JUDGMENT S. R. DONGAONKAR, J. :- By this appeal, State of Maharashtra challenges the acquittal of the respondent of the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code recorded by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha in Sessions Trial No. 163/1992 wherein he was tried for the aforesaid offence on the allegations that on 11-5-1992, he caused death of his wife Sau. Sulochana by beating her and then pouring kerosene on her person and setting her ablaze. 2. The incident occurred in Police Line Headquarter of Wardha. The respondent who is Police Constable was residing in Quarter No. 1 in the said Police Line. On 11-5-1992, at about 12.00 - 1.00 noon, there was quarrel between his wife Sulochana (deceased) and the respondent. It is alleged that P.W.1 Niranja Kundu who was residing in Quarter No.2 heard the noise of the said quarrel. It is also alleged that thereafter he heard the noise of beating by the respondent to his wife and her shouting "Bachao; Bachao". It is alleged that thereafter he witnessed respondent pouring kerosene on her person and pushing her on the ground. It is further alleged that P.W. 1 Niranjan Kundu came out of his room and noticed that quarter of the respondent was closed from inside, somehow deceased managed to get it opened and she came out of the house. It is alleged that one Borkar who was Police Head Constable under suspension also came out of his room. It is further alleged that respondent followed her with a matchstick in his hand and while the deceased was lying on the ground, he lighted the matchstick and burnt on the neck of the deceased when deceased started burning, respondent went inside the room. It is alleged that P.W. 1 Niranjan Kundu who was working as Sweeper in Police Department was frightened so he started shouting loudly "Bachao Bachao". It is alleged that thereafter, the neighbours who were also working in Police Department, i.e. Borkar and Malik came to the spot. The fire of the deceased was extinguished and she was taken to the hospital. A D. No. 39/92 was registered at about 11.50 hours at Police Station, Wardha. As the deceased had sustained 100% burns, she breathed her last at about 8040 p.m. After registration of AD. P.S.I. Deshmukh prepared spot panchnama. The fire of the deceased was extinguished and she was taken to the hospital. A D. No. 39/92 was registered at about 11.50 hours at Police Station, Wardha. As the deceased had sustained 100% burns, she breathed her last at about 8040 p.m. After registration of AD. P.S.I. Deshmukh prepared spot panchnama. He also seized some of the articles like kerosene tin, matchstick, pieces of burnt saree etc. from the spot. On following day, P.W. 1 Niranjan Kundu lodged report against the respondent Ex. 31. Upon which Crime No. 268/1990 under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code came to be registered. Investigation was conducted by P.W. 6 Dy. S. P. Patil. He again prepared panchnama of scene of offence Exh.38 and seized quilt allegedly smelling of kerosene. He recorded statement of witnesses. P.W. 7 P.S.O. Shende after registering the offence referred the respondent for medical examination as he had also sustained burn injuries on his hands, upon which P.W.9 Dr. Daga examined him. Post-mortem examination was conducted on the dead body by P.W.8 Dr. Moon. Seized articles were sent to C.A and after due investigation, respondent was charge-sheeted for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of C.J.M. Wardha. 3. On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charge for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondent denied the charge and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to bring home guilt of the accused, prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. P.W. 1 Niranjan Kundu is alleged eye witness to the whole of the incident and he had also lodged report to the police station Exh.31 upon which printed FIR was drawn as per Exh.32. P.W. 2 Shankar Gedam is also alleged eye witness to the part of the incident. P.W. 3 Hafiz Khan, P.W. 4 Majidali Hussain are witnesses to the first and second spot panchanamas Exh.37 and ExhAO. P.W. 5 Reserve Police Sub Inspector Deshmukh has seized the quilt smelling kerosene from the spot under panchnama Exh.39. He has also recorded statements of P.W. 2 and P.W.1 Niranjan Kundu. P.W.6 P.S.I. Patil who was working as Dy. S.P. at the relevant time, has prepared spot panchnama Exh.38. P.W.7 P.S.I. Shende has registered the offence. He conducted some part of the investig~tion. He has also recorded statements of P.W. 2 and P.W.1 Niranjan Kundu. P.W.6 P.S.I. Patil who was working as Dy. S.P. at the relevant time, has prepared spot panchnama Exh.38. P.W.7 P.S.I. Shende has registered the offence. He conducted some part of the investig~tion. He had obtained C.A.' s report and after completion of the investigation, he had submitted charge-sheet. Relevant Post-mortem reports recorded by P.W. 8 Dr. Moon is Exh.53 which mentions cause of death to be Hypo volemic shock with avo bum 100% P.W.9 Dr. Daga has issued certificate of medical examination of the accused, as per Exh.62. 