JUDGMENT : K. LAKSHMAN, J. 1. Heard Dr. S.Prashanth, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant-State and Mr. R.Prashanth, learned counsel for the respondent-accused. 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Judgment dated 31.08.2012 in S.C.No.543 of 2008 passed by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Warangal, State preferred the present appeal. Vide the aforesaid Judgment, learned trial Court acquitted the respondent-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’). 3. As per the prosecution case, the accused killed the younger son of PW.1, namely, Mohd. Quizer (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) by throwing him in water i.e. Vaddi Cheruvu, Warangal. There are disputes between accused, PW.1 and PW.4 with regard to real-estate business. According to the prosecution, accused, PW.1 and PW.4 have entered into an agreement of sale on 21.12.1998 with regard to a plot. PW.1 and PW.4 have paid an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the accused towards advance sale consideration. Accused did not receive the balance sale consideration and did not execute registered sale deed in favour of PWs.1 and 4. There were also disputes between accused and PWs.1 and 4 with regard to the said agreement of sale. Keeping the same in mind, accused kidnapped both the minor sons of PW.1, who are aged about 9 and 11 years respectively, and threw them into water and killed the deceased. PW.5, elder son of PW.1, escaped from the water. 4. On receipt of the said information from PW.5, elder son of PW.1, PW.1 has lodged Ex.P1-complaint with Police, Inthezargunj Police Station, Warangal. On receipt of the said complaint, Police have registered Ex.P10-FIR on 04.10.1999 at about 09.30 A.M. for the offences punishable under Section 363 of IPC. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer in the said crime has filed Ex.P11 - alteration memo, dated 04.10.1999 stating that the dead body of the deceased was found floating and the accused killed the deceased by throwing him into water. Therefore, he has filed the said memo altering the section of law from Section 363 of IPC to that of Sections 302, 307 and 363 of IPC. 5. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of parents of the deceased as PWs.1 and 2. Therefore, he has filed the said memo altering the section of law from Section 363 of IPC to that of Sections 302, 307 and 363 of IPC. 5. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of parents of the deceased as PWs.1 and 2. PW.3 is the Village Revenue Officer, who informed to the police about the floating of the dead body of the deceased on 04.10.1999 in between 06.00 A.M. and 07.00 A.M. on coming to know about the same from the villagers. PW.4, friend of accused and PW.1, deposed about the agreement between PW.1, PW.4 and accused and also with regard to the payment of Rs.1,50,000/- towards part payment of sale consideration. 6. The Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of PWs.6 and 7 to prove the motive and that there are disputes between PWs.1, 4 and accused. However, both of them did not support the prosecution and turned hostile. PWs.8 and 9 are Panch Witnesses. PW.10 is a business person. However, he did not support the prosecution and turned hostile. PW.11 is a Xerox shop owner and he did not support prosecution and turned hostile. PW.12 is the owner of the subject car and according to him, the subject car was given to the accused on hire. PW.13 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered Ex.P.10 FIR on receipt of original Ex.P.1 complaint from PW.1. PW.14 is the Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. PW.15 is the Investigating Officer and on completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet. Prosecution has marked Exs.P.1 to P.13 and M.Os.1 to 4 were exhibited. 7. On consideration of the entire evidence both oral and documentary, vide the impugned Judgment dated 31.08.2012 in S.C.No.543 of 2008, learned trial Court acquitted the accused. Challenging the said impugned Judgment, State has preferred the present criminal appeal. 8. It is relevant to note that on completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer has laid charge sheet in Crime No.176 of 1999 of Inthezargunj Police Station, against the accused on 09.11.1999. Learned I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal, numbered the same as P.R.C.No.1 of 2000. However, the said file was missing at the committal Court. After obtaining necessary permission from the learned District and Sessions Judge, Warangal, learned Magistrate reconstructed the record and committed P.R.C.No.1 of 2000 on 06.11.2008. 9. Learned I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal, numbered the same as P.R.C.No.1 of 2000. However, the said file was missing at the committal Court. After obtaining necessary permission from the learned District and Sessions Judge, Warangal, learned Magistrate reconstructed the record and committed P.R.C.No.1 of 2000 on 06.11.2008. 9. It is apt to note that, in paragraph No.9 of the impugned Judgment, there is a specific finding that missing of the bundle and reconstruction of the bundle after obtaining permission from the learned District and Sessions Judge, Warangal, in the year 2008. There is a finding that the learned trial Court is of the considered view that some prejudice would be caused to the accused due to reconstruction of record by the learned committal Court without any notice or knowledge of the accused. There is also a finding of the learned trial Court that in the reconstructed record, the signatures of PWs.13 and 15 – Investigating Officers are not there. 