JUDGMENT (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice C.Praveen Kumar) 1. In-spite of service of notice on respondents, none appear on their behalf. Heard Sri. S. Dushyanth Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, through Blue Jeans video conferencing APP and with his consent, the appeal is disposed of. 2. Assailing the Judgment, dated 31.05.2011, passed in Sessions Case No. 212 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool, wherein, A1 and A2 were tried for an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and acquitted, the present Criminal Appeal is filed by the State. 3. A1 and A2, who are the son and father, came to know about the illegal intimacy of the deceased with PW3, who is the sister of A2. About four days prior to the incident, both the accused went to the house of PW1 [father of the deceased] and warned him to have control over his son. 4. On 22.01.2008, PW1, his wife [not examined] and the deceased slept in their house. While so, in the early hours around 3.00 A.M., PW1 noticed the deceased [son] and his cycle missing from the house. On suspicion, PW1 along with PW2 and others went to the house of PW3. They noticed PW3 with injuries and on enquiry, PW3 informed them that while the deceased was with PW3, A1 and A2 noticed it, beat PW3 and took away the deceased into the nearby bushes. Then PW1, PW2 and his wife went in search of the deceased. On the way, PW4 met them on the road and while talking with him, heard some cries from nearby bushes. PW1 and PW2 claimed to have gone there and noticed A1 beating the deceased with the pestle, while A2 catching hold of the hands of the deceased. When PW1 and PW2 raised cries, A1 and A2 fled away leaving the deceased. PW1, PW2, PW4 and others found the deceased with several head injuries. At about 10.00 A.M., PW1 lodged an oral report, which was reduced into writing and the same came to be registered as a case in Crime No. 8 of 2008. Ex.P11 is the First Information Report. 5. PW12 - the Sub-Inspector of Police, on receipt of a copy of Ex.P11 from PW10, took up investigation. At about 10.00 A.M., PW1 lodged an oral report, which was reduced into writing and the same came to be registered as a case in Crime No. 8 of 2008. Ex.P11 is the First Information Report. 5. PW12 - the Sub-Inspector of Police, on receipt of a copy of Ex.P11 from PW10, took up investigation. He proceeded to the scene of offence, which is situated at the outskirts of Neelishikaripeta, Nandikotkur, and in the presence of PW11 conducted inquest over the dead body. Ex.P12 is the Inquest Report. During inquest, he examined PW1 to PW5 and PW9. He also got prepared a rough sketch of the scene, which is placed on record as Ex.P13. At the time of inquest, he seized M.O.1 to M.O.5, M.O.8 and M.O.9. After completing the inquest proceedings, the dead body was sent for postmortem examination. 6. PW8 the Medical Officer at Government Hospital, Nandikotkur, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P9 - post-mortem examination report. 7. On 31.01.2008 at about 8.30 A.M., on reliable information, PW12 picked up PW6, PW7 and along with other staff reached Brahmamgari Mutt. On seeing the police, two persons tried to escape. The police apprehended the said persons, who disclosed their identity. In the presence of PW6 and PW7, he interrogated the said persons separately and both of them confessed about the commission of the offence. Pursuant to the confession made, blood stained clothes of A1 and A2 were discovered near Jammi Chettu. Further, the confession of the accused, lead them to discovery of an axe and pestle. A panchanama to that effect came to be prepared, which is marked as Ex.P19. M.O.6, M.O.10, M.O.11, M.O.12 and M.O.13 are the material objects produced by the accused, pursuant to their confession, which were seized under Ex.P20. After collecting all the necessary documents and the R.F.S.L., report, a charge-sheet came to be filed, which was taken on file as P.R.C. No. 21 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandikotkur. 8. On appearance of the accused, copies of all documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. came to be furnished. After collecting all the necessary documents and the R.F.S.L., report, a charge-sheet came to be filed, which was taken on file as P.R.C. No. 21 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandikotkur. 8. On appearance of the accused, copies of all documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. came to be furnished. Since the offence is triable by a Court of Sessions, the same was committed to the Court of Sessions under Section 209 Cr.P.C. On appearance of the accused, charge as referred to earlier came to be framed, read over and explained to the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 9. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW12 witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to P24 beside marking M.O.1 to M.O.13. Out of 12 witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW3, PW4, PW5, PW6, PW7 and PW9 did not support the prosecution case and they were treated hostile by the prosecution. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, to which they denied, however did not adduce any defence evidence. 10. Disbelieving the evidence of PW1 and PW2, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused. Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be filed by the State. 11. Sri. S. Dushyanth Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, would contend that learned Sessions Judge erred in acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., when the evidence on record clinchingly establish the involvement of the accused in the crime. According to him, PW1 and PW2 are the eye witnesses to the incident and there is no justification to disbelieve their presence at the scene. He submits that, though, PW3 did not support the prosecution case, the fact that PW1 and PW2 went and saw the incident, cannot be doubted. He further submits that the First Information Report was given immediately, which reached the Magistrate at the earliest point of time. 12. In-spite of service of notice on the respondents, there is no representation on their behalf. 