Honble PRASAD, J.–State has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal of respondents dated 21.3.85 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 50/84. (2). The relevant facts are that P.W. 9 Devi Lal lodged a report Ex. P-8 on 13.4.84 alleging that Manju daughter of his late brother was married to Mula Ram about four years ago. After marriage she went twice or thrice to the house of her in-laws. Mula Ram was working as Carpenter at Bombay and in his absence father and mother of Mula Ram turned Manju out of their house. Therefore, she remained at the house of her maternal uncle Devi Lal for about six months. Manjus mother used to live with Devil Lal. Later on Mula Ram the husband of deceased Manju came to the house of Devi Lal and persuaded to take Manju to his house. It was further alleged that one Ranu Lal informed next day that Kunja Ram the father-in- law of Manju and Smt. Balu the mother-in-law and Malu Ram had committed Manjus murder. She was cremated without informing to her mother or maternal uncle. One Tulsi Ram had witnessed the cremation of Manju. It was suspected that the hus- band, father-in- law and mother-in-law had committed the murder of Manju and surreptitiously cremated her. A case under Sections 302/34 and 201, I.P.C. was registered and investigated. Charge sheet was submitted before the Magistrate having jurisdiction who committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur. It may be stated that no challan was submitted against the husband of the de- ceased Manju. Learned Sessions Judge framed substantive charge under Section 302, I.P.C. against Smt. Balu and under Section 302/34, as well as 201, I.P.C. against Kunja Ram. The accused-respondents after having heard the charges denied their indictment and claimed trial. Thereupor prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses in support of its case. Thereafter accused respondents were examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C. They did not produce any witness in defence. Learned Sessions Judge vide his judgment dated 21.3.85 acquitted both the accused respondents. Hence this appeal. (3). We have heard the learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record carefully. (4). Thereafter accused respondents were examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C. They did not produce any witness in defence. Learned Sessions Judge vide his judgment dated 21.3.85 acquitted both the accused respondents. Hence this appeal. (3). We have heard the learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record carefully. (4). The relevant law is available in Ashok Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan (1), wherein it has been held that interference of High Court with trial courts decision is called for in case of perversity of misreading of evidence. So we have to see if the learned Sessions Judge has misread the evidence or any perversity is found in his judgment. We have gone through the entire evidence brought on record during the trial by the prosecution. The case of the prosecution is that it was Smt. Balu who threw Manju in tanka with common intention of Kunja Ram. Kunja Ram was further charged that the dead body of Manju was taken out of the tanka then she was cremated. He thereby caused disappearance of evidence of an offence committed by him and his wife. (5). Learned Public Prosecutor has contended that Smt. Manju could not have either committed suicide or could not have fallen in the tanka accidentally. He submitted that there was always a quarrel in between Manju and respondent Smt. Balu therefore, according to him the prosecution evidence has not been proprely appreciated by the learned Sessions Judge. He also submitted that the respondent No.2 Kunja Ram did not attend the cremation and his absence from the place of cremation suggests that it was he who was involved in the matter. The learned counsel for the respondents has opposed all these arguments. (6). P.W.1 Mula Ram is the husband of the deceased Manju. According to him his wife (deceased) and his mother had good relations. They never quarrelled. He has stated that Manju had returned to her inlaws house three days before the date of occurrence. There is no evidence that Smt. Balu had any quarrel with Manju. There is no evidence that Smt. Balu had thrown, Manju in tanka. The incident is said to have taken place in the night intervening 11th & 12th April 1984. He has stated that Manju had returned to her inlaws house three days before the date of occurrence. There is no evidence that Smt. Balu had any quarrel with Manju. There is no evidence that Smt. Balu had thrown, Manju in tanka. The incident is said to have taken place in the night intervening 11th & 12th April 1984. Mula Ram was present but his wife had herself gone to fetch water from the tanka and when she did not return for 10 or 15 minutes, he went to tanka. By that time, she was dead. P.W. 2 Ranu Lal has stated that on 11.4.84 when he woke up at about 5.00 a.m. he saw Kunja Ram, Gheesu Ram, Tulsi Ram, Alsee Ram were returning from the cremation ground. He later on heard that Manju was thrown in the tanka but he did not know as to who had done so. He does not say that he had heard that it was Smt. Balu who threw Manju in the tanka. P.W. 3 Madu Ram and P.W. 4 Triloka Ram have stated that Manju fell in the tanka and died. But they do not name any of the accused persons. P.W.5 Hassandeen did go to the tanka where he saw a lady lying therein. P.W.6 Shanker Lal says that he had gone to the cremation ground and by that time Manju had been cremated. (7). P.W. 7 Raman Lal stated that Manju was married to Mula Ram. Mula Ram had come to his village to the house of the parents of Manju and assured that the would take Manju for four or five months to Bombay and that his wife Manju would live for four or five months along with his parents and he would also stay in the village on this assurance. She was sent to her in-laws. He says that Mula Ram had told that the nature of his mother was harsh but Mula Ram does not support it. The witness further stated that he did not receive any information from the accused respondents about the death of Manju. It was Ranu Lal who informed him. This witness was cross examined at length. He is not in a position to say anything against the accused respondents. Similar is the evidence of P.W.8 Kasturi mother of Manju. P.W.9 Devi Lal admitted that he reported the matter to the police. It was Ranu Lal who informed him. This witness was cross examined at length. He is not in a position to say anything against the accused respondents. Similar is the evidence of P.W.8 Kasturi mother of Manju. P.W.9 Devi Lal admitted that he reported the matter to the police. He has also stated that Manju told that her parents in-law used to quarrel with her. But it has not been proved that they killed her. Guilt against respondents is not brought home at all. It may also be stated that no inquest was made under Sec. 174, Cr.P.C. Arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor are based on conjectures. Non presence of Manjus father-in-law (accused respondent-Kunja Ram) at cremation ground is not an indication towards his guilt as there was a custom in his society that the father-in-law does not go to cremate her daughter-in-law. (9). We do not find any perversity in the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. No interference is required in the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.