried to start the lorry, but the lorry could not start due to mechanical defect and that on 20-1-1993 A-2 and A-3 brought the self starting battery and repaired the same and went for about 100 yards from the stop and when reached the main road, the tube of the lorry was bursted. In the meantime, the railway officials came to the spot and detained the lorry and immediately A-2, A-3 and other labourers ran away from the spot. The Inspector, R. P. F. Bellary secured two panchayatdars and recorded the statement of A-1 and also seized the coal ash weighing about five tones along with lorry under a cover of panchanama and arrested A-1. Thereafter, a crime was registered against the accused under Section 3 (a) of R. P. (UP) act and sent A-1 for judicial custody. The Inspector, R. P. F. Bellary secured two panchayatdars and recorded the statement of A-1 and also seized the coal ash weighing about five tones along with lorry under a cover of panchanama and arrested A-1. Thereafter, a crime was registered against the accused under Section 3 (a) of R. P. (UP) act and sent A-1 for judicial custody. Three months thereafter A-2 and A-3 were arrested. ( 4 ) ON the said allegations, the learned magistrate took the case on file and issued process to A-1 to A-3. After appearance of the accused, the learned Magistrate furnished copies of all the documents proposed to be relied on by the complainant and examined the accused under Section 239 Cr. P. C. After hearing both sides, a charge under Sec. 3 (a) of RP (UP) Act was framed, read over and explained to the accused for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. ( 5 ) THE learned Magistrate conducted the trial during which the prosecution examined p. Ws. 1 to 6 and exhibited Exs. P-1 to P-14 and marked M. O. 1, the coal ash. After the prosecution evidence was over, the learned magistrate examined the accused under section 313 Cr. P. C. wherein the accused described the incriminating evidence found against them as false. The case of the accused is one of total denial. ( 6 ) CONSIDERING the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution and the denial of the accused, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 3 (a) of RP (UP) Act, convicted them and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonmentfortwo months. ( 7 ) AGGRIEVED by the same, the accused preferred an appeal before the Sessions judge, Anantapur who made over the same to the Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapur. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after hearing both sides, found the accused not guilty of the offence with which they were charged and acquitted A-1 to A-3. ( 8 ) AGGRIEVED by the said acquittal, the state preferred the present appeal contending that the order of acquittal is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after hearing both sides, found the accused not guilty of the offence with which they were charged and acquitted A-1 to A-3. ( 8 ) AGGRIEVED by the said acquittal, the state preferred the present appeal contending that the order of acquittal is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. The lower appellate Court erred in holding that the prosecution failed to make out a case for the offence under Section 3 (a) of R. P. (UP) Act. The lower appellate Court erred in acquitting the accused on the ground that there are contradictions in the evidence of P. W. 1 and other witnesses. The lower appellate Court having believed the evidence of prosecution witnesses, ought to have confirmed the conviction of A-1 to A-3. The lower appellate Court erred in not considering the presumption to be drawn under the Act where the burden of proof rests on the accused in establishing their innocence. ( 9 ) DURING the course of hearing of the appeal, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the first appellate Court grossly erred in acquitting the accused on the ground that the independent witness P. W. 6 did not support the case of the prosecution and that the learned Judge erred in not taking into consideration the confessions made by the accused and that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and the accused are to be punished suitably. ( 10 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-accused submitted that the entire case of the prosecution rests on the alleged confession made by A-1 and that admittedly the alleged confession was not recorded in the language of A-1 and that though A-1 is illiterate, the alleged confession is in English language and that A-1 denied having made any such confession. Therefore, the lower appellate Court rightly held that such a confession cannot be relied upon. The learned counsel further contended that the lorry was found on the main road and not in the premises of railways and there is no connecting evidence to connect the coal ash with that of railway property and further the alleged panch witness P. W. 6 did not support the case of the prosecution and therefore the prosecution miserably failed to prove that the coal ash was seized from the possession of the accused. He further submitted that the owner of the lorry was not examined and that a-2 and A-3 were arrested three months after the incident and that there is no evidence to connect the accused with the alleged crime and therefore the learned Additional sessions Judge rightly recorded acquittal and there is no need for interference by this court. ( 11 ) THE points that arise for determination in this appeal are: 1. Whether the order of acquittal recorded by the Additional Sessions judge is not sustainable in law? 2. To what result? point No. 1: ( 12 ) IT is not disputed that in an appeal against the acquittal, the scope of appellate court is very much limited and that the appellate Court cannot interfere with the order of acquittal unless the reasons given by the court below for acquittal are perverse or unsound and nottenable. In the instant case, it is not disputed that the lorry was not found in the premises of the railway and it was found on the public road. Merely because the lorry contained coal ash, it cannot be said automatically that the ash belonged to the railways. It is the duty of the prosecution to adduce evidence to the effect that the said coal ash belongs to the railways. Though according to the prosecution the coal ash was loaded in the lorry on the previous night at Obulapuram railway station, none of the witnesses who witnessed the loading of the lorry were examined. The prosecution mainly relied on the alleged confession made by a-1 who was found at the lorry. Admittedly a-1 is a cleaner and he is an illiterate. The alleged confession of A-1 does not contain either the thumb impression or the signature of A-1. Further it is in English. Though the confession before the R. P. F. personnel is admissible in evidence, it has to be proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the said confession was made by the accused. The confession must be recorded in the own language of the deponent. But, in the instant case though A-1 is an illiterate, the alleged confession is found in English. Further A-1 denied having made any such confession statement before the R. P. F. personnel. Therefore, the learned first appellate Judge rightly found that such a confession cannot be relied upon. The confession must be recorded in the own language of the deponent. But, in the instant case though A-1 is an illiterate, the alleged confession is found in English. Further A-1 denied having made any such confession statement before the R. P. F. personnel. Therefore, the learned first appellate Judge rightly found that such a confession cannot be relied upon. I do no find any perversity in the said finding of the learned Additional sessions Judge. ( 13 ) THE learned Additional Sessions judge found that the independent panch witness P. W. 6 did not support the case of the prosecution and that all other witnesses are railway officials and therefore it is not safe to place reliance on their evidence in the absence of corroboration from the independent evidence. Though the lorry is said to have been seized on the public road in a residential locality, no witness of the locality was taken as mediator. At the timeof recording the alleged confessions of the accused, no independent witness was present. In the absence of independent evidence, it is not safe to believe the evidence of R. P. F. personnel to hold that the accused made voluntary statement before them, especially when the accused during his 313 cr. P. C. examination stated that their signatures were taken forcibly. Therefore, the learned first appellate Judge rightly held that the alleged confessional statements though admissible in evidence, cannot be relied upon in the instant case. There is absolutely no explanation for non-examination of lorry owner. Admittedly, A-2 and A-3 were not arrested on the date of seizure of lorry and they were arrested three months thereafter. No test identification parade was conducted to show that it was a-2 and A-3 who were at the lorry and who ran away after the R. P. F. personal stopped the lorry. Though according to the prosecution six coolies loaded the lorry with coal ash, none of those coolies were examined to show that the said coal ash belonged to the railways, which was loaded into the lorry. Taking all such circumstances into consideration the learned Additional Sessions judge extended the benefit of doubt to the accused and set aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the lower Court. I do not find any perversity in the reasons given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Taking all such circumstances into consideration the learned Additional Sessions judge extended the benefit of doubt to the accused and set aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the lower Court. I do not find any perversity in the reasons given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Hence, there is no need for interference in the order of acquittal by this Court. Thus, this point is found against the appellant. Point No. 2: in the result, the appeal is dismissed.