JUDGMENT : M.M. Punchhi, J. 1. The respondent was accused of having caused the murder of his wife by hitting her with an axe on a road leading from his village to the village of his wife. It is otherwise not disputed that the respondent's deceased wife was living separately from him in the other village and had some years prior to the incident, obtained an order of maintenance against him. It is further not disputed that the respondent had married another woman and had raised a family from the latter wedlock. There were two pieces of evidence which were projected by the prosecution to claim conviction of the respondent. The first one was an extra-judicial confession made to Girdhari, PW, the Village Kotwar (Watchman) and the other was seizure of an axe and dhoti from the person of the respondent. The trial court accepted such evidence in order to record conviction but the High Court, on appeal, has doubted both pieces of evidence and has recorded an order of acquittal. 2. The High Court has ruled that the prosecution has failed to prove that the dhoti which was seized from the person of the respondent at the police station, which was found stained with blood by the chemical examiner, was the one which the respondent had been wearing at the time of the suggested commission of offence. The statement made by Girdhari, PW, and the other PW, Ramcharan, that the axe in the hands of the appellant was bloodstained, was considered by the High Court to be an improvement since no such mention was available in the FIR lodged by Girdhari, PW. With regard to the extra-judicial confession, the High Court has doubted the word of Girdhari, PW, since it was viewed on account of his conduct as to why no attempt had been made by him to detain the respondent after the confession was made to him. It is in these circumstances that the High Court gave the benefit of doubt to the respondent. 3. We have been taken through the judgment of the High Court and we have critically examined it with support of the evidence led by the prosecution. We find that the High Court has taken a possible view which cannot be faulted merely by entertaining the converse. We, therefore, have no hesitation in affirming the view taken by the High Court. 4. We find that the High Court has taken a possible view which cannot be faulted merely by entertaining the converse. We, therefore, have no hesitation in affirming the view taken by the High Court. 4. The appeal, thus, fails and is hereby dismissed.