JUDGMENT Uma Nath Singh. J.:- This Crl. Misc. No. 32271 of 2008 (application for leave to appeal) arises out a judgment dated 16.1.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, in Sessions Case No. 2 of 11.5.2007 originating in complaint filed under Section 302/201/506/120-B IPC, wherein, learned Judge having found no cogent evidence recorded acquittal. 2. It appears that deceased Jagsir Ram was running a cycle/scooter repair shop. He developed love affairs with one Manpreet Kaur. Deceased was advised by his complainant father not to indulge in such activities. However, deceased would say that both would be marrying soon. Even uncle of girl, Mohinder Singh was advised to restrain his niece. Instead of going by advice, complainant and his son were threatened with dire consequences. On 27.1.2005, Chhindi one of accused, went to shop of deceased. He abused him and again threatened with dire consequences in presence of Manjit Singh and one Landhu. Next day on 28.1.2005, accused Surjit Singh took deceased-Jagsir Ram along from his house at 6.00 am in presence of complainant, father of the deceased, and one Surjit Singh son of Gugan Ram. Deceased was taken by accused Surjit Singh to the house of his in-laws where he was given severe beatings in connivance with other accused persons. This is also the allegation that after giving beatings, deceased was administered some poisonous substance and then thrown in a street. On hearing hue and cry, complainant Surjit Singh and Mehar Chand reached the street where deceased Jagsir Ram told them that he was given severe beatings by all accused persons who also administered some poisonous substance to him. Thereafter, deceased-Jag sir Ram was taken to a Doctor but by that time he breathed his last. SHO of concerned Police Station Sadar Kotkapura with other police persons reached the spot, prepared inquest report and sent the dead body for postmortem. This is also the allegation of complainant that during the course of investigation, police obtained his thumb impression on a blank paper and made a false report that deceased-Jagsir Ram committed suicide. Pursuant thereto, DDR No. 9 dated 28.1.2005 was recorded and after completing proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C., the case was closed. Not being satisfied with police action, complainant filed a private complaint in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Faridkot. That being a case triable by Court of Session, was committed as such. Pursuant thereto, DDR No. 9 dated 28.1.2005 was recorded and after completing proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C., the case was closed. Not being satisfied with police action, complainant filed a private complaint in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Faridkot. That being a case triable by Court of Session, was committed as such. On hearing parties, charges under Section 302/323/506 read with Section 34 IPC were framed. All accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. On behalf of prosecution, six witnesses were examined, namely, Phool Chand (PW-1), Surjit Singh (PW­2), Nathu Ram (PW-3), Kulwinder Singh @ Landhu (PW-4), Dr, S.S. Sandhu (PW-5) and Head Constable Harpal Singh. Accused in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied all allegations and pleaded innocence. They also stated that complainant did not belong to caste of Manpreet Kaur, hence, he refused to marry his son to that girl. Being aggrieved his son committed suicide by consuming some poisonous pesticide. 3. Heard learned counsel for applicant/complainant. 4. Learned counsel submitted that this is a case of direct evidence and eye witnesses accounts disclose that deceased-Jagsir Ram was given beatings before administration of poisonous substance. Learned counsel also submitted that in a background where deceased was having affairs with Manpreet Kaur, accused persons had a motive to commit this offence. Learned counsel further submitted that proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. were recorded after police obtained signature of complainant on a blank paper under the pressure of village Panchayat. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel and also examined the impugned judgment and accompanying testimonies of witnesses. We do not find any substance in their testimonies to disagree with findings recorded by learned trial Judge. There is no answer to the fact that the eye witnesses accounts are not supported by medical evidence. In deposition of Doctor, we do not find an opinion to the effect that he noticed any marks of external violence on the body of deceased. Hon’ble the Apex Court in various judgments on the question of interference with orders of acquittal including the ones reported in 2002 (3) RCR (Crl.) 861 Harijana Thirupala and others Vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad; 2004 (2) RCR (Crl.) 940 Shingara Singh Vs. State of Haryana and another and AIR 2005 SC 2439 State of UP Vs. Hon’ble the Apex Court in various judgments on the question of interference with orders of acquittal including the ones reported in 2002 (3) RCR (Crl.) 861 Harijana Thirupala and others Vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad; 2004 (2) RCR (Crl.) 940 Shingara Singh Vs. State of Haryana and another and AIR 2005 SC 2439 State of UP Vs. Gambhir Singh and others has taken a consistent view that if two views are possible on appreciation of evidence, the view recorded in favour of accused should be taken as the possible view. Thus, the impugned judgment does not require any interference in this application for leave to appeal. Hence, application for leave to appeal and accompanying appeal, both, are dismissed. ———————————