JUDGMENT : The appellant-State is in appeal before this Court aggrieved by the impugned common judgment of acquittal dated 17.12.2011 passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.2 and 3 of 2007 by the learned District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Haveri (for short ‘the Appellate Court’) acquitting the accused/respondent Nos.1 and 2 who were convicted by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.12.2006 passed in Criminal Case No.3/2004 by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) and CJM, Haveri (for short ‘the Trial Court’) for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’ for the sake of brevity). 2. Brief facts of the case are that, accused No.1 impersonated accused No.2 and had appeared for S.S.L.C. examination in Hindi subject and was writing the answer sheet with the hall-ticket Number 20030404252. It is stated that both accused with the common intention have committed cheating by impersonating and fabricating the hall-ticket by fixing the photo of accused No.1 in place of accused No.2 and thereby, they have committed the offences as stated above. 3. After filing of charge sheet against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the above said offences, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and registered Criminal Case No.3/2004. The accused have appeared before the Trial Court and pleaded not guilty for the charges leveled against them. Prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 14 and got marked Ex.Ps.1 to 21 in support of its contention. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and proceeded to convict the accused for the above said offences vide its judgment dated 11.12.2006. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court, accused Nos.1 and 2 have preferred separate appeals in Criminal Appeal Nos.2/2007 and 3/2007 respectively before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court considering all the materials on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution is not successful in proving the guilt of both the accused beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, acquitted both accused for the above said offences. 5. Being aggrieved by the acquittal of both the accused by the Appellate Court, the State is in appeal before this Court. 6. 5. Being aggrieved by the acquittal of both the accused by the Appellate Court, the State is in appeal before this Court. 6. Heard Sri.Ramesh B.Chigari, learned High Court Government Pleader for the appellant-State and Sri.Prashant V.Mogali, learned counsel for the respondents/accused Nos.1 and 2. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records. 7. Learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that PWs.1 and 9 being the Head Masters, PW.2 being the Invigilator have specifically deposed before the Trial Court regarding cheating and impersonation committed by accused No.1, pretending to be accused No.2, forging the hall-ticket Ex.P.3 have committed the offences as stated above. Even though, these witnesses were cross-examined at length, nothing has been elicited from them to disbelieve their version. No ill-will or motive is suggested against any of these witnesses to contend that there is false implication of these accused. There is absolutely no reason as to why accused No.1 was found in the examination hall. Admittedly, he was not a student eligible to write the examination. The accused have neither taken any defence nor stepped into the witness box to explain the circumstances which are against them. Under such circumstances, the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of both the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The Trial Court has properly appreciated the materials on record and convicted both the accused. However, the Appellate Court without appreciating the materials on record proceeded to acquit the accused without assigning proper reasons. Therefore, he prays for allowing the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the Appellate Court and to restore the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court. 8. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents/accused Nos.1 and 2 supporting the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the Appellate Court contended that even though P.Ws.1, 2 and 9 have deposed before the Trial Court, the same is not sufficient to prove the guilt of both the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Except, Ex.P.3 the prosecution has not produced any cogent material in proving its contention that there was either cheating by impersonation or forgery of documents. Except Ex.P3, no other documents are forthcoming. Except, Ex.P.3 the prosecution has not produced any cogent material in proving its contention that there was either cheating by impersonation or forgery of documents. Except Ex.P3, no other documents are forthcoming. Even though these witnesses spoke about the nominal roll containing the photo and other descriptions of all these students who were writing SSLC examination on the date of incident, the same is not produced before the Court by the Investigating Officer for the reason best known to him. It amounts to withholding of the material documents, which goes to the root of the matter. Even though, PWs.1, 2 and 9 have deposed before the Court, they do not specifically identify accused Nos.1 and 2. Under such circumstances, the Trial Court was wrong in convicting the accused for the above said offences. However, the Appellate Court set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and acquitted both the accused. There are no grounds to set aside the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the Appellate Court. The learned counsel also submitted that when there are two views are possible, the Appellate Court may not proceed to convict the accused. On the other hand, it is settled proposition of law that since innocence of the accused is presumed, his acquittal by the Appellate Court ensures such innocence once again and it cannot be easily interfered with by this Court. Hence, he prays for dismissing the appeal as devoid of merits. 9. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arises for my consideration is: “Whether the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the Appellate Court requires to be set aside by restoring the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court?” My answer to the above point is in the ‘Negative’ for the following reasons: 10. The specific contention taken by the prosecution against accused Nos.1 and 2 is that accused No.1 and 2 with a common intention committed cheating while accused No.1 impersonated accused No.2 and was writing Hindi paper for SSLC examination with Hall ticket No.20030404252 by affixing his photo on the hall ticket-Ex.P3 which was in the name of accused No.2. The specific contention taken by the prosecution against accused Nos.1 and 2 is that accused No.1 and 2 with a common intention committed cheating while accused No.1 impersonated accused No.2 and was writing Hindi paper for SSLC examination with Hall ticket No.20030404252 by affixing his photo on the hall ticket-Ex.P3 which was in the name of accused No.2. PW1 being the Headmaster of Channabasappa Magavi High School, Haveri, lodged the first information with police against accused Nos.1 and 2 stating that SSLC examination had begun from 24/3/2003 and on 28/3/2003, he received information regarding impersonation from the Secretary of Karnataka Higher Education Examination Board, Bengaluru. Accordingly, the Manager from DDPI office had visited the examination centre. The informant along with the Manager of DDPI office visited examination hall, where PW2 was the Invigilator. On verification, they found accused No.1 writing the examination with the hall ticket-Ex.P3, which stands in the name of accused No.2, which was tampered by affixing the photograph of accused No.1. Accused No. 2 has given his explanation admitting his guilt of cheating by impersonation and fabrication of documents. PW9 is the Headmaster who issued the hall ticket as per Ex.P3 in favour of accused No.2. PW.10 is the wife of accused No.2. PW.11 is the aunt of accused No.1. During the evidence of these witnesses, they identified accused Nos.1 and 2. On the basis of these materials on record, the Trial Court has proceeded to convict both the accused for the said offences. 