1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No.2125/2008 In Criminal Appeal No. /2008 [State of Maharashtra .vrs. Rajesh Dashrath Uparwat and five others] ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders .............................................................................................................................. ..................................... Mr. D.B. Patel, APP for the appellant/State. .......... Coram : R.C. Chavan, J. Dated : 14 th January, 2009. Heard the learned APP for the appellant/State. By this application the prosecution seeks leave to file appeal against the judgment of acquittal rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola on the conclusion of Sessions Trial No. 144/2006 at which the respondents were tried for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. All the complaints about illtreatment and demands have surfaced only after the death of the victim. The 2 learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola has observed that the body of victim was found near the well and the water level is high. The well was without a parapet wall. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola has also observed that the victim went to the well for drinking water and considering that the victim was pregnant for the second time at the time of the incident, she could have slipped and fallen in the well. It has also come on record that all the injuries on the person of victim were post-mortem. Hence it cannot be said that the view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is thoroughly untenable and not borne out from the record. The learned APP may be right in submitting that some other view could have been possible. When two views are possible and the view taken by the Additional Sessions Judge cannot be said to be totally untenable or perverse, no interference is warranted in the judgment of acquittal. The leave to file appeal is refused. Appeal is dismissed. JUDGE Gulande