5. Respondent though raised defence of accidental fire to the deceased, did not examine any witness in defence. According to him, at the relevant time, he was having stand-bye duty. At the relevant time he was taking rest and his wife deceased Sulochana was preparing food. It is alleged that she suddenly caught fire and when he heard the noise of his wife as "save save" he poured bucket full of water on her person. Many persons gathered there; including P.C. Borkar and Malik. They extinguished the fire of the deceased and she was taken to the hospital. He stated that his relations with the superiors were not cordial and he was once suspended. He further stated that he had grown up daughter and two sons who are taking education. Thus, according to him, the fire to the deceased was accidental one and he himself had tried to extinguish her fire because of which his hands were burnt. It is also his case that because the relations of the respondent with his superiors were strained, he has been falsely involved. 6. Learned trial Judge found that the evidence of P.W.1 Niranjan Kundu and that of P.W. 2 Shankar Gedam is totally untrustworthy. He noticed that P.W.I Niranjan Kundu could have informed the Investigating Officer - Dy. S. P. Patil or even other police officers because the police headquarter was in the vicinity of the police line Wardha, about the incident on the very day. He did not do the same and lodged the report on the next day. There was unexplained delay. He found both these main witnesses unreliable. S. P. Patil or even other police officers because the police headquarter was in the vicinity of the police line Wardha, about the incident on the very day. He did not do the same and lodged the report on the next day. There was unexplained delay. He found both these main witnesses unreliable. He has also found that the injuries to the hands of the respondent led to the inference that he had tried to extinguish the fire of the deceased and therefore, he suffered injuries. He has also recorded that the conduct of the respondent and his neighbour Malik and Borkar clearly invite the inference that the deceased might have suffered accidental fire. According to him if really the respondent had any intention to commit murder of his wife, he would not have attempted to extinguish the fire of the deceased. As such, he held that the prosecution has failed to establish the case against respondent beyond reasonable doubt. As such he rendered the judgment of acquittal. 7. Learned A.P.P. for the appellant-State, has contended that the evidence of P.W.1 Niranjan Kundu and that of P.W.2 Shankar Gedam, clearly establish that the deceased Sulochana wife of the respondent was shouting for help and the respondent waited till she was burnt 100%. According to him, the seizure of the incriminating articles i.e. matchstick etc. from the spot and also the kerosene smelling quilt from the spot lead to the inference that the kerosene was poured on the person of the deceased and thereafter, she caught fire and the respondent is the only person who can be held responsible for the same. In the alternative he has submitted that even if the evidence of P.W.1 Niranjan Kundu and P.W. 2 Shankar Gedam is not accepted for basing conviction, the other circumstances i.e. noticing empty kerosene tin from the spot, smell of kerosene; emitting in the room, lead to the inference that kerosene tin was lying on the spot and Plate containing portion of tested food, demolishes the theory of the respondent that while cooking food deceased had caught fire. In fact stove in kitchen, unused matchstick lying on the ground, pieces of burnt saree smelling kerosene, the shouts of wife of the respondent at the time of quarrel heard by P.W.! In fact stove in kitchen, unused matchstick lying on the ground, pieces of burnt saree smelling kerosene, the shouts of wife of the respondent at the time of quarrel heard by P.W.! Niranjan Kundu, extent of burn injuries sustained by the deceased i.e. of 100% and report of the C.A. detecting kerosene on the quilt and saree pieces of the deceased, clearly lead to the finding of guilt of the respondent for the aforesaid offence. He has also submitted that P.W.2 Shankar Gedam had actually seen wife of respondent burning near his house and that of Borkar and P.W.! Niranjan Kundu deposed about the whole of the incident and therefore, as this is a case of police constable setting his wife on fire, the judgment of acquittal need to be overturned. 