10. Learned trial Court further held that the accused has not taken any objection or expressed his grievance before framing of the charges. He has raised objections at the belated stage. 11. As discussed supra, PW.5, elder brother of the deceased, is the eye witness. In his chief-examination, he has deposed about the entire incident. According to him, on 03.10.1999 PW.5 and his deceased brother left the house at 06.30 P.M. to attend Namaaz. After attending the Namaaz, both of them returned back to home. When they reached to the shop of Mr.M.Nagaiah on the main road, the accused came to them and informed them that his father is sitting in the bakery near MGM Hospital. Therefore, accused took both of them from the said bakery in an auto to MGM Hospital. He asked them to get down from the auto near MGM Hospital and boarded them in a car. Accused took both of them to Hyderabad. After that they visited Tank Bund, Budha Statue, Airport, etc. He was taken back to Warangal. He further stated that accused enquired with PW.5 that as to whether PW.5 and his deceased brother knew swimming. He ensured that both of them did not know swimming. Accused requested both of them to remove their shirts and PW.5 informed the accused that he was feeling fear. However, accused insisted PW.5 to remove clothes stating that nothing is going to happen. He ensured that both of them did not know swimming. Accused requested both of them to remove their shirts and PW.5 informed the accused that he was feeling fear. However, accused insisted PW.5 to remove clothes stating that nothing is going to happen. Then, accused removed his shirt and the shirt of the deceased by force. 12. PW.5 further deposed that when he was standing, the accused has gone towards to his back and with an intention to commit murder, he pushed him into the water of the tank by using force. After falling in the water, PW.5 started shouting ‘Bachao Bachao’ and while he was struggling in the water, he heard a sound of falling something in the water of tank. He also heard the sounds of his deceased brother as ‘Munna Munna’. After struggling for some time in the water, he could catch a Ganesh idol in the water and by caught holding the idol, he sat for some time and he was feeling difficulty in breathing. After coming out of the said water, he found his younger brother is missing. He started shouting for his brother ‘Quizzar Quizzar’. He could not find his younger brother. Then, he went to his house and informed the said incident to his father. 13. During his cross-examination, PW.5 categorically admitted that after 19 or 20 days of the incident, his statement was recorded by the police before a Magistrate. At about 07.00 P.M., he has gone to MGM Hospital. He did not see the dead body of his younger brother. At about 09.00 or 09.30 A.M. his father has taken him to Inthezargunj Police Station. While he was in MGM Hospital for taking treatment, during afternoon, the police came to him and recorded his statement. Earlier to 03.10.1999, along with PW.1, he went to Hyderabad for two or three times. During holidays’, his father used to take their entire family to Hyderabad. Further, PW.5 admitted that it would take five minutes to reach Mr.M.Nagaiah shop on the main road by walk. Along with him, his brother and several others offered prayers in the Masjid and came out of the Masjid. He did not remember whether he had stated or not in his statement to the Investigating Officer about the stopping of that car near Tara Hotel and the accused keep the handle of the car with him by removing it. Along with him, his brother and several others offered prayers in the Masjid and came out of the Masjid. He did not remember whether he had stated or not in his statement to the Investigating Officer about the stopping of that car near Tara Hotel and the accused keep the handle of the car with him by removing it. At the time of recording his statement by the police, he was under lot of fear. He also could not identify the make of the car. He was studying in the 6 th class at the relevant point of time. He further admitted that on that day it was first time he boarded a car and earlier to that he never boarded a car. 14. PWs.6 and 7 did not support the prosecution. 15. It is apt to note that though PW.5 specifically deposed that they are sitting at Mr.Nagaiah shop, prosecution did not examine the said Mr.Nagaiah, owner of the shop. 16. As discussed supra, PW.5 specifically stated that his statement was recorded by the Police before the learned Magistrate. Even the said statement was not filed by the prosecution before the learned trial Court. They have not examined any other persons who came out from the Masjid on completion of the Namaaz. 17. PW.4 deposed about the agreement between the accused, PW.1 and PW.4 regarding payment of Rs.1,50,000/- as per the said agreement. About 4 or 5 months from the agreement, accused used to insist them for payment of balance amount. However, he did not support the prosecution and he was declared hostile. During cross-examination, he has categorically admitted that the copy of the agreement is not with him and it is lying with PW.1. He has not verified about the ownership and the title of the accused over the aforesaid land. 18. PW.1 specifically deposed about the handing over of the photostat copies of the agreement to the Investigating Officer. Even then, the Investigating Officer did not file copy of the same before the learned trial Court and the prosecution did not mark the copy of the said agreement. 