{1} Cri. Revision No.138/2009 drp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.138 OF 2009 Nandkishore Nathrao Nanote APPLICANT VERSUS Mohan Rambhau Nanote & others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.Joydeep Chatterji, Advocate for the applicant Mr. S.G.Nandedkar, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 27 th September 2011 PER COURT: 1. This revision is directed against the judgment of acquittal rendered by Assistant Sessions Judge, Jalna in Sessions Case No.152/2007. By the impugned judgment the respondent- accused are acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 306 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It appears that on the complaint filed by the applicant, an offence was registered with Maujpuri police station at Crime No. {2} Cri. Revision No.138/2009 62/2006 u/s 306 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged in the complaint that there was dispute over the landed property between the respondent-accused and the deceased Shivaji, son of the complainant. It is further alleged that there were frequent quarrels over the said land dispute between the said parties. On 25.04.2005, quarrel took place in the field between the respondent-accused and the deceased over the partition of the landed property and exchange of hot words also taken place. Thereafter, in the hit of anger, the deceased consumed poison and ultimately expired on 01.05.2005. 3. On completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed and the trial court committed to the Court of Sessions Jalna. All the witnesses examined before the trial court were either friends or relatives of the deceased. From the evidence of the witnesses it only revealed that quarrel took place between the deceased and the respondent-accused over the partition of the landed property and there was exchange of hot words due to which the deceased got enraged and consumed poison. Perusal of the entire record, even if taken as it is, nowhere disclose that due to {3} Cri. Revision No.138/2009 the acts of the respondent-accused, the life of the deceased was became miserable which forced him to commit suicide. Perusal of the impugned judgment of acquittal does not indicate any perversity. Though learned counsel for the applicant vehemently urged to allow the application, yet he is unable to point out any perversity in the findings recorded by the trial court. Apart from it, while considering the revision against acquittal, the Court requires to consider that if two views are possible and the view taken by the trial court is possible and probable view to be taken on the basis of evidence on record, then the order of acquittal need not be disturbed in the Revision or Appeal. As the view taken by the trial court is a probable and possible view to be taken on the basis of the evidence on record, the judgment impugned does not suffer from any perversity and hence interference in the said judgment in the revisional jurisdiction is not warranted. Considering this legal aspect the revision application, which is sans merits, stands rejected. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B11/criren138-09