ORDER : J. Sreenivas Rao, J. The State has preferred the present appeal aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, at Mahabubnagar, in S.C.No.452 of 2012, dated 26.05.2014 wherein Respondent Nos.1 and 2/Accused Nos.1 and 2 were acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for brevity). 2. The case of prosecution is that the marriage of deceased (daughter of the defacto-complainant/PW2) was solemnized with accused No.1 about four months prior to the date of incident. Accused No.2 is the mother of deceased. After marriage, the deceased and accused No.1 lived happily for a period of one month. Thereafter, accused Nos.1 and 2 harassed the deceased mentally and physically suspecting her fidelity. Aggrieved by the same, the victim herself poured kerosene on her body and set herself ablaze and sustained burn injuries and she was admitted in the Government Headquarters Hospital, Mahbubnagar for treatment. Soon after receiving the information, Crime No.55 of 2012 was registered for the offences under Section 498-A of IPC. 3. Heard Sri M.Vivekandanda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. In spite of service of notice the respondents/accused have not chosen to enter appearance. Hence, this Court is not having any other option except to proceed with the matter on merits. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that learned Assistant Sessions Judge without properly considering the oral and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution, erroneously acquitted the respondents/accused. He further submitted that the prosecution discharged their initial burden by proving the offences against the respondents by examining PW1 and PW5 and exhibits P1 to P5. However, learned Assistant Sessions Judge passed the impugned judgment and acquitted the respondents only on the ground that the statement given by the deceased/victim in exhibit P2 dying declaration is contrary to the dying declaration recorded by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Hanwada Police Station and the same is contrary to law and liable to be set aside and respondents/accused are liable for conviction. 5. Having considered the submissions made by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and after perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Court, it reveals that the victim herself poured kerosene on her body and set herself ablaze and sustained burn injuries and she was admitted in the Government Headquarters Hospital, Mahbubnagar for treatment. 5. Having considered the submissions made by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and after perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Court, it reveals that the victim herself poured kerosene on her body and set herself ablaze and sustained burn injuries and she was admitted in the Government Headquarters Hospital, Mahbubnagar for treatment. Soon after receiving the information, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Hanwada Police Station, registered Crime No.55 of 2012 for the offences under Section 498-A of IPC. Learned Judicial First Class Magistrate recorded the statement of victim on 23.03.2012 itself. In her declaration, the victim stated that her husband alone is responsible for committing suicide. Thereafter, on 24.03.2012 Sub-Inspector of Police, Hanwada Police Station recorded the statement of victim. In the said statement she stated that accused Nos.1 and 2 are responsible for her suicidal death. However, the prosecution failed to examine the Sub-Inspector of Police, Hanwada Police Station. The record further reveals that as per the entry in the inquest report, prosecution has not taken any steps for examining the said Sub-Inspector of Police to prove the case. The impugned judgment further reveals that PW2 who is the mother of deceased/victim in her complaint stated that accused Nos.1 and 2 harassed her daughter mentally and physically suspecting that the deceased/victim is having illegal intimacy with her own father-in-law and after death of father-in-law, she is having illegal intimacy with her brother-in-law. Due to the said harassment only, the deceased committed suicide. However, the PW2 turned hostile. Prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt by producing necessary evidence that the respondents/accused committed offence under Section 498-A and 306 of IPC. 6. Learned Assistant Sessions Judge after evaluating the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, rightly came to a conclusion that the prosecution failed to discharge the burden of proving the case against respondents/accused beyond reasonable doubt. Learned Assistant Sessions Judge while relying upon the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bogi Bhadraiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh , [2008 (1) ALD (Crl.) 825 (AP)] and P.V.Radhakrishna Vs. State of Karnataka , [(2003) 9 ILD 200 (SC)] rightly acquitted the respondents/accused for the offences under Section 498-A and 306 of IPC. 7. Learned Assistant Sessions Judge while relying upon the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bogi Bhadraiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh , [2008 (1) ALD (Crl.) 825 (AP)] and P.V.Radhakrishna Vs. State of Karnataka , [(2003) 9 ILD 200 (SC)] rightly acquitted the respondents/accused for the offences under Section 498-A and 306 of IPC. 7. In cases of acquittal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and another, (2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536 held that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the appellate Court has to consider whether the trial Court’s view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. 8. In Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh , (2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 45 the Hon’ble Supreme Court after referring to several Judgments regarding the settled principles of law and the powers of appellate Court in reversing the order of acquittal, held at para 70, as follows: “70. In the light of the above, the High Court and other appellate Courts should follow the well-settled principles crystallized by number of Judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court’s acquittal: 1. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court’s acquittal if it has “very substantial and compelling reasons” for doing so. A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have “very substantial and compelling reasons” to discard the trial court’s decision. “Very substantial and compelling reasons” exist when: i) The trial court’s conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong: ii) The trial court’s decision was based on an erroneous view of law; iii) The trial court’s judgment is likely to result in “grave miscarriage of justice”; iv) The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal; v) The trial court’s judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable; vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations/report of the ballistic expert, etc. vii) This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive. 2. The appellate court must always give proper weight and consideration o the findings of the trial court. 3. If two reasonable views can be reached one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused.” 9. For the foregoing reasons as well as the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as stated supra, the reasoning given by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, cannot be interfered since they are based on record and reasonable. Hence, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge. 10. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal appeal shall stand closed.