19. PW.13 - Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered Ex.P.10 FIR on receipt of Ex.P.1 complaint from PW.1. Even then, the Investigating Officer did not file copy of the same before the learned trial Court and the prosecution did not mark the copy of the said agreement. 19. PW.13 - Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered Ex.P.10 FIR on receipt of Ex.P.1 complaint from PW.1. During cross- examination, he categorically admitted that loose panch chits, which were shown to him, are not the same panch chits, which were prepared at the time of seizure of MOs.1 to 4. Loose panch chits were prepared recently due to lost of original panch chits. Apart from examining and recording the statement of PW.1, he has also examined and recorded the statements of PWs.2, 3 and 5 and he has examined and recorded the statements of PWs.2 and 3 in between 01.00 P.M. and 02.00 P.M. while conducting the inquest panchanama on the dead body of the deceased. Further, on 04.10.1999, he dispatched Ex.P.10 FIR to the Court. He did not obtain signature of the de facto complainant - PW.1 in the relevant column of Ex.P10 FIR, which is meant for the signature of the complainant. 20. PW.13 filed Ex.P.11 alteration memo in the Court on 04.10.1999 at 06.30 P.M. During cross-examination, he admitted that he did not remember the name of the police constable to whom he forwarded the same and he did not know when it was reached and on what date it reached to the Court. He further admitted that he has not collected any document pertaining to the land, which is said to be in dispute between PW.1 and accused. He has not examined any person who offered prayer in the Masjid along with PW.5 and deceased for knowing the movements of PW.5 and the deceased. He did not examine any person from the Tara Hotel or from MGM Hospital for knowing about the alleged picking up of the deceased and PW.5 by the accused. PWs.1 and 5 together came to the police station for lodging complaint. PW.5 is not in a position to talk and he was under shock and for that reason he was referred to MGM Hospital, Warangal. Along with PW.5, PW.1 also went to the Hospital and PW.13 did not examine the person, who scribed Ex.P.1 complaint. 21. PW.14 – Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, found that the cause of the death was due to drowning. 22. Along with PW.5, PW.1 also went to the Hospital and PW.13 did not examine the person, who scribed Ex.P.1 complaint. 21. PW.14 – Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, found that the cause of the death was due to drowning. 22. PW.15 – Investigating Officer, filed charge sheet against the accused on completion of investigation. 23. It is also apt to note that PW.3 – Village Revenue Officer, in his chief-examination, specifically deposed that on 04.10.1999 in between 06.00 A.M. and 07.00 A.M., the villagers came to him and informed about their noticing the floating of the dead body of a small boy in the water of Chinnawaddepalli Cheruvu. He made verification of that news by going near to that tank and then informed to the Police, Inthezargunj Police Station, through phone. However, during his cross-examination, he has categorically admitted that at about 07.00 A.M., he has informed the police through phone about the news. He did not observe that what time the police came to that place. 24. It is apt to note that even according to PW.5, he along with his deceased brother came to Masjid at about 06.30 P.M. on 03.10.1999 for attending Namaaz. Accused took them to MGM Hospital, from there to Hyderabad and back to Warangal, more particularly, Chinnawaddepalli Cheruvu. The distance between Warangal and Hyderabad is about 150 K.Ms. Even as per PW.5, accused took them to Tank Bund, Buddha Statue, Airport, etc., in Hyderabad and back to Warangal, which will take four hours to reach Hyderabad. Therefore, the question of floating of the dead body of the deceased in between 06.00 A.M. and 07.00 A.M. on 04.10.1999 as deposed by PW.3 would not arise. The deposition of PWs.3 and 5 is not inspiring confidence. 25. Though, according to the prosecution, the motive is that there are land disputes between PW.1, PW.4 and accused and that they have entered into an agreement on 21.12.1998. PW.1 has paid an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the accused towards advance sale consideration. They have not collected original or copy of agreement of sale, dated 21.12.1998. Thus, they failed to prove the motive. 26. As discussed supra, the evidence of PW.5 is not inspiring confidence of the Court. 27. PW.1 has paid an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the accused towards advance sale consideration. They have not collected original or copy of agreement of sale, dated 21.12.1998. Thus, they failed to prove the motive. 26. As discussed supra, the evidence of PW.5 is not inspiring confidence of the Court. 27. It is also apt to note that during his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. accused specifically informed the Court that he was falsely implicated in the present case. On consideration of the entire evidence, vide the impugned Judgment dated 31.08.2012, learned trial Court acquitted the accused. 28. There is no dispute with regard to the death of the deceased. It is settled law that however grave the offence may be, prosecution has to prove that accused committed the said offence beyond reasonable doubt. 29. In the present case, prosecution failed to prove that the accused committed the murder of the deceased by drowning him in water. 