8. He has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in (1970) SCC 724, Hargun Sundar Das Godeja and others vs. The State of Maharashtra wherein it was held that "If the circumstantial evidence which is trustworthy and if it unerringly points out the guilt of the accused with the combination of other circumstances and if there is no other circumstance, which tends to show innocence of the accused, the accused can be convicted. He has also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in (1976) 4 SCC 362 , Molu and others vs. State of Haryana, wherein it has been held that the Court should make every effort to disengage the truth from the falsehood and to sift the grain from the chaff rather than take the easy course of rejecting the entire prosecution case merely because there are some embellishments. He has also referred the judgment reported in (1999) 1 SCC 252 , Md. Mahiruddin and others vs. State of Bihar, to contend that conviction can be based on the circumstantial evidence and the false explanation given by the accused supply the missing link too. Therefore, according to him the evidence of P.W.! He has also referred the judgment reported in (1999) 1 SCC 252 , Md. Mahiruddin and others vs. State of Bihar, to contend that conviction can be based on the circumstantial evidence and the false explanation given by the accused supply the missing link too. Therefore, according to him the evidence of P.W.! Niranjan Kundu and P.W.2 Shankar Gedam is reliable and the conviction of the respondent can be based on the same and if for any reason that evidence is to be excluded from consideration, then in the present case, the circumstances are such that they unerringly call for conviction of the respondent under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for commission of murder of his wife as there is no circumstance which is inconsistent with the hypothesis of guilt of respondent. 9. As against this, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the learned trial Judge has rightly disbelieved the evidence of P.W.! Niranjan Kundu and P.W.2 Shankar Gedam. According to him learned trial Judge has rightly held that the respondent while extinguishing fire of the deceased, had suffered injuries to his hands and he had in fact admitted her in the hospital. According to him, appreciation of the prosecution evidence was rightly done by the learned trial Judge. He has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the case against respondent beyond reasonable doubt. He has specifically contended that second spot panchnama was drawn by P.W.6 Dy. S. P. Patil, just to falsely implicate the respondent. It shows the quilt smelling of kerosene, though the same was there, it was not seized when first panchnama was prepared. It is also his contention that the evidence of P.W.1 Niranjan Kundu is totally unreliable as it is fabricated to involve the respondent for the aforesaid offence though the deceased had suffered accidental burns. According to him, conduct of P.W.1 Niranjan Kundu is quite suspicious in reporting the matter to the police station very late and the conduct of the respondent on the other hand clearly leads to the inference that the respondent had bona fides in extinguishing the fire of the deceased so also taking her to the hospital. He has further submitted that the main possible eye witnesses i.e. family members of respondent are not examined by the prosecution and therefore, according to him the prosecution case is totally unsustainable. He has further submitted that the main possible eye witnesses i.e. family members of respondent are not examined by the prosecution and therefore, according to him the prosecution case is totally unsustainable. He has also relied on the judgment reported in 2000(2) Mh.L.J. 3 , Manohar vs. State of Maharashtra to state that such quarrel cannot form motive for commission of offence of murder. He has relied on some other authorities particularly to contend that the suspicion howsoever strong, cannot take place of proof and therefore, on suspicion alone conviction can not be recorded, vide (2004) 10 SCC 699 , Narendra Singh and another vs. State of M. P. He has also referred to (2003) 2 SCC 401 , Lallu Manjhi vs. State of Jharkhand to contend that the evidence of solitary witness has to be accepted with caution and the Court has to seek corroboration on material particulars before placing any reliance on it. Besides this, he has also referred to some decisions which lay down extent of circumstances and nature of circumstantial evidence that is required for basing conviction. According to him in any case the view taken by the learned trial Judge cannot be said to be perverse or illegal or even unreasonable and therefore, the impugned Judgment is not liable to be overturned. 10. As this Court is dealing with an appeal against acquittal of the respondent it is necessary to refer the principles laid down in decision of the Apex Court in 2007 AIR SCW 1850, Chandrappa and ors. vs. State of Karnataka; regarding the powers of the Appellate Court while dealing with the appeals against the acquittals. To quote; (1) An Appellate Court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded; (2) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an Appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on question of fact and of law; (3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and compelling reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong circumstances', 'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an Appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an Appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of language' to emphasize the reluctance of an Appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An Appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent