1 460.10-revn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 460 OF 2010 Mrs.Vaishali Mahesh @ Kiran Bhor. ... Applicant. V/s. Mahesh @ Kiran Marutrao Bhor and others. ... Respondents. Prashant Patil for the applicant. Ms.Revati Mohite Dere for respondent Nos.1 to 7. APP for the State. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J. DATED : 22nd June 2011. P.C. : By the present revision application, the applicant challenges the order passed by the learned Sessions Court Pune dated 29th July 2010 in Appeal No.258/2007 thereby allowing the appeal of respondent- accused and partly allowing the same so far as accused No.1 is concerned. 2. The respondents, who are relatives of Mahesh who was husband of the complainant- Vaishali, were prosecuted for the offences punishable under section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with section 34 of I.P.C. The learned J.M.F.C., Ghodegaon vide his reasoned judgment and order convicted all the accused for the offences punishable under section 498-A read with section 34 of I.P.C. Being aggrieved thereby, appeal was filed by all the accused. Appeal was allowed so far as present respondents- accused are concerned. However, appeal of accused No.1 was partly allowed. Though his 2 460.10-revn conviction was maintained, the sentence was reduced. Being aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondents, present revision application has been filed. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that learned appellate Court has grossly erred in interfering a well reasoned order of the learned Magistrate. He submits that the findings of the appellate Court are perverse and, therefore, warrants interference at the hands of this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the contrary, submits that learned appellate Court has rightly held that there is no evidence, especially, to establish complicity of the present respondents and, as such, rightly allowed the appeal. 5. The scope of interference against the order of acquittal is limited. Unless this Court finds that the order of the Court below is perverse, it is not possible for this Court to interfere the same. Learned appellate Court while upholding the conviction of accused No.1- husband held that there is no cogent evidence so as to establish complicity of the respondents herein for the offences punishable under section 498-A. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference. Revision is, therefore, rejected. (B.R.GAVAI, J.)