1 Cri.Appln.No.1163/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1163/2011. The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station Officer, Police Station, Ardhapur, Tq. Ardhapur, Dist.Nanded. - APPELLANT (Orig.Complainant) VERSUS Udhav s/o Bhujaji (Bhujangrao Sarpate, Age: 30 Yrs., Occupation – Labourer, R/o Khadkut, Tq. And District Nanded. - RESPONDENTS (Orig.Accused) ***** Mrs.SD Shelke, APP for Appellant/State. ----- CORAM : P.V.HARDAS & A.V.POTDAR,JJ. DATE : 4th August, 2011. PER COURT : 1) This is an application by which the appellante/State seeks leave to file an appeal against Judgment of the Extra Joint Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded, dated 25.11.2010 in Sessions Case No.14/2010, acquitting the respondent for an offence 2 Cri.Appln.No.1163/2011 punishable unde Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. 2) The case of the prosecution itself was that the accused and deceased Gangaram had consumer liquor and had gone for fishing and thereafter has again consumed liquor. The prosecution further alleges that the accused thereafter pelted a stone, which hit the deceased Gangaram on his head. According to the prosecution, the deceased Gangaram died on account of the injury sustained by him on account of the stone hit but the accused. 3) The medical evidence state that the deceased has died due to asphyxia due to drowning with alcohol. 4) The Medical Officer, i.e. PW 5 had not noticed any fracture of the skull bone. There was no serious internal injury, which could have resulted in the death of deceased Gangaram. The Trial Court found that the prosecution had miserably failed to establish and prove that deceased Gangaram had died as a result of the injury inflicted by the accused. Moreover, the Medical Officer in his cross-examination, has admitted that the deceased was at the stage of stuper and in such case, death by drowning can be 3 Cri.Appln.No.1163/2011 be possible. He has also admitted that, if the body of a person is dragged on the hard surface, the abrasion sustained by him was possible. The Trial Court, therefore, came to the conclusion that no offence was proved against the accused. 5) We have heard the learned APP in support of the application filed by the State. Upon such perusal, according to us, the view taken by the Trial Court is a possible view to be taken on the basis of the evidence on record. We do not notice any perversity in the reasoning of the Trial Court to warrant any interference in such appeal against acquittal. Resultantly, there is no merit in the application and the application is, therefore, dismissed. Leave refused. (A.V.POTDAR,J.) (P.V.HARDAS,J.) bdv/