Court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by trial Court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. It has been further held that, "Even though in an appeal against acquittal, powers of Appellate Court are as wide as that of the trial Court and it can review, reappreciate and reconsider the entire evidence brought on record by the parties and can come to its own conclusion on fact as well as on law, in the instant case, the view taken by the trial Court for acquitting the accused and extending benefit of doubt was possible and plausible. On the basis of evidence, therefore, at the most, it can be said that the other view was equally possible. But it is well-established that if two views are possible on the basis of evidence on record and one favourable to the accused has been taken by the trial Court, it ought not to be disturbed by the Appellate Court. " 11. Here is a case where the P.W.1 Niranjan Kundu says that he has seen the incident. It is pertinent to note here what he says. He stated that at about 12.00 to 1.00 noon, he was residing with his son, daughter and wife. As they were summer days, they were sleeping in their quarter. He was sleeping near the partition wall on the cot and his wife was sleeping on the ground and there was partition wall, between the house of the respondent and his own. As they were summer days, they were sleeping in their quarter. He was sleeping near the partition wall on the cot and his wife was sleeping on the ground and there was partition wall, between the house of the respondent and his own. He heard noise of beating in the quarter of the respondent and thereafter, he noticed the wife of the respondent (deceased) coming out of her room. Deceased was smelling of kerosene and thereafter the respondent set deceased on fire and there were flames on the entire body of the deceased. He further stated that he was frightened and started shouting for help. He also stated that Borkar Jamadar, Shankar and Malik appeared on the spot. As he was frightened, he became unconscious and was sitting his quarter. On the same day Home Dy. S. P. Shri Patil and other Police Officers made enquiry with him about the incident. Police obtained his report on 12-5-1992 which is at Exh.31. It is obvious that if his evidence is found to be trustworthy, respondent can be convicted on the same, as it is not disputed and also established through the evidence of P.W. 8 Dr. Moon who had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and opined that she had died of 100% burns. However, it is difficult to say that his evidence is of such a nature that conviction can be based on it for the reasons we indicate below. 12. It is pertinent to note that he did not make any disclosure about the name of the respondent as a person setting the deceased on fire, on the date of the incident, though he had enough opportunity for the same. Reason for the same is not explained. It is pertinent to note that he has stated that after the incident, he went for sweeping to control room at about 3.00 p.m. Thereafter to S. P. Office. He was interrogated by other police and even by Home Dy. S. P. about the incident in the control room. Though he blamed police for not recording his say about the incident, he has stated that he did not go to Police Station to lodge report to the police on the same day. He did not go even on that date to the office. He did not narrate the incident to his wife. Though he blamed police for not recording his say about the incident, he has stated that he did not go to Police Station to lodge report to the police on the same day. He did not go even on that date to the office. He did not narrate the incident to his wife. According to him she had appeared on the spot at the time of incident. It is therefore, obvious that this witness had sufficient opportunity to inform the police about the incident and respondent; on the same day. It is evident that he was acquainted with the police officers and therefore, there was no difficulty for him to tell the superior police officers about the criminal act done by the respondent. 13. It was suggested by learned APP, that he was refusing to reside at Yetapalli in Gadchiroli and was working as an informer in naxalite area and later on he was rehabilitated at Wardha. It was also pointed out in the crossexamination that the police control room was by the side of Police Line and therefore, he could have gone there, so also he could have gone to the S. P. Office, for informing about the incident, particularly about the respondent. But he has not done so. His this conduct is quite unnatural. All this clearly speaks against his credibility. Had he been not in touch with the police department, possibly his keeping mum for a day would have been possible for explanation, but in the present case it does not appear so. 14. It has been brought in his cross-examination that there used to be quarrel between the respondent and him. It is also brought on record that there were no good terms between the respondent and his superior officers, prior to the incident, therefore his not lodging report to the police station on very day of incident casts suspicion on his evidence. 