drp {1} Cri. Application No.4557/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4557 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra APPLICANT VERSUS Baliram s/o Sopan Warkad & others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.D.V.Tele, APP for applicant State Mr.S.J.Salunke, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3 ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 11th February 2011 PER COURT: 1. This is an application filed by the applicant-State seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment of Extra Joint Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna, dated 19.07.2010, in Sessions Case No.153/2009, acquitting the respondents for offence punishable u/s 498A and 307 r/s 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The accused were tried for the aforesaid offence on the allegations that the accused, on 05.08.2009, at about 7.00 a.m., administered poison known as “Ratkill” to the complainant Kalindibai. The trial court, after appreciating the evidence of Kalindibai and taking into consideration the omissions and contradictions of vital aspect of the prosecution, came to be conclusion that in the light of the disclosure made by Kalindibai to drp {2} Cri. Application No.4557/2010 PW-4 Dr.Kailas that she had herself consumed poison, acquitted the respondents for offence punishable u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. In respect of the allegations that on account of demand of Rs.15,000/- the complainant Kalindibai was harassed, did not find favours with the trial court as there was complete omission in the First Information Report in respect of earlier demands or ill- treatment meted out to Kalindibai. The trial court, taking into consideration the evidence of Kalindibai and her father, came to the conclusion that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the evidence against the respondents, beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court, therefore, acquitted the respondents. 4. With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties we have perused the findings recorded by the trial court and upon such perusal, according to us, the view taken by the trial court is a possible view to be taken on the basis of the evidence on record. We do not notice any perversity in the reasoning of the trial court, to warrant any interference in this appeal against acquittal. Consequently, this application fails and is dismissed. Leave refused. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/A11/criapln4557-10