1 Cri.Application No. 4646 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4646 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra ..APPLICANT VERSUS Rajendra Pralhad Shikhre & ors. ..RESPONDENTS Mr D.R. Kale, A.P.P. for the applicant - State CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 9th December, 2010 PER COURT : This application has been filed by the State challenging the judgment of the Extra Joint Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna, dated 11.8.2010 in Sessions Case No.84/2009 acquitting the respondents for offences punishable under section 498-A, 323, 307, 504, 506 read with sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2 Cri.Application No. 4646 of 2010 2. According to the prosecution, Shubhangi was married to the accused on 28.2.2004 and soon after the marriage Shubhangi was illtreated on account of failure of Shubhangi to pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- which was demanded by the accused for purchasing agricultural field. Shubhangi also claimed that she had been assaulted on several occasions. The Trial Court, while appreciating the evidence in respect of section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and in respect of allegations of assault, found that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses examined in support of the said charge was discrepant and was full of inter se contradictions. The Trial Court also observed that undisputedly the land holding of the accused was far in excess of the land holding of the parents of Shubhangi. The Trial Court also found that the prosecution had failed to prove that the accused were intending to purchase additional agricultural land. The Trial Court, therefore, came to the conclusion that in the face of such discrepant evidence no charge for an offence punishable under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code could be sustained. 3. In respect of the offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, that the accused had forcibly administered poisonous substance to Shubhangi, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution had not been able to establish as to who had admitted Shubhangi initially in the hospital at Rajur and thereafter to the Shrikrishna hospital at Jalna. Apart from that, the Trial Court, on the 3 Cri.Application No. 4646 of 2010 basis of the report of the Chemical Analyser at Exhs.25 and 26 found that no poison was detected in the plastic box seized at the instance of the accused and on the clothes of Shubhangi. The report of the Chemical Analyser at Exh.26 in respect of the seized bottle also did not reveal any poison. The Trial Court, therefore, found that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the offence against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The Trial Court, therefore, acquitted the respondents by giving them the benefit of doubt. 4. We have heard the learned A.P.P. or the applicant, with whose assistance we have perused the findings recorded by the Trial Court. On such perusal we do not find any perversity in the reasoning of the Trial Court to justify the admission of the present appeal. The view taken by the Trial Court is a possible view to be taken on the basis of evidence on record. In that light of the matter, therefore, this application is dismissed. Leave refused. (A. V. POTDAR, J.) ( P.V. HARDAS, J.) amj/criap4646.10