15. Adverting to the evidence of P.W.2 Shankar Gedam who is witness to the spot panchnama as well as to some part of the incident, it would be seen that he does not say anything about the incident in his examination-in-chief. However, in cross-examination he has stated that he was residing in quarter No.4 in the Police Line. He was present in the quarter when the incident took place. However, in cross-examination he has stated that he was residing in quarter No.4 in the Police Line. He was present in the quarter when the incident took place. After the incident he went to control room, brought police jeep and then deceased was taken to the hospital by him, respondent and Manik Constable. He also stated that at the time of incident he heard shouts "save me, save me" and then he, Borkar and Malik came out of the quarters. At that time deceased was seen burning near the house of Borkar and respondent. He found the wife of Kundu (P.W.I) at that time and witness Kundu i.e. P.W.I came afterwards. In further cross-examination he stated that after the incident some police officers had came to the spot, they were asking the persons in the police line as to how the incident had occurred and at that time no one in the police line narrated the incident to the police officials as to how the deceased was burnt. It is also stated by him that at the time of incident two sons and one daughter of the respondent were present in the house. This theory in cross-examination would clearly show that the P.W.1 Niranjan Kundu had arrived on the spot of incident somewhat later. Prior to that this witness; Borkar and Manik came to the spot, and the fire of the deceased was extinguished. Further, it also makes clear that wife of P.W.1 Kundu had witnessed the incident prior to him. This lady for the reasons best known to the prosecution has not been examined. But fact remains that for non-examination of this material witness, suspicion against the prosecution creeps in and makes the prosecution case doubtful. 16. At this stage, it is necessary to note that P.W.10 P.S.I. Deshmukh has stated that scene of the offence was shown by P.W.1 Niranjan Kundu. No one told him on the spot about the manner in which incident had occurred, neither witness Niranjan Kundu narrated the incident. He had also stated that, had he received the information about the incident as to how it had happened, he would have immediately registered the crime. This clearly means that P.W.1 Niranjan Kundu did not make any statement or utterance to involve the respondent for the aforesaid offence on the day of the incident or immediately thereafter. 17. He had also stated that, had he received the information about the incident as to how it had happened, he would have immediately registered the crime. This clearly means that P.W.1 Niranjan Kundu did not make any statement or utterance to involve the respondent for the aforesaid offence on the day of the incident or immediately thereafter. 17. Turning to the injuries received by the respondent, it would be seen that P.W. 9 Dr. Rajendra Daga has deposed that following injuries were noticed on the person of the respondent - Madan Mahadeo Ashtankar i.e. 1) Scandi region on right hand, dorsal surface over all five fingers; 2) Scandi region of left thumb, base. According to him these injuries were caused by burns and he specifically in examination-in-chief itself stated that both the injuries are possible if a person attempted to extinguish the fire on the person. This would clearly support the defence. 18. One more aspect that needs to be considered is, medical evidence in respect of the injuries found on the person of Ramchandra Tukaram Borkar. Requisition Exh.48 for getting the report after examining injuries, reads as under: "When Sou. Shobha Ashtankar, the deceased in Crime No. 268/92, under section 302 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Wardha, was on fire, injured named Ramchandra son of Tukaram Borkar, the suspended Asstt. Sub Inspector, went to extinguish the fire caught to her person. At that time, he (i.e. Ramchandra) sustained burn injuries to the right hand fingers, left hand palm, wrist and right sole. Similarly, he sustained burn injury to the great toe of left leg. You are therefore, requested to examine the said injuries and issue report stating therein as to with what object the same have been caused. Before what period and within how many days the same would heal up. " The Medical Officer had found four injuries on his hands. It is therefore, apparent that this witness had tried to extinguish the fire of the deceased, when she was alive and must be shouting, he is not examined by the prosecution. This clearly means that on the date of incident nobody had told the police officers that respondent had set the deceased on fire. It is therefore, apparent that this witness had tried to extinguish the fire of the deceased, when she was alive and must be shouting, he is not examined by the prosecution. This clearly means that on the date of incident nobody had told the police officers that respondent had set the deceased on fire. It cannot be forgotten that it is the case of the prosecution that respondent had set deceased on fire, at a place which was in Police Line, in front of the Police Line Quarters at noon time. Therefore, the incident must have been seen by many others besides the said P.W.1 Niranjan Kundu or P.W.2 Shankar Gedam. As none of them are examined, evidence of sale eye witness P.W. 1 Niranjan Kundu cannot be accepted for basing conviction, as he has lodged report very late for which there is no explanation arid his conduct after incident appears to be quite unnatural. 19. In this view of the matter, therefore, the evidence of eye witness P.W. 1 Niranjan and eye witness P.W.2 Shankar to the part of the incident cannot be said to be sufficiently reliable for basing conviction. The view taken by the learned trial Judge in this behalf cannot be said to be unreasonable or illegal, so as to call for an interference by this Court in appeal. 20. This takes us to consider the contention of the learned A.P.P. that even if the evidence of eye witness is excluded from consideration, the circumstances enumerated above, can lead to the conviction of the respondent on the basis of the circumstantial evidence. 21. In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to bear in mind that this aspect was not raised before the learned trial Judge. Here, some contentions are raised, but perhaps they may raise strong suspicion against respondent. But the main features of the case compel us not to rely on the circumstances enumerated by learned APP, for basing the conviction. 22. It is true that the kerosene tin was found on the spot, but that fact by itself does not render any assistance to the theory of pouring kerosene on the deceased by the respondent. But the main features of the case compel us not to rely on the circumstances enumerated by learned APP, for basing the conviction. 22. It is true that the kerosene tin was found on the spot, but that fact by itself does not render any assistance to the theory of pouring kerosene on the deceased by the respondent. It is true that some matchsticks were also found on the spot, but when the very material evidence of P.W.1 Niranjan Kundu is found to be untrustworthy for basing conviction, all these circumstances as pressed into service by learned APP would only create suspicion against the respondent and that cannot take place of proof; in view of (2004) 10.SCC 699, Narendra Singh vs. State of M. P. 23. The contention that the stove in the house of the respondent was found intact and the plate containing portion of tested food was found in the house, does not conclusively lead to the inference that there was no cooking of food at the relevant time and thereby there was no possibility of accidental fire. Further, it may also be stated that merely because deceased had sustained 100% burns, and the fact that the kerosene was detected in kerosene tin, burnt pieces of saree and quilt, that fact by itself will not lead to the conclusion that the respondent that poured kerosene on the person of the deceased and she was set ablaze. It is true that bucket was not found on the spot and also that there is no support to the statement of accused that he wrapped the deceased or threw water to extinguish fire. It appear to be not proved. But it is obvious that merely on that count respondent cannot be held guilty. 24. Therefore, it does appear that though some of the circumstances pointed out by learned APP raise suspicion against respondent for the aforesaid offence, that cannot lead to the conclusion that the prosecution has established the guilt of the respondent, as it has to be established beyond all reasonable doubt. Needless to state that in the present case the evidence of P.W.1 Niranjan Kundu and P.W.2 Shankar Gedam, has not been proved to be trustworthy and therefore that would also discredit the other evidence on record. 25. Needless to state that in the present case the evidence of P.W.1 Niranjan Kundu and P.W.2 Shankar Gedam, has not been proved to be trustworthy and therefore that would also discredit the other evidence on record. 25. In view of the decision in Chandrappa' s case referred to above, even if the other view against respondent is possible as the view taken by the learned trial Judge cannot be said to be illegal or perverse, it would not be possible to overturn the judgment of acquittal of the respondent. 26. True that here is the case where the deceased died of 100% burns, the respondent was present in the house and it was broad day light and the incident took place in Police Line, the place of incident was surrounded by the houses of police personnel, even the Police Hospital was in the vicinity, so also the Police Control Room, and therefore, deceased could have been saved but she suffered 100% burns. But simply because the respondent accused is a police personnel, that fact by itself cannot take us to the finding of his guilt. Prosecution evidence does not pass the test of credibility and trustworthiness. The impugned judgment cannot be said to be perverse or unreasonable. The same therefore, does not call for interference. As such the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.