IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CR.APPEAL/34/2011 GANGADHAR YADDHAVRAO KANDHARE V/S THE STATE OF MAH AND ORS ... Shri S.C.Bhosale, Advocate for the appellant Shri D.V.Tele, APP for respondent No.1 Shri V.B.Dhage, Advocate for respondents 2 to 7. ... CORAM : P.V.HARDAS & A.V.POTDAR, JJ. Dated : February 10, 2011 PER COURT :- 1. By this appeal, at the behest of the complainant, the complainant challenges the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhar, District Nanded dt.3.8.2010 in Sessions Case No.22 of 2010 acquitting the respondents/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution had alleged that the daughter of the complainant Varsha was administered poison by the accused and she had died on account of administration of poison. It is further allegation of the complainant that Varsha had been ill-treated and harassed and therefore, the accused have committed offence punishable under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. 3. In respect of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, Chemical Analyser’s report discloses that no poison was found in the viscera of the deceased. The prosecution has, therefore, failed to establish that deceased Varsha had died a homicidal death on account of administration of poison. 4. In respect of the offence punishable under Section 498-A, the trial Court in paragraph No.23 of the judgment has recorded that from the previous statement of the complaint, vide portions marked Exhibits 31 to 45, the complainant has admitted that he had no complaint about the treatment given by the accused to his daughter Varsha. Further during the enquiry in respect of the accidental death of Varsha, the complainant and his wife – PW 2 and PW 3 – have stated that they have no complaint regarding death of Varsha. The trial Court, therefore, came to the conclusion that there was no evidence whatsoever in respect of the charge punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. (2) CR.APPEAL/34/2011 4. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellant, we have perused the findings recorded by the trial Court and upon such perusal we find that the view taken by the trial Court is a possible view to be taken on the basis of the evidence on record and we do not find any perversity in the reasoning of the trial Court to warrant admission of the present appeal. 5. In the light of that matter, the appeal is summarily dismissed confirming the acquittal of the accused / respondents. (A.V.POTDAR,J.) (P.V.HARDAS,J.) ... akl