JUDGMENT - PALSHIKAR V.G., J.: - By this appeal, the Government of Maharashtra seeks enhancement of sentence as ordered by the learned trial Judge in the circumstances mentioned herein after. 2. The incident is of 26-6-1989 around 7 p.m. at village Takli, under Police Station Ural where, according to the prosecution, 13 accused persons formed unlawful assembly with the object of committing murder of one Deoman and accordingly assaulted him. The complaint was lodged immediately by one Rajaram, on the basis of which, investigation was stated. Accused persons were arrested and on completion of the investigation, they were charge-sheeted in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, under section 302 r/w sections 147, 148, 149 of I.P.C. and were tried by the learned Judge. 3. The prosecution has examined 21 witnesses to prove its case that unlawful assembly had the common object of committing murder of Deoman and therefore, the accused persons are liable to be convicted under section 302 I.P.C. along with other sections. 4. The learned trial Judge on appreciation of the evidence on record came to the conclusion that none of the accused is guilty under section 302 of the Penal Code read with section 149 of I.P.C. and therefore, proceeded to acquit all of them under section 302 of I.P.C. He proceeded to convict accused No. 3 to 11 under sections 147, 148, 324 of I.P.C. and convicted accused No. 1 under section 304 Part I of Indian Penal Code sentencing him to suffer 7 years R.I. It is this order of acquittal of accused No. 1 under section 302 I.P.C. the contention being all the accused had the common object of committing murder of Deoman is being challenged. The acquittal of accused No. 3 to 11 under sections 307 and 326 is also challenged on similar grounds the contention basically being that the learned trial Judge committed substantial error in appreciating the evidence. 5. With the assistance of the learned AGP, we have scrutinized the medical evidence on which heavy reliance is placed by the learned APP. He contended that looking to the severity of the injuries, number of injuries and the manner in which they were caused, clearly indicate the intention of the accused in committing murder. 5. With the assistance of the learned AGP, we have scrutinized the medical evidence on which heavy reliance is placed by the learned APP. He contended that looking to the severity of the injuries, number of injuries and the manner in which they were caused, clearly indicate the intention of the accused in committing murder. It was further argued by the learned APP that the accused No. 1 was armed with a knife and had formed in unlawful assembly solely with this object, the intention being clear by the manner in which the injuries are caused and possession of a knife by the accused No. 1. All these aspects in the evidence are considered by the learned trial Judge and on appreciation of the same, he has come to the conclusion that the accused No. 1 was guilty under section 304 Part I only. In our opinion, on appreciation of the medical evidence if the learned trial Judge has come to the conclusion that the accused did not knew that the injury would be likely to cause death and had no intention to cause a fatal injury, the finding cannot be called perverse so as to require interference by this Court under section 378 Cri.P.C. The parameter under which the order of acquittal is to be reversed are now well settled by the decision of the Supreme Court of India and also by our Court. 6. It is really a strict principle of law that when on appreciation of evidence a particular view is taken by the learned trial Judge and another view is possible by the Appellate Authority, it need not take other view merely because it is so possible unless the view taken by the trial Judge is proved to be perversed. As pointed out above, there is no perversity involved in the view taken by the learned trial Judge in ordering the conviction under section 304 Part I. In our opinion, no case is made out for interference in the acquittal under section 302 I.P.C. In the result, appeal fails and is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. -----