30. As discussed supra, the case bundle was misplaced in the Committal Court. Therefore, the Committal Court has obtained permission from the learned District Judge, Warangal, for reconstruction of the bundle without putting any notice or knowledge of the accused. Therefore, it took twelve (12) years to record the evidence of the prosecution witnesses from the date of incident. 31. The statement of PW.5 under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., was recorded by the learned Magistrate, but the same was not filed. 32. Ex.P11 alteration memo filed by PW.13 is contrary to the deposition of PW.3. It is also apt to note that learned trial Court compared the statement of PW.5 with his statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. It has held that on close scrutiny of PW.5 evidence-in-chief is made with his statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., it is appearing that he has made many exaggerations and embellishments. He has also given certain examples of the said contradictions. Finally, learned trial Court held that there are many major improvements, omissions and contradictions in the deposition of PW.5 and it is appearing by seeing his evidence that he deposed more than what is actually required to depose and it can be said that he was made to step into the witness box after a thorough tutoring. 33. Finally, learned trial Court held that there are many major improvements, omissions and contradictions in the deposition of PW.5 and it is appearing by seeing his evidence that he deposed more than what is actually required to depose and it can be said that he was made to step into the witness box after a thorough tutoring. 33. Learned trial Court further observed that it is very surprising to see in the cross-examination, PW.5 failed to give the number and the make of the car in which the accused said to have been taken him and his brother to Hyderabad after the alleged kidnap. They travelled in the car along with accused for twelve hours. PW.5 was studying in 6 th class at the relevant point of time. Though it is not possible to remember the vehicle number, he should have informed the police with regard to make of the car, but he has not informed the same. 34. On consideration of the said aspects, learned trial Court gave a specific finding that PW.5 is not an illiterate person and he was studying in 6 th class on the date of the alleged incident and his evidence is not inspiring the confidence of the Court. 35. As discussed supra, the Investigating Officer filed charge-sheet against accused for the offence under Section 363 of IPC. Section 363 of IPC deals with kidnap and it is relevant to extract hereunder: 363. Punishment for kidnapping - Whoever kidnaps any person from India or from lawful guardianship, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. Thus, the prosecution has to prove the aforesaid ingredients. 36. To prove that the accused committed kidnap of PW.5 and the deceased, the prosecution has to prove the said ingredients beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, the prosecution utterly failed to prove the ingredients of Section 363 of IPC. 37. Thus, the prosecution has to prove the aforesaid ingredients. 36. To prove that the accused committed kidnap of PW.5 and the deceased, the prosecution has to prove the said ingredients beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, the prosecution utterly failed to prove the ingredients of Section 363 of IPC. 37. It is also apt to note that vide judgment dated 17.03.2022 in Crl.A.No.1117 of 2014, this Court remanded the matter back to the learned trial Court by setting aside the impugned Judgment for disposal of the said S.C.No.543 of 2008, in accordance with law, within a period of three (03) months on the ground that the conclusions reached by the learned trial Court in acquitting the accused basing on the inconsistencies/omissions in the evidence of PW.5 in his examination-in-chief made before the Court and the statements made by him under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. before the Police, are patently erroneous. The trial Court is required to evaluate the substantial evidence on record to arrive at a conclusion. Such exercise has not been conducted in this case. With the said finding, this Court remanded back the matter to the learned trial Court by setting aside the impugned Judgment. 38. Accused approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court and vide order dated 02.04.2025 in Crl.A.No.1733 of 2025, the Apex Court remanded the matter to this Court with a direction to decide the present appeal on merits. Apex Court further held that whether the findings arrived at by the trial Court acquitting the accused, based on the testimonies of the witnesses, were perverse or not, is what the High Court itself ought considered after examining and discussing the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. 39. Vide Judgment dated 19.04.2024 in Crl. Appeal No. 985 of 2010 in the case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka , the Apex Court discussed the scope of appeal and the manner in which the High Court has to decide the appeal filed by the State challenging the Judgment of trial Court acquitting the accused. 40. In its Judgment dated 28.07.2015 in Crl. Appeal Nos. 40. In its Judgment dated 28.07.2015 in Crl. Appeal Nos. 1247 and 1248 of 2012 in V.K. Mishra v. State of Uttarakhand , the Apex Court in paragraph No.16 categorically held that Court cannot suo moto make use of statements to the police not proved and ask questions with reference to them which are inconsistent with the testimony of the witness in the Court. 