THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.650 of 2004 O R D E R: This Criminal Revision Case is directed by the complainant against the order of acquittal of the second respondent/accused of the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC by the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Tirupati, vide judgment dated 29.01.2004 in S.C.No.405 of 2003. The brief facts of the case are as follows: Accused is the husband of one Devi and their marriage took place at about 7 years back and they were blessed with a son. Accused used to harass his wife to bring money and he was not looking after his wife and son and completely neglected their welfare. Two days prior to 17.9.2002 accused along with his wife Devi went to Srikalahasti and both of them quarrelled at Srikalahasti also. Therefore, Devi lost her hopes on her life and has taken a compulsive decision to commit suicide and she also wrote a suicide note and administered poison for herself and her son on 17.9.2003 at 12 noon at Tirupati and that they became unconscious and fell down on the street side near Manchineelagunta at Tirupati and some passers by have admitted both of them in SVRR Hospital, Tirupati, where both of them lost their breath after undergoing treatment. When a charge under Section 306 IPC was framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 12 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.12 and MOs 1 to 9. On behalf of the accused, DW.1 was examined and marked Ex.D.1. Challenging the same, this appeal has been preferred by the complainant. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/complainant contended that the evidence of prosecution witnesses disclose that the accused harassed the deceased to commit suicide that the trial Court has not properly considered the evidence in a proper perceptive and hence he prays to set aside the order of acquittal. On the other hand, learned counsel for the second respondent/accused contended that there is no evidence to show that the accused is the assailant of the deceased, that the trial Court after proper appreciation of evidence of the Court rightly acquitted the accused and absolutely there are no grounds to interfere with the same. Now, the point for determination is whether the finding of the trial Court is correct, legal or proper? Though the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 would go to show that the accused harassed the deceased to bring money, but while it is not stated in Ex.P.1 ie., complaint given to the police or in the statements recorded by the police under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. that the accused harassed the deceased to bring money. Further, the suicidal note alleged to have been written by the deceased, which is marked as Ex.P.2 is suspicious because there is no signature of the deceased on Ex.P.2. It appears that police did not ascertain through PWs 1 and 2 with regard to Ex.P.2 suicidal note, whether it was written by the deceased or not. There cannot be any dispute that when two views are reasonably possible on the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the view, which is favourable to the accused, should be adopted. Perhaps, that is the reason why the trial Court rightly acquitted the accused. The said order does not suffer from any infirmities calling for interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. __________________ RAJA ELANGO, J 23rd June, 2010. PNV