Judgment : ( Sanjay S. Agrawal, J.) 1. This appeal has been preferred by the State/Appellant under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 24/08/2016 passed by the Additional Judge to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, District- Korba (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.108/13, whereby, respondents- Naresh Patre (Accused No.2) and Uttari Bai (Accused No.3), have been acquitted from the offence punishable under Sections 368 and 302/34 of IPC. Since, Chintaram (Accused No.1), who is the son of respondents- Naresh Patre (Accused No.2) and Uttari Bai (Accused No.3), was absconded, therefore, trial was not made against him. 2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that, on 07/07/2010, a missing report was lodged by the father of the deceased- Koshil Bai Ratre, namely, Ramji Ratre, before the Police Station- Darri, alleging therein, that on the previous day, i.e. 06/07/2010, his daughter, who was 16 years old, has gone somewhere else in the morning around 09:30 A.M. along with the daughter of one Lambu Domar and has not returned. Further prosecution story is that, on 13/01/2011, a merg intimation (Ex.P/6) was lodged by one Santosh Kumar, the Manager of the Kalda Cosmetic Surgery Institute and Burn Centre (Kalda Hospital), Raipur before the Police Station- Saraswati Nagar, Raipur regarding the death of said Koshil Bai and, during the course of investigation, based upon the alleged missing report as well as the merg intimation lodged by said Santosh Kumar, the deceased was found to be burnt on 04/01/2011 and was admitted to the District Hospital at Kawardha, where she was examined medically by Dr. (Smt.) Usha Suryawanshi (PW-7), who certified that she is capable to give her statement and, accordingly, her statement (Ex.P/20) was recorded on the same day, i.e. 04/01/2011 and that by, looking to her condition, she was referred to Mekahara Hospital at Raipur on 05/01/2011 and from there, she was referred to Kalda Hospital, Raipur, where her dying declaration (Ex.P/24) was recorded on 08/01/2011 and during the course of her treatment, she died on 13/01/2011. Inquest of the dead body was made vide Ex.P/2 on 13/01/2011 and was sent for autopsy, which was conducted by Dr. Inquest of the dead body was made vide Ex.P/2 on 13/01/2011 and was sent for autopsy, which was conducted by Dr. R.K. Patel, who vide his report (Ex.P/3), opined the cause of death to be cardio-respiratory failure owing to burns and its complications and, that by completing the investigation, the charge- sheet was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katghora against the respondents in their absence, as they were absconded, for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 368 and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC in connection with Crime No.130/2011 and the matter was thereafter, committed to the learned trial Court, where respondents-Naresh Patre and Uttari Bai have surrendered and the charges were framed against them with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 368/34 and 302/34 of IPC, which they denied and claimed to be tried. 3. In order to bring home the guilt of the respondents, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 28 documents along with the ‘School Transfer Certificate’ (Article-A), while none was examined by the said respondents in their defence. 4. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly the statement (Ex.P/20) of the deceased, recorded on 04/01/2011 and her dying declaration (Ex.P/24) recorded on 08/01/2011, wherein, it was stated by her that, she died while cooking the food and none of the respondents were at home, held that the respondents are not involved in connection with the alleged crime and, accordingly, they have been acquitted from the commission of the alleged crime and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State/appellant submits that the findings of the trial Court holding that the respondents are not involved in connection with the alleged crime is, apparently contrary to the materials available on record, in as much as, the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly, the dying declaration of the deceased- Koshil Bai, have not been scanned in its proper manner and, thereby, erred in acquitting them as such from the commission of the alleged crime. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents while placing reliance upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of “Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat” reported in (1996) 9 SCC 225 , has supported the impugned judgment of acquittal as passed by the trial Court. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents while placing reliance upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of “Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat” reported in (1996) 9 SCC 225 , has supported the impugned judgment of acquittal as passed by the trial Court. 7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and, perused the entire record carefully. 8. Before proceeding with the matter, it is to be noted that in a case of an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court, the normal presumption of innocence would get re-enforced, as held by the Supreme Court in the matter of “Atley v. State of U.P.” reported in AIR 1955 SC 807 and, if two views are possible from the evidence on record, then, the Appellate Court must be slow in interfering with the appeal preferred against the order of acquittal, as held by the Supreme Court, in the matter of “Sambasivan v. State of Kerala” reported in (1998) 5 SCC 412 and, what would be the approach while dealing with the acquittal appeal was laid down by the Supreme Court, in the matter of “Ramesh Babulal Doshi” (supra), wherein, it has been held at paragraph 7 as under:- “7. Before proceeding further it will be pertinent to mention that the entire approach of the High Court in dealing with the appeal was patently wrong for it did not at all address itself to the question as to whether the reasons which weighed with the trial court for recording the order of acquittal were proper or not. Instead thereof the High Court made an independent reappraisal of the entire evidence