41. The Apex Court in Muralidhar Alias Gidda v. State of Karnataka , (2014) 5 SCC 730 held as follows: “10. Lord Russell in Sheo Swarup, highlighted the approach of the High Court as an appellate court hearing the appeal against acquittal. Lord Russell said “… the High Court should and will always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as (1) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial; (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt and (4) the slowness of an appellate court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses.” The opinion of the Lord Russell has been followed over the years. 11. As early as in 1952, this Court in Surajpal Singh while dealing with the powers of the High Court in an appeal against acquittal under Section 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code observed “……….the High Court has full power to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded, but it is equally well settled that the presumption of innocence of the accused is further reinforced by his acquittal by the trial court, and the findings of the trial court which had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing their evidence can be reversed only for very substantial and compelling reasons.” 12. The approach of the appellate court in the appeal against acquittal has been dealt with by this Court in Tulsiram Kanu, Madan Mohan Singh, Atley, Aher Raja Khima, Balbir Singh, M.G. Agarwal, Noor Khan, Khedu Mohton, Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade, Lekha Yadav, Khem Karan, Bishan Singh, Umedbhai Jadavbhai, K. Gopal Reddy, Tota Singh, Ram Kumar, Madan Lal, Sambasivan, Bhagwan Singh, Harijana Thirupala, C. Antony, K. Gopalakrishna, Sanjay Thakran and Chandrappa. It is not necessary to deal with these cases individually. Suffice it to say that this Court has consistently held that in dealing with appeals against acquittal, the appellate court must bear in mind the following: (i) There is presumption of innocence in favour of an accused person and such presumption is strengthened by the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the trial court, (ii) The accused person is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt when it deals with the merit of the appeal against acquittal, (iii) Though, the power of the appellate court in considering the appeals against acquittal are as extensive as its powers in appeals against convictions but the appellate court is generally loath in disturbing the finding of fact recorded by the trial court. It is so because the trial court had an advantage of seeing the demeanor of the witnesses. If the trial court takes a reasonable view of the facts of the case, interference by the appellate court with the judgment of acquittal is not justified. Unless, the conclusions reached by the trial court are palpably wrong or based on erroneous view of the law or if such conclusions are allowed to stand, they are likely to result in grave injustice, the reluctance on the part of the appellate court in interfering with such conclusions is fully justified, and (iv) Merely because the appellate court on re-appreciation and re-evaluation 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. The evenly balanced views of the evidence must not result in the interference by the appellate court in the judgment of the trial court.” 42. In the light of the aforesaid principle, coming to the facts of the present case and as discussed supra, there are many lapses on behalf of the prosecution. At the cost of repetition, the Investigating Officer did not examine the shop owner i.e., Mr.M.Nagaiah, during the course of investigation. He has not examined any person, who came out from Masjid after completion of Namaaz and persons at MGM Hospital. 43. The prosecution failed to file the copy of examination of PW.5 recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Ex.P.11 alteration Memo filed by PW.13 is contrary to the deposition of PW.5. He has not examined any person, who came out from Masjid after completion of Namaaz and persons at MGM Hospital. 43. The prosecution failed to file the copy of examination of PW.5 recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Ex.P.11 alteration Memo filed by PW.13 is contrary to the deposition of PW.5. The entire version of the prosecution that the body of the deceased was floated in between 06.00 A.M. and 07.00 A.M. on 04.10.1999 as deposed by PW.5, PW.3 is highly improbable and suspicious. Even as per PW.5, they came out of Masjid on 03.10.1999 at 06.30 A.M. and accused took them to MGM Hospital and there from to Hyderabad and back to Warangal. Therefore, the question of floating the body on 04.10.1999 between 06.00 A.M. and 07.00 A.M. as deposed by PW.3 is highly improbable. 44. As discussed supra, it is settled principle of law that however grave the offence may be, the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. If two views are possible, the view which is in favour to the accused, has to be considered. In the present case, prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for committing the said offence beyond reasonable doubt. 45. On consideration of the aforesaid aspects only, vide impugned judgment, learned trial Court acquitted the accused. It is a reasoned and well founded judgment. Prosecution failed to make out any case to interfere with the impugned Judgment. 46. Accordingly, this appeal fails and stands dismissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the Criminal Appeal shall stand closed.