JUDGMENT A.R. Tiwari, J. 1. The appellant-State, on leave obtained on 5.4.1994 under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Act') has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 30.8.1993 rendered by First Additional Sessions Judge, Khargone in Sessions Trial No. 64 of 1991, thereby recording acquittal from the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 23.6.1990 dead body of Krishnabai, daughter-in-law of Anokhilal (respondent No. 2) was taken out from well by Narendra Jaiswal. Feeling that Krishnabai has died under circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that some other person has committed an offence, report (Ex. P/10) was lodged at Police Station Con. Autopsy was conducted. Postmortem report is Ex. P/1. Earlier Marg was registered under Section 174 of the Code (Ex. P/5-C). Spot maps, Exs. P/4-A, P/7 and P/8, were prepared, witnesses were interrogated. After completion of the investigation, challan was filed. Case was committed for trial to Sessions Court. Charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code was framed to which the respondents pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-13. After evaluation of the evidence, the Sessions Court recorded acquittal. 3. We have heard Mr. Girish Desai, learned Government Advocate for the appellant/State and Mr. Jaisingh, learned Counsel for the respondents. 4. Mr. Desai submitted that the Sessions Court erred in holding that demand of dowry is not properly proved. He also submitted that the Trial Court has gone wrong in concluding that there was no cruelty. He further submitted that the Court below has not properly considered the circumstances which are abnormal and which occurred within seven years of the marriage. He, therefore, submitted that the judgment of acquittal needs to be reversed and proper punishment may be imposed on the respondents. 5. Mr. Jaisingh, on the other hand, dubbed the aforesaid contentions as non-meritorious. According to him there is no acceptable evidence that soon before her death, deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband or in connection of any demand of dowry. He submitted that there is no evidence to show that the death has occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances within, seven years of marriage. He also submitted that no evidence is led to permit presumption. He submitted that there is no evidence to show that the death has occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances within, seven years of marriage. He also submitted that no evidence is led to permit presumption. He further submitted that the conclusion of the Court below is possible one and should not be dislodged in appeal against acquittal. 6. We proceed to examine the worth of rival contentions. 7. Initially the case was registered under Section 174 of the Code (Ex. P/5-C). FIR (Ex. P/10) was registered. PW 1 Dr. A.K. Jain deposed that the cause of death was asphyxia and death had occurred due to drowning in water. He does not state that the death was either homicidal or suicidal. The other evidence is also not of clinching nature. The Sessions Court evaluated the evidence and concluded as under: "xxx xxx xxx (Hindi Matter)" 8. The evidence naturally leads to an inference that it might as well be a case of accidental death. 9. The aforesaid conclusion is not shown to be erroneous or perverse. There is no circumstances to indicate any abnormality. There is also no proper evidence about cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry. The evidence about demand of dowry is too artificial to be believed. 10. The presumption of innocence is a basic tenet of our criminal jurisprudence. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Manoharlal, AIR 1981 SC 2073 , stated in classic terms, that in matters involving personal liberty of an individual, the Appellate Court's duty is not to adopt a "computerised approach" but screen, scan and sift evidence diligently and critically. In the instant case, we, in discharge of our duties on the same lines, noticed that the features, noted above, have fouled the story and rocked the substratum of the case. To put it in a nut-shell, it was an unconvincing tale unconvincingly told. 11. As noted above, it is infutile and futile to contend that the Trial Court committed any error or that its finding was on infirm foundation. Apart from this, it may additionally be borne in mind that the powers in appeals against acquittals are circumscribed by well-established constraints. In AIR 1987 SC 1083 , Tota Singh and Anr. 11. As noted above, it is infutile and futile to contend that the Trial Court committed any error or that its finding was on infirm foundation. Apart from this, it may additionally be borne in mind that the powers in appeals against acquittals are circumscribed by well-established constraints. In AIR 1987 SC 1083 , Tota Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab, it is laid down as under : "The jurisdiction of the Appellate Court in dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal is circumscribed by the limitation that no interference is to be made with the order of acquittal unless the approach made by the lower Court to the consideration of the evidence in the case is vitiated by some manifest illegality or the conclusion recorded by the Court below is such which could not have been possibly arrived at by any Court acting reasonably and judiciously and is, therefore, liable to be characterised as perverse. Where two views are possible on an appraisal of the evidence adduced in the case and the Court below has taken a view which is a plausible one, the Appellate Court cannot legally interfere with an order of acquittal even if it is of the opinion that the view taken by the Court below on its consideration of the evidence is erroneous." 12. The position emerging from the cumulative effect of all facts and circumstances, is that there is no acceptable, much less sufficient, evidence connecting the respondents with the crime as foisted upon them. It is apt to remember the principle that "fouler the crime, higher the degree of proof". The story as put forward is apocryphal. Testing the facts and features on the principles of law, as noted above, it can be unhesitatingly said that the case is meretricious. In the ultimate analysis, we feel acquiescent that this appeal merits the fate of dismissal. In the face of appeal being acarpous, embroglio of the respondents should come to an end. 13. Accordingly, we find that the Court below has taken the possible view and such view should remain undisturbed in appeal against acquittal. 14. The appeal is, thus, found to be devoid of substance and is accordingly dismissed. The respondents are on bail. Their bail-bonds shall now stand discharged.