ORDER : 1. The present appeal calls in question the correctness of the judgment dated 09.04.2013 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Dharwad in Criminal Appeal No. 2856 of 2011. By the said judgment, the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, in S.C. No. 91 of 2010 and acquitted the respondent of the charges levelled against him. The trial judge had convicted the respondent for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 year, for the offence under Section 376 of IPC. Further, the respondent was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 years, for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 2. We have heard Mr. Nishant Patil, learned A.A.G. for the State of Karnataka and Mr. Chandrashekhar A. Chakalabbi, learned counsel for the respondent (accused). We have also perused the records including the relevant portions of the trial court records. 3. The case of the prosecution revolves around the purported Dying Declaration (Ex.P/16) recorded on 11.03.2010 by PW-19 (the Investigating Officer). According to the prosecution, on the night intervening 10.03.2010 and 11.03.2010, at about 01:30 a.m., the respondent (accused) knocked at the door of the house of the deceased and conveyed the information that the husband of the deceased, who was at that point at the threshing floor, has sent for the deceased. According to the prosecution, under that pretext, the accused enticed the deceased out of the house and near the Neem tree, alongside the urdu School, forcibly committed rape on the deceased and also throttled her. It is the further case of the prosecution that the deceased crawled her way to the house of her mother (PW-4) and informed her as to what happened. It is the prosecution case that PW-4 took the deceased to one Dr. Bhandari, who refused to treat her. Thereafter, the deceased was taken to the District Hospital, Dharwad and from there, to Dr. Kavita (PW-15) at KIMS Hospital, Hubli. It is the prosecution case that PW-4 took the deceased to one Dr. Bhandari, who refused to treat her. Thereafter, the deceased was taken to the District Hospital, Dharwad and from there, to Dr. Kavita (PW-15) at KIMS Hospital, Hubli. According to the prosecution, on 11.03.2010, the deceased gave statement (Ex.P/16) to PW-19 based on which an FIR was registered for offence punishable under Section 376 IPC read with Section 307 IPC. The deceased was in the hospital for nearly 11-12 days and succumbed on 21.03.2010. A postmortem was carried out by PW-8. 4. To support the case of the prosecution, PW-6 Muzammil, son of the deceased, who was approximately 6 to 7 years at the time of the incident, was examined. We have perused the deposition of PW-6. In the chief-examination, he deposed that the accused came to their house and assaulted his mother and took her away and that prior to the assault, he strangulated her. In the cross-examination, however, he admitted to have been tutored by his grandmother. Mr. Nishant Patil, learned A.A.G. for the State has fairly not placed any reliance on this witness. 5. Thereafter, we are left with the evidence of PW-3, the husband of the deceased, who admittedly is not an eye-witness but only speaks of having heard the news from his father-in-law (CW-14), who is not examined as he is dead. He claims that on hearing the news from his father-in-law, he went to the house of his mother-in-law and when he inquired from his wife (the deceased), he says that initially, she was not able to speak but according to him, when she was asked again, she stated that the respondent insulted her, spoilt her and squeezed her. He claims to have taken her to Dr. Bhandari's clinic (Dr. Bhandari is not examined), who referred her to the District Hospital, Dharwad. From District Hospital, Dharwad, they were asked to take the deceased for further treatment to the hospital in Hubli where she succumbed after 11-12 days. Not much assistance can be derived from this witness. 6. In fact, Dr. Kavita (PW-15) who examined the deceased, first at KIMS Hospital, speaks only of the mother of the deceased having narrated the incident. In Ex.P/11, while noting the history, she recorded as follows: "Patient was drowsy. Hence history of the case was taken from her Mother. Not much assistance can be derived from this witness. 6. In fact, Dr. Kavita (PW-15) who examined the deceased, first at KIMS Hospital, speaks only of the mother of the deceased having narrated the incident. In Ex.P/11, while noting the history, she recorded as follows: "Patient was drowsy. Hence history of the case was taken from her Mother. She said, Rihana was sleeping at her house at Garag. About 12 a.m. midnight 9/3/10 some persons knocked the door and throttled her. After that Rihana came to her mom's house who stays in neighbourhood. Then they came to District Hospital, Dharwad. There she was left to KIMS. She had not changed her clothes and not had bath since the incident." 7. In her deposition, she maintained her version that PW-4 told her that "some persons knocked the door and throttled her". What is important is that the Doctor states that the deceased was drowsy at that point and the history had to be taken from her mother. There is no reference to any rape being committed after enticement. It is in this background that Ex.P/16 which came to be recorded around 9:30 a.m. on 11.03.2010 needs to be appreciated. In the statement, there is a reference about the respondent knocking the door and telling the deceased that the husband was calling the deceased to the field; that believing his words, she followed him to the urdu School; that when they further crossed urdu School near the Neem tree, she was pulled by the respondent who committed forcible sexual intercourse on her; that she started crying and shouting and told him that she will inform her husband and elders. It is stated that the accused started abusing her by saying that he will not spare her and pressed her neck. The statement further mentions that she fell to the ground and got hurt on the neck and that she went to the house of the mother and informed about the respondent having raped her and attempted to kill her. 8. Mr. Chandrashekhar A. Chakalabbi, learned counsel for the respondent while submitting that no case for interference in this appeal against acquittal is made out, contends that Ex.P/16 statement is completely unreliable and the High Court has rightly discarded the said statement. Mr. 8. Mr. Chandrashekhar A. Chakalabbi, learned