13. The point that arises for consideration is, whether the prosecution was able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt? 14. 12. In-spite of service of notice on the respondents, there is no representation on their behalf. 13. The point that arises for consideration is, whether the prosecution was able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt? 14. A perusal of the material placed before the court would show that the entire case revolves around the evidence of PW1 and PW2. PW1 is the father and PW2 is the brother of the deceased. According to them, the deceased was having illegal contacts with PW3, who is the sister of A2. After coming to know about the same, they scolded the deceased, who promised to discontinue his contacts with PW3. Once or twice PW3 came to the house of PW1 and asked the deceased to come, failing which she threatened him with consequences. Later, A1 and A2 approached PW1 and on one occasion threatened to kill the deceased if he does not stop his illegal contacts with PW3. Though PW1 informed the deceased about the same, he did not heed to his words. 15. On 22.01.2008, after having dinner, PW1, his wife and PW2 slept in their house. At about 3.00 A.M., PW1 woke up and noticed his son [deceased] and bicycle missing from the house. On suspicion, he along with his wife and PW2 went to the house of PW3 and found PW3 with injuries. When enquired, PW3 replied stating that A1 and A2 beat the deceased with a pestle and took the deceased away. At that point of time, one Raj Kumar, after parking his lorry in a petrol bunk came in opposite direction to PW1. While they were talking on the road, they heard some cries from the back side of Nandikotkur Court. They noticed A1 beating the deceased with a pestle while A2 caught hold of the deceased. On seeing the same, PW1, PW2 and others raised cries, pursuant to which, the accused ran away, leaving the deceased. 16. PW1 was cross-examined in length, wherein he admits that the distance between their house and the house of Lakshmi [PW3] is about one kilometer and that Lakshmi [PW3] was living alone with her children. He further admits that, earlier to the date of incident, there was a jatra, and as such, suspected the deceased going to the house of PW3, when he was not found in their house in early hours. He further admits that, earlier to the date of incident, there was a jatra, and as such, suspected the deceased going to the house of PW3, when he was not found in their house in early hours. It was further elicited in the cross-examination that, PW3 was found with bleeding injuries, but she was talking. According to PW1, A1 and A2 saw PW3 and deceased together in his house and, as such, they beat him with a pestle. He further admits that, there are 10 to 15 houses in between the house of PW3 and the place where the deceased was beaten. The area where the house of PW3 and the place where the deceased was beaten is Neelishikari Colony and there are more than 60 Neelishikari families in that area. He further admits that some of the Neelishikari people saw the dead body. 17. From the evidence of this witness, it shows that the distance between their house and the house of PW3 is about one kilometer. If the distance between the house of PW1 and PW3 is about one kilometer and in the absence of any material to show as to how they went to the house of PW3, it is strange to believe that the accused would be beating the deceased till the arrival of PW1 and PW2 at the said place. Be that as it may, PW3 who is said to have informed PW1 about A1 and A2 taking the deceased did not support the prosecution case. Further, it is difficult to believe that A1 and A2 would have assaulted PW3 causing bleeding injuries. Even assuming it to be so, there is no evidence to show as to the time when PW3 was assaulted, and when the deceased was taken away by A1 and A2 from the company of PW3. 18. The evidence of PW2, who is the son of PW1 and brother of the deceased, toes in line with the evidence of PW1 on all material aspects. Hence, it may not be necessary to refer to the evidence of PW2. 19. Therefore, from the evidence available on record, more particularly the evidence of PW1, the deceased was missing from the house by 3.00 A.M. The distance between the house of PW1 and PW3 is about one kilometer, which should have taken some time for PW1 to travel a distance of one kilometer. 19. Therefore, from the evidence available on record, more particularly the evidence of PW1, the deceased was missing from the house by 3.00 A.M. The distance between the house of PW1 and PW3 is about one kilometer, which should have taken some time for PW1 to travel a distance of one kilometer. Neither PW1 nor PW2 in their evidence deposed as to how they went to the house of PW3. According to PW1, on a suspicion that deceased must have gone to the house of PW3, went to the said house. He does not say as to how and in what manner they went to the house of PW3. Assuming it to be by way of walk, it must have taken considerable time to cover a distance of one kilometer. Though, PW3 is said to have informed to PW1 and PW2 about the assaults but she did not support the prosecution case and was treated hostile by the prosecution. Therefore, there is no evidence as to when A1 and A2 took the deceased with them, whether it was immediately prior to the arrival of PW1 or PW2 or sometime prior to receiving the said information. 