to arrive at the abovequoted conclusions. This Court has repeatedly laid down that the mere fact that a view other than the one taken by the trial court can be legitimately arrived at by the appellate court on reappraisal of the evidence cannot constitute a valid and sufficient ground to interfere with an order of acquittal unless it comes to the conclusion that the entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal or the conclusions arrived at by it were wholly untenable. While sitting in judgment over an acquittal the appellate court is first required to seek an answer to the question whether the findings of the trial court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. If the appellate court answers the above question in the negative the order of acquittal is not to be disturbed. Conversely, if the appellate court holds, for reasons to be recorded, that the order to acquittal cannot at all be sustained in view of any of the above infirmities it can then-and then only-reappraise the evidence to arrive at its own conclusions…………….. ” 9. While keeping in mind the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, in the above referred matters, it is necessary to examine the facts and the evidence as led by the prosecution in order to ascertain as to whether the findings recorded by the trial Court, acquitting the respondents(A-2 and A-3) from the commission of the alleged crime, are perverse or would deserves to be upheld. 10. From perusal of the record, it appears that initially, a missing report was lodged by the father of the deceased, namely, Ramji Ratre on 07/07/2010, wherein, it was alleged by him that on the previous day, i.e. 06/07/2010, his daughter namely, Koshil Bai has gone somewhere else along with her friend, but did not return and, thereafter, based upon the merg intimation, lodged by the Manager of the Kalda Hospital, Raipur on 13/01/2011, an enquiry was conducted where it was revealed that the deceased was burnt on 04/01/2011 and she was examined at District Hospital- Kawardha and after considering her critical condition, she was referred to Mekahara Hospital, Raipur on 05/01/2011 and, thereafter, she was referred to Kalda Hospital at Raipur, where she died during the course of treatment on 13/01/2011 and during investigation, it was revealed that Chintaram (Accused No.1), the absconded accused, took her to his house and was living as her husband along with the parents, the respondents herein, where she was maltreated and harassed by them, and, thereafter committed the murder of her while pouring the kerosene oil. 11. 11. In order to establish the alleged fact that the deceased was murdered by the respondents, along with their absconding son- Chintaram, (Accused No.1) by pouring kerosene oil on her, Ramji Ratre, her father was examined as PW-1, who stated that when his daughter was in Hospital, she informed that said Chintaram took her and started living as her husband, along with his parents where, she was maltreated and tortured by them and thereafter, burnt her while pouring the kerosene oil and, similar was the version of Mukhiram (PW-2) and the mother of the deceased, namely, Smt. Saroj (PW-4), but Topsingh (PW-3), the brother-in-law of the deceased’s father has, however, stated that it was not informed by her (deceased- Koshil Bai) that how she died, when he asked. These witnesses are, not only the hearsay witnesses, but, there are disparities in their testimonies, therefore, no reliance could be placed upon their testimonies. It is to be seen further that, although the parents of the deceased have stated that they were informed by their daughter (deceased) that she was maltreated and burnt by the respondents while pouring kerosene oil on her, but, such allegations have, however, not been raised by them at the time of the inquest (Ex.P/2) of the dead body, though, they were present, nor have lodged any report to this effect. 12. Pertinently to be noted here further that when the deceased was admitted into the District Hospital, Kawardha, owing to the burn injuries, she was examined by Dr. (Smt.) Usha Suryawanshi (PW-7) and according to her, she was capable to give statement and her statement (Ex.P/20) was, accordingly recorded on 04/01/2011. A bare perusal of her said statement would, however, show that she died while cooking the food and was not burnt either by her husband, or by her in- laws and reveals further from her said statement that she was rather alone at home and likewise, has reiterated the same thing in her dying declaration (Ex.P/24), recorded before the Executive Magistrate, Kharora on 08.01.2011 at Kalda Hospital, Raipur. 13. Insofar as the allegation of her kidnapping is concerned, it, however, appears that though her father Ramji Ratre (PW-1), at the time of lodging the missing report (Ex.P/9C) on 07/07/2010, stated that when his daughter had gone somewhere on the previous day, alongwith the daughter of one Lambu Domar, she was minor. 13. Insofar as the allegation of her kidnapping is concerned, it, however, appears that though her father Ramji Ratre (PW-1), at the time of lodging the missing report (Ex.P/9C) on 07/07/2010, stated that when his daughter had gone somewhere on the previous day, alongwith the daughter of one Lambu Domar, she was minor. But, when her dying declaration (Ex.P/24) was recorded on 08/01/2011 before the Executive Magistrate, Kharora, her age was shown to be recorded as 18 years on her own. She was, thus, major at the relevant point of time. It is to be seen further, at this juncture, the statement of one Manisha (PW-12), with whom, she had gone on the said fateful day, where it was stated by her that they went upto Bilaspur and, thereafter, they separated and, has denied specifically at para 2 that said Chintaram has forcefully took her alongwith him. Besides, no other evidence has been led by the prosecution that the deceased was abducted by the respondents and their son Chintaram. In view thereof, it can not be said that the deceased (Koshil Bai)was abducted by the respondents, when she was minor, as alleged by the prosecution. 14. In view of the aforesaid background, we do not find any substance in this appeal which, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.