JUDGMENT:- This revision petition impugns Judgment and order dated 18-12-1997 passed by Assistant Sessions Judge, Parbhani in Sessions Trial No.140/1997, acquitting Respondent nos. l to 3 of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that respondent no.1 - Jagannath married deceased Anusayabai at Katneshwar in the month of July, 1994. After the marriage, the deceased was nicely treated. However, in the month of March, 1996, respondent no.2 purchased agricultural land by obtaining handloan of Rs.10,000/- from the petitioner. 2-3 months after the loan was given, petitioner made enquiries about repayment. Respondents, however, told him not to demand repayment. He conveyed this information to Ramchandra Patil, from whom the money was borrowed. Ramchandra Patil recovered this amount from respondents. Since then, ill-treatment of deceased Anusayabai started. Deceased disclosed these facts on the occasion of Dasera of the year 1996. She was taken back by respondent no. 1 after Diwali. Again deceased visited her parents after the gap of about 2-3 months. On this occasion also, she informed her parents about the ill-treatment given to her as the loan amount was recovered by Ramchandra Patil. On 27-03-1997 information was given to the petitioner by Ambadas Chapke about the mishap. The petitioner and members of his family went to the scene of occurrence. After funeral, petitioner lodged a complaint against respondent nos. 1 to 3. On the basis of this complaint, offence came to be registered. Prior to registration of the offence, A.D. No.11/ 1997 was registered. Panchanama of the scene of occurrence and Inquest Panchanama were prepared and the dead body was sent for postmortem. The Medical Officer has prepared post-mortem report showing cause of death as asphyxia due to drowning. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed against respondent nos.1 to 3. 3. Learned Trial Judge found that the evidence of witnesses in respect of ill-treatment does not inspire confidence. According to him, the death might have been accidental. In this view of the matter, he acquitted respondent nos.1 to 3 by order dated 18th December, 1997. This order of the trial Judge has been impugned in the present revision by the petitioner as the State has not filed any appeal against acquittal. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has taken the Court through the entire evidence. In this view of the matter, he acquitted respondent nos.1 to 3 by order dated 18th December, 1997. This order of the trial Judge has been impugned in the present revision by the petitioner as the State has not filed any appeal against acquittal. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has taken the Court through the entire evidence. According to learned Counsel, the appreciation of evidence by lower courts is not proper. As a result perverse findings came to be recorded, thus the impugned order of acquittal deserves to be set aside. 5. The evidence adduced by the prosecution in this case on the point of ill-treatment is that of petitioner, his wife and Ramchandra Patil. All these are interested witnesses. Evidence of petitioner and other two witnesses is that ill-treatment commenced after Ramchandra Patil recovered the loan amount of Rs.10,000/-. This was the cause for ill-treatment. Learned Trial judge has analyzed evidence of these three witnesses and has noticed inherent contradictions and omissions in the evidence of these witnesses. So far as recovery of the loan amount is concerned, evidence of Ramchandra Patil (PW-4) is material. In the beginning Ramchandra Patil stated that he recovered the amount of hand loan from respondent no.2 Bhimrao. However, during the course of his deposition, he adopted a stand that he never demanded repayment of loan, but had sent Balasaheb Sakhre of his village for the purpose of recovery of loan on one or two occasions. The story developed during the deposition that Respondent no.2 promised Balasaheb Sakhre that the repayment would be made after 4-5 days. He then came to the village of Ramchandra Patil and made repayment is an after thought. Learned Trial Judge has rightly pointed out that the contradiction is material and makes evidence on the point of repayment of loan suspicious. In addition to this, there is no cogent evidence to establish that loan was in fact advanced. Learned Trial Judge has rightly pointed out that Ramchandra who is a police Patil, is a relative of the husband of Gumphabai, a daughter of complainant. There is nothing on record to show why the petitioner should approach Ramchandra Patil for borrowing amount of Rs.10,000/- which was to be paid to respondent no.2 - Bhimrao as a loan because Ramchandra Patil could have advanced the loan himself. There is nothing on record to show why the petitioner should approach Ramchandra Patil for borrowing amount of Rs.10,000/- which was to be paid to respondent no.2 - Bhimrao as a loan because Ramchandra Patil could have advanced the loan himself. Another glaring circumstance which affects veracity of the evidence of these prosecution witnesses is that petitioner's sister-in-law Subabai also resides at Katneshwar. Learned Trial Judge has rightly observed that had there been any ill-treatment, deceased would have disclosed it to Subabai and Gumphabai. The fact that this is not done casts shadow of doubt on the veracity of the evidence of the petitioner, his wife and Ramchandra (PW-4), regarding ill-treatment of the deceased. It can be seen that according to the petitioner, there was no ill-treatment till Dasera. From the material on record, the story of hand loan of Rs.10,000/appears to have been set up after the demise of deceased Anusayabai. 6. After arriving at the conclusion that the evidence in respect of ill-treatment does not inspire confidence, the learned Trial Judge has considered the circumstances in which death is caused. It is not in dispute that all the ladies of the village including the deceased, used to go to the well for washing clothes and that the deceased had sustained scratches on buttock and calf which are usually caused on account of a fall and negative theory of suicide. In view of these circumstances, learned Trial Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that the deceased was neither subjected to ill-treatment nor has committed a suicide. 7. In revision, this Court can interfere with the verdict of the trial Court, if it is found that material evidence is ignored, or there is any other glaring defect resulting in miscarriage of justice. However, this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence for coming to a different conclusion. The standard of a prudent man is applied for the test of reasonableness. If the conclusions drawn by the Trial Judge are logical, it is not open to the revisional court to upset the findings recorded by the Trial Judge, even if another view is possible. The Apex Court has considered this aspect in the matter of Jagannath Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Ramayan Singh and Anr. reported in AIR 2002 SC 2229 . If the conclusions drawn by the Trial Judge are logical, it is not open to the revisional court to upset the findings recorded by the Trial Judge, even if another view is possible. The Apex Court has considered this aspect in the matter of Jagannath Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Ramayan Singh and Anr. reported in AIR 2002 SC 2229 . Their Lordships observed in para 7 of the report that "It is true that it is open to a High Court in revision to set aside an order of acquittal even at the instance of private parties, though the State may not have thought fit to appeal, but this jurisdiction should in our opinion be exercised by the High Court only in exceptional cases, when there is some glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. "It is further observed by Their Lordships that though it is not possible to lay down the criterion for determining exceptional cases, reference can be made to some of the instances in which interference by revisional court is justified, namely, 1) where the trial court has wrongly shut out evidence, which the prosecution desires to produce or where the appeal court has wrongly held evidence which was admitted by the trial court to be inadmissible, or where material evidence has been overlooked either by the trial Court or by the appeal court or where the acquittal is based on compounding of offence which is invalid under the law. It is not permissible for the revisional court to come to a different conclusion on the basis of same evidence. If the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court are based on the proper appreciation of evidence, the findings cannot be set aside merely on the ground that another view is possible. In the present case, as discussed earlier, the Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record. All the relevant facts and circumstances are considered for coming to the final conclusion. No fault can be found with the findings recorded by the Trial Judge. Therefore, these findings cannot be condemned as perverse. In this view of the matter, the contention of learned counsel for the respondents nos.1 to 3 that no case for interference has been made out, deserves to be sustained. No fault can be found with the findings recorded by the Trial Judge. Therefore, these findings cannot be condemned as perverse. In this view of the matter, the contention of learned counsel for the respondents nos.1 to 3 that no case for interference has been made out, deserves to be sustained. In the light of this, the revision petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. Petition dismissed.