JUDGMENT : 1. The State of Rajasthan is in appeal against the judgment of acquittal rendered by a Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan. The respondent was allegedly responsible for killing of her husband on the night intervening 22/23.6.1993. Though there was no eye-witness as such, mother of the deceased was stated to be the first to reach the spot of occurrence to find the accused standing near the cot where the deceased was lying with injuries. On hearing her cries, the father of the deceased, his brother and brother's wife also came there. They found that the deceased was lying unconscious on the cot, while there was a blood stained axe lying by the side of the cot and the accused standing nearby. Information was lodged on 23.6.1993 at about 9.00 a.m. the Investigating Officer, PW-10, after making investigation, submitted charge-sheet and the accused faced trial. She pleaded innocence. The trial Judge found that her presence at the place of occurrence was itself sufficient to hold her guilty, though it was accepted that exaggerations were made by the witnesses in the role ascribed to the accused. She was found guilty of offences punishable u/s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'the IPC') and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. On appeal by the accused, the High Court found that the accusations were not brought home. Several factors weighed with the High Court for coming to this conclusion. First and foremost was the attempt to make improvements and make PW-6, the mother, an eye-witness to the occurrence. Further, the Doctor's evidence belied the prosecution version as to when the first information report was lodged. Additionally, the first information report lodged reached about a day later with the Magistrate whose office was stated to be a few yards away from the police station. Taking into account the cumulative effect of all these factors, the accused was help to be not guilty. 2. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the State submitted that the presence of the accused on the spot has been established. Her dupatta was also soaked with blood. She did not react in the manner any women would react when she sees her husband in an injured condition. 2. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the State submitted that the presence of the accused on the spot has been established. Her dupatta was also soaked with blood. She did not react in the manner any women would react when she sees her husband in an injured condition. Merely because there was some delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate, that, per-se, would not be a ground to discard the prosecution version. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused supported the judgment of the High Court. 4. We find that the High Court has analysed the evidence in detail and has come to a definite conclusion that the evidence suffers from infirmities and discrepancies. Though the factors independently may not be sufficient to discard the prosecution version, when the cumulative effect thereof is taken and the suspicious circumstances are analysed, the view taken by the High Court cannot be said to be unreasonable or perverse, even though a different view may be available. Since the view of the High Court is not one which is perverse, we see no reason to interfere in this appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed. 5. The bail bonds of the accused be discharged. Appeal dismissed.