20. PW1 and PW2 claim to have gone in search of the deceased and on the way they met a third person with whom they discussed the issue. At that time, they heard some sound and when they went behind the bushes, noticed A1 assaulting the deceased, while A2 caught hold of the hands of the deceased. This version, in our view, appears to be highly suspicious for the reason that, A1 and A2 would not have been beating the deceased till the arrival of PW1 and PW2 or till PW1 and PW2 heard the sound. If that was so, there should have been number of injuries on the body, which is not so. Probably for this reason, there was a delay of nearly six hours in lodging the report. As observed by the learned Sessions Judge, PW3 would have been the best person to speak about the incident in question, but she did not support the prosecution case. 21. Further, PW4 who came into contact with PW1 and PW2 while searching the deceased, did not support the prosecution case. On the other hand, his version is that, he came to know about the incident at about 10.00 A.M., when he visited the Union Office. 21. Further, PW4 who came into contact with PW1 and PW2 while searching the deceased, did not support the prosecution case. On the other hand, his version is that, he came to know about the incident at about 10.00 A.M., when he visited the Union Office. 22. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to the evidence of PW10 -the investigating officer who registered the case. According to him, an oral statement was made at 10.00 A.M., and the same was reduced into writing by him. He further admits that, though, in Ex.P1, PW1 stated that he woke up by 3.00 A.M., but there were corrections in the copy of the First Information Report supplied to the accused. According to him, initially it was drafted at 4.00 clock and thereafter it was altered to 3.00 clock. In the First Information Report, there is no reference to PW4 or any other person meeting PW1 and PW2 while they were searching the deceased. 23. In Chaman Lal v. The State Of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 2021 SC 46 ; 2020 (13 ) SCALE 539 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:- 9.1 In the case of Babu v. State of Kerala, (2010) 9 SCC 189 ) this Court had reiterated the principles to be followed in an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. In paragraphs 12 to 19, it is observed and held as under: “12. This Court time and again has laid down the guidelines for the High Court to interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial court. The appellate court should not ordinarily set aside a judgment of acquittal in a case where two views are possible, though the view of the appellate court may be the more probable one. While dealing with a judgment of acquittal, the appellate court has to consider the entire evidence on record, so as to arrive at a finding as to whether the views of the trial court were perverse or otherwise unsustainable. The appellate court is entitled to consider whether in arriving at a finding of fact, the trial court had failed to take into consideration admissible evidence and/or had taken into consideration the evidence brought on record contrary to law. Similarly, wrong placing of burden of proof may also be a subject matter of scrutiny by the appellate court. The appellate court is entitled to consider whether in arriving at a finding of fact, the trial court had failed to take into consideration admissible evidence and/or had taken into consideration the evidence brought on record contrary to law. Similarly, wrong placing of burden of proof may also be a subject matter of scrutiny by the appellate court. (Vide Balak Ram v. State of U.P (1975) 3 SCC 219 , Shambhoo Missir v. State of Bihar (1990) 4 SCC 17 , Shailendra Pratap v. State of U.P (2003) 1 SCC 761 , Narendra Singh v. State of M.P (2004) 10 SCC 699 , Budh Singh v. State of U.P (2006) 9 SCC 731 , State of U.P. v. Ram Veer Singh (2007) 13 SCC 102 , S. Rama Krishna v. S. Rami Reddy (2008) 5 SCC 535 , Arulvelu v. State (2009) 10 SCC 206 , Perla Somasekhara Reddy v. State of A.P (2009) 16 SCC 98 and Ram Singh v. State of H.P (2010) 2 SCC 445 )”. 16. In Ghurey Lal v. State of U.P., (2008) 10 SCC 450 this Court reiterated the said view, observing that, the appellate court while dealing with the cases in which the trial courts have acquitted the accused, should bear in mind that the trial court’s acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is innocent. The appellate court must give due weight and consideration to the decision of the trial court as the trial court had the distinct advantage of watching the demeanour of the witnesses, and was in a better position to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses. In State of Rajasthan v. Naresh, (2009) 9 SCC 368 the Hon’ble Court again examined the earlier judgments of this Court and laid down that: (SCC p. 374, para 20) “20. … an order of acquittal should not be lightly interfered with even if the court believes that there is some evidence pointing out the finger towards the accused.” 24. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram, (2003) 8 SCC 180 held as under: "7. There is no embargo on the appellate court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. There is no embargo on the appellate court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate court to re- appreciate the evidence in a case where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused committed any offence or not. {See Bhagwan Singh v. State of M.P.}, (2002) 4 SCC 85 . The principle to be followed by appellate court considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable, it is a compelling reason for interference. These aspects were highlighted by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793 . Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat, (1996) 9 SCC 225 and Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana, (2000) 4 SCC 484 .” 25. In view of the inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence of the two witnesses vis-à-vis the medical evidence and the material alterations in the First Information Report, we hold that the Court below was right in acquitting the accused which warrants no interference by this court. 26. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed confirming the Judgment dated 31.05.2011 in S.C. No. 212 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge at Kurnool. 27. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.