counsel for the respondent while submitting that no case for interference in this appeal against acquittal is made out, contends that Ex.P/16 statement is completely unreliable and the High Court has rightly discarded the said statement. Mr. Chandrashekhar A. Chakalabbi, learned counsel drew our attention to paragraphs 23 and 24 of the order impugned to support his submission: "23. PW.15-Dr. Kavita is the first Medical Officer who has examined the victim on 10-03-2010, at about 9.15 a.m. PW.15 has given the evidence before the Court and also given certificate as per Ex. P. 11 indicating therein that there were no external injuries on the person of the victim. The history given to PW.15 by PW.4, the mother of the victim is to the effect that Riyana was sleeping in her house alone at Garag; in the midnight around 1.00 a.m. some persons knocked the door and throttled her neck. This history given by PW.4 to the doctor is the first statement regarding the incident given to a person in authority and the said statement nowhere contains mention about commission of rape on the victim. PW.4 being the mother of the victim would not have left mentioning the fact of rape on her daughter while mentioning the history to the doctor. She claims in her evidence before the Court that when questioning her daughter, her daughter told her that she was raped by the accused and thereafter the accused throttled her. In view of the above discrepancy in the evidence of PW. 15 to whom the information was given by PW.4, the very fact of forcible sexual intercourse by the accused is not informed by PW.4 to PW.15 at the first instance when PW.4 was questioned by the Medical Officer. It is the case of the prosecution that the police PW.19 came to the hospital and recorded the statement of the victim as per Ex.P.16 PW.15 in her evidence clearly states that the patient was drowsing and that she was not in a position to speak due to drowsiness. It is also in the evidence or PW. 15 that the police did not record the statement of the victim in her presence, whereas PW.19 claims that he has recorded Ex. P. 16 in KIMS Hospital. It is also in the evidence or PW. 15 that the police did not record the statement of the victim in her presence, whereas PW.19 claims that he has recorded Ex. P. 16 in KIMS Hospital. On a perusal of Ex.P. 16 itself it is seen that the said document does not contain either seal of the hospital or signature of the doctor in whose presence the said statement was recorded. Under the circumstances in view of the evidence of PW.15 that the victim was not in a position to give statement Ex.P. 16 which is said to be the complaint of victim Riyana/dying declaration loses its value both so far as its authenticity of marking it before PW.19 and also the contents thereof. Under the circumstances we are of the considered opinion that no reliance can be placed on Ex.P. 16 the statement said to have been recorded from the victim Riyana. 24. Further, on a careful consideration of the contents of Ex.P. 16, the same are quite contrary to the statement of PW. 4 Noorjahan to whom the victim had first disclosed about the occurrence. Both the statement of PW.4 and Ex.P. 16 are contrary to each other and cannot be formed as a basis for conviction of the accused, since they suffer from inbuilt discrepancies. Further the evidence of PWs. 16 and 17 who are the Scientific Officers of Forensic Science Laboratory indicates that there are no seminal stains found on the clothes of the accused to show that there was any sexual intercourse committed by the accused. So far as the seminal stains of the victim is concerned, admittedly she is a married woman and PW.3 is her husband, who lived together as husband and wife. The presence of seminal stains in a married woman's clothes or on her private body cannot be a ground for holding that the accused has committed secual intercourse with her unless it is proved that the accused had in his clothes seminal stains which according to PW.16 and 17 tallies with the seminal stains found on MOs.1 and 2, the clothes of the victim. In the circumstances, even on this ground the accused cannot be found to be involved in sexual intercourse with the victim." 9. In the circumstances, even on this ground the accused cannot be found to be involved in sexual intercourse with the victim." 9. PW-4, the mother of the deceased in her deposition mentions about the deceased having told her about the respondent committing rape on her and strangulating her and it was thereafter they took the deceased first to Dr. Bhandari and then to the District Hospital and then to KIMS Hospital at Hubli. The High Court has found the statement of PW-4 and Ex.P/16 are contradictory inasmuch as in the history given by PW-4 to PW-15, there is no mention about commission of rape on the victim. We have also seen the post-mortem report drawn by PW-8 which refers to certain healed, hypopigmented scar and a scratch abrasion on the neck. There is no evidence as to what was the progress of the deceased between 10.03.2010 to 21.03.2010 though the cause of death in the post-mortem report is mentioned as complications due to throttling. 10. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the elaborate reasons recorded by the High Court, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment of the High Court. It should be remembered that we are hearing the appeal against an acquittal. The parameters for interference in appeal against acquittal are well-settled and need no elaboration. In Arulvelu & Anr. vs. State, (2009) 10 SCC 206 , this Court held as under: "36. Careful scrutiny of all these judgments lead to the definite conclusion that the appellate court should be very slow in setting aside a judgment of acquittal particularly in a case where two views are possible. The trial court judgment can not be set aside because the appellate court's view is more probable. The appellate court would not be justified in setting aside the trial court judgment unless it arrives at a clear finding on marshalling the entire evidence on record that the judgment of the trial court is either perverse or wholly unsustainable in law." 11. The judgment of the High Court could not be said to be perverse or that it is wholly unconstitutional in law. The High Court having granted the benefit of doubt to the respondent, no case has been made out to interfere with the same, so holding, we confirm the acquittal and dismiss the appeal of the State. The appeal stands dismissed.