11. On perusal of the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, they have categorically stated that on verification of the hall ticket which is as per Ex.P3, they found photo of accused No.1 on the said document, whereas Ex.P3 was issued in the name of accused No.2. It is stated that, accused No.1 was not having any explanation but he admitted the guilt as per Ex.P2. On perusal of the oral evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 9, who are all material witnesses for the prosecution, of course they have stated regarding the impersonation of accused No.2 by accused No.1. They specifically stated that the document styled as nominal roll was maintained in the examination centre where the photo, name and other particulars of each of the students who are writing examination were mentioned. Admittedly, the said document is not produced before the Court. The prosecution placed its reliance only on Ex.P3. They specifically stated that the document styled as nominal roll was maintained in the examination centre where the photo, name and other particulars of each of the students who are writing examination were mentioned. Admittedly, the said document is not produced before the Court. The prosecution placed its reliance only on Ex.P3. The hall ticket is said to have been issued in favour of accused No.2, but having the photograph of accused No.1. PWs.2 and 9 were not definite in identifying accused Nos.1 and 2. 12. The tenor of cross examination of these witnesses by the learned counsel for the accused is that on the date of examination, accused Nos.1 and 2 were promoting other student which was objected to by accused No.2 and there was a galata and therefore accused Nos.1 and 2 were falsely implicated in the matter by concocting documents. It is therefore there is delay in lodging the complaint. 13. According to the case made out by the prosecution, the incident has taken place at about 12.10 noon on 28.03.2003. But the complaint came to be lodged at 10.00 p.m. Of course, PW1 states that he lodged the first information as per Ex.P1 belatedly at 10.00 p.m. after getting permission from DDPI. However, there is absolutely no explanation whatsoever for non production of the material document that is the nominal roll said to have maintained in the examination centre, which could have been a clinching document to establish the guilt of accused Nos.1 and 2. Non production of this material document along with delay in lodging the first information by PW1 goes a long way in light of the tenor of cross-examination of PWs.1 and 2 by the learned counsel for accused. Of course, accused have not taken specific defence in their statements recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. nor they have stepped into the witness box to speak about the defence. However, it is the golden rule of criminal justice system that initial burden to establish the guilt of accused is on the prosecution and it has to discharge its burden of proof. When the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, then only the burden shifts on the accused to probabalise his defence. However, it is the golden rule of criminal justice system that initial burden to establish the guilt of accused is on the prosecution and it has to discharge its burden of proof. When the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, then only the burden shifts on the accused to probabalise his defence. In the present case, when the prosecution itself is not successful in establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, non taking of any specific defence either in the statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. or by stepping into the witness box by accused Nos.1 and 2 are not fatal to the accused, to seek their acquittal. 14. When the materials on record are taken into consideration as spoken to by PWs.1, 2 and 9, there is semblance of evidence in favour of the case of prosecution against accused Nos.1 and 2. Accused No.1 has not explained as to how Ex.P3 the hall ticket is having his photograph, whereas, it is in the name of accused No.2. Similarly, he has not explained reasonably as to how he was found in the examination hall and why PWs.1 and 2 without having any ill-, when there are two views are possible, one is in favour of the prosecution and another is in favour of the accused, the view that is in favour of the accused is to be chosen by the Appellate Court. The simple reason is that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless the guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt and from the judgment of acquittal passed by the Appellate Court, such innocence is once again confirmed to seek acquittal of the accused. The accused are always entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt. Even though the Appellate Court is having authority to appreciate the materials on record a fresh in detail, it is the settled principles of law that the Court will be slow in interfering with the finding of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court or the First Appellate Court, unless there is error apparent in the conclusion arrived at while acquitting the accused. 15. In this regard, I place reliance on the decision in V.Sejappa Vs. 15. In this regard, I place reliance on the decision in V.Sejappa Vs. State by Police Inspector Lokayukta, Chitradurga, (2016) 12 SCC 150 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court, referring to its earlier decision, reiterated the position of law that, if the evaluation of the evidence and the findings recorded by the Trial Court do not suffer from any illegality or perversity and the grounds on which the Trial Court based its conclusion are reasonable and plausible, the High Court shall not disturb the order of acquittal on the ground that another view is possible. Merely because the Appellate Court on re-appreciation and reevaluation of the evidence is inclined to take a different view, interference with the judgment of acquittal is not justified, if the view taken by the Trial Court is a possible view. 16. In the present case, even though the Trial Court convicted the accused on the basis of materials that are available, the First Appellate Court while re-appreciating the materials on record, recorded the finding of acquittal of both the accused. I do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court has rightly re-appreciated the material on record and acquitted the accused. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the order passed by the Appellate Court. 17. In view of the discussions held above, I deem it necessary to answer the above point in the ‘Negative’. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed.