JUDGMENT : B.A. Patil, J. Though this appeal is posted for admission, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-complainant challenging the judgment of acquittal passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Belagavi in S.C. No.12/2014, by order dated 19.01.2017. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-complainant and the learned Additional SPP. 3. Before going to consider the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, we feel it is just and proper to mention factual matrix of the case of the prosecution which says that both the accused Nos.1 and 2 nurturing ill-will against the deceased Mallappa Ramachandrappa Yadravi on the ground that the sister of accused Basavva-PW3 was divorced by her husband and the deceased was having illicit relationship with her. Even after the divorce, deceased continued such illicit relation with PW3. On 04.09.2013 in between 5.30 to 6.00 p.m. at Sy.No.27, belonging to one Shivanand Mahadevappa Unni, when the deceased was sleeping with PW3-Basavva amidst hybrid jawar crop, at that time the accused persons with an common intention to commit his murder, held him tightly, covered his face with lungi worn by him and caused his death by squeezing his testicles. Thereafter they threw the dead body into a river so as to cause the evidence of the commission of the said offence disappear. It is further stated that, thereafter the complainant noticing the said fact filed a complaint before the police. After filing of the complaint, police investigated the case and filed the charge sheet. The learned Magistrate, after following the procedure laid down under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. committed the case to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court took the cognizance and secured the presence of the accused, who were there in judicial custody and after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused, charge was prepared and the same was read over and explained to the accused. 4. Accused pleaded not guilty and as they wanted to face the trial, the trial was commenced. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, prosecution got examined 28 witnesses and got marked 35 documents and also got marked material objects 1 to 7. 4. Accused pleaded not guilty and as they wanted to face the trial, the trial was commenced. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, prosecution got examined 28 witnesses and got marked 35 documents and also got marked material objects 1 to 7. After closure of the evidence, the accused came to be examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the incriminating material as against them. Accused have not led any evidence. But however they got marked Ex.D1 during the course of cross-examination of PW2. 5. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused, the Court below found that the evidence which has been produced is not sufficient to convict the accused and as such, accused Nos. 1 and 2 were acquitted of the charges leveled against them. Being aggrieved by the same, the complainant/appellant is before this Court. 6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that, the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court is contrary to the law and facts and the evidence on record. The reasons assigned while passing the impugned order are not justifiable. He further submitted that, though there is evidence of PW5, PW6, PW7 and other witnesses stating that the deceased was having an illicit relationship with PW3 and they were nurturing ill-will against the deceased, the Court below without considering the said fact has acquitted the accused. He further submitted that the doctor, who was examined as PW25 has conducted an autopsy over the body of the deceased and he has opined that the death of the deceased is due to use of blunt injury on the testis. That itself clearly goes to show that the deceased died homicidal death. It is his further submission that the accused persons have confessed before PW4 and the said aspect has not been properly appreciated. On these grounds he prayed to allow the appeal and to set aside the order of acquittal. 7. Per contra, the learned Addl. That itself clearly goes to show that the deceased died homicidal death. It is his further submission that the accused persons have confessed before PW4 and the said aspect has not been properly appreciated. On these grounds he prayed to allow the appeal and to set aside the order of acquittal. 7. Per contra, the learned Addl. SPP vehemently argued and submitted that the Court below after considering the materials placed on record has rightly appreciated the evidence and as the complainant and the eyewitness PW3 and witnesses before whom extra judicial confession has been made have not supported the case of the prosecution and the trial Court has come to a right decision and there are no good grounds to interfere with the order of the trial Court. The order of the trial Court requires to be confirmed by dismissing the appeal. On these grounds he prayed to dismiss the appeal. 8. We have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. 9. On looking into the records, the prosecution has got examined 28 witnesses. PW1 is the brother of the deceased and though in his evidence he has deposed that there was no illicit relationship between his brother deceased Mallappa and PW3, he has deposed that he had suspicion that his brother Mallappa was murdered by the accused on the suspicion that PW3 was having illicit relationship with him. But during the course of cross-examination, it is elicited that the deceased do not have any illicit relationship with any woman. There was no enmity between their family and the family of the accused. 10. Pw2 is the spot mahazer pancha as well as the inquest mahazer pancha to Exs.P6 and P7. He identified the co-pancha's signature and he has also supported the case of the prosecution. PW3 Basawwa is considered to be a strong witness, who has seen the accused persons coming there and assaulting the deceased in the field, but she has not supported the case of the prosecution and she has been treated as hostile and even during the course of cross-examination by the learned prosecutor, nothing has been elicited so as to substantiate the case of the prosecution. 11. Pw4 is another spot witness before whom the accused persons have made extra judicial confession. 11. Pw4 is another spot witness before whom the accused persons have made extra judicial confession. But she has also not supported the case of the prosecution insofar as the extra judicial confession is concerned and the said witness has also been treated as hostile. PW5 is the witness who speaks about the illicit relationship of PW3 and the deceased and in his evidence he has deposed that he does not know whether the accused were objecting for such illicit relationship between the deceased and PW3. In that light the evidence of PW5 is also not going to substantiate the case of the prosecution. Even during the course of cross-examination, it is elicited that the deceased was not having any relationship with other woman and he was deposing for the first time that the deceased was having illicit relationship with PW3. Under these circumstances, the evidence of PW5 cannot be trustworthy and reliable. 12. Pw6 has also deposed in line of PW5. During the course of cross-examination, he has deposed that there was no quarrel between accused persons and deceased in connection with illicit relationship. The evidence of PW7, PW8 and other witnesses, who have been examined in order to substantiate the fact that the deceased was having illicit relationship with PW3, has not been substantiated by cogent and acceptable evidence. The evidence led in this behalf is also not going to help the case of the prosecution. 13. Pw9, PW11, PW12, PW13, PW17, PW18 and PW26 have not supported the case of the prosecution and have not been treated as hostile. The only evidence which can be relied upon in this behalf is that of official witnesses. Though they have deposed supporting the case of the prosecution, but the said evidence is not going to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and it is not corroborated with any independent evidence. Material witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution including eyewitnesses before whom extra judicial confession was made. The said evidence does not inspire the Court to accept the same so as to bring home the guilt of the accused. Material witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution including eyewitnesses before whom extra judicial confession was made. The said evidence does not inspire the Court to accept the same so as to bring home the guilt of the accused. After considering the said evidence and material placed on record, the Court below has rightly come to a conclusion that the evidence which has been led is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused and in that light the trial Court has acquitted the accused/respondents. We feel that there are no good grounds made out by the appellant/complainant so as to interfere with the order of the trial Court. The order of the trial Court deserves to be confirmed. 14. We have carefully and cautiously perused the judgment of the trial Court. The trial Court, considering the evidence on record, has come to a right conclusion. The said order is neither erroneous nor illegal so as to interfere with. It is well established proposition of law that, whenever the Court has exercised the discretion and acquitted the accused, the Appellate Court must be very slow in interfering with such orders. We have perused the entire evidence and come to a conclusion that the said evidence is not sufficient so as to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence the appeal stands dismissed.