JUDGMENT Satish Kumar Mittal , J.:- This order shall dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous No. A-551- MA of 2010, filed by the State of Haryana, and Criminal Revision No. 1880 of 2010, filed by complainant Parvesh Kumar. 2. Crl. Misc. No. A-551-MA of 2010 has been filed by the State of Haryana seeking leave to appeal against the judgment dated 12.1.2010, passed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Bhiwani, whereby accused Sudesh Devi (respondent herein) has been acquitted in case FIR No. 208 dated 24.7.2009 under Sections 307, 328 IPC, Police Station Sadar Dadri. 3. Crl. Revn. No. 1880 of 2010 has been filed by Parvesh Kumar, complainant in the aforesaid FIR, challenging the same judgment acquitting respondent No.2 Sudesh Devi. 4. The FIR in this case was registered on the basis of the statement made by Parvesh Kumar, who is serving in Indian Army, against his wife Sudesh Devi, who is stated to be a vagabond lady and with whom he was having strained relations. It was alleged that on 19.7.2009, on the occasion of Shivratri, when he had come on leave for one month and seven days, he held a camp for devotees of God Shiva (Kawarias) at his tube well and his wife was at home. At about 12.30 PM, his wife made a telephone call from the mobile phone of his nephew Narender son of Ved Parkash on his mobile phone, asking him to return home as two guests had arrived. Thereupon, the complainant immediately reached home on his motor cycle. There his wife told that the guests had gone. He again went to the camp and returned home at 8 PM. At that time, his wife offered him Kheer but he refused to eat it. Thereupon, she prepared Churma and served it to him. On eating only three bites of Churma, he became unconscious and on regaining consciousness, he found himself admitted in PGIMS, Rohtak. He further stated that lateron, his family members told him that he was got down from the ceiling fan by Lila son of Randhir Sharma resident of village Mori, who can tell the detailed story as to how he was got down from the fan. Thereafter, many persons of his family from the village arrived at the spot, who took him to the Hospital at Dadri, from where he was referred to PGIMS, Rohtak. Thereafter, many persons of his family from the village arrived at the spot, who took him to the Hospital at Dadri, from where he was referred to PGIMS, Rohtak. The statement of complainant Parvesh Kumar was recorded on 21.7.2009, i.e. two days after the alleged occurrence. He had stated that now, his wife had gone to her parents’ home with her brothers. On 22.7.2009, the complainant was discharged and the rope was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PB. The respondent was arrested on 29.7.2009. On 31.7.2009, during interrogation, she suffered disclosure statement Ex.PK in the presence of Lady Constable Permila Devi that the complainant used to harass her and she with the help of two pesons called by her from her parents’ village, served Churma to the complainant and hanged him by the ceiling fan. 5. After completion of investigation, challan was filed against the respondent-accused and she was charge sheeted for the offences under Sections 328 and 307 IPC, to which she did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 6. In support of its case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses. 7. PW.1 Parvesh Kumar is the complainant, who reiterated his initial version. PW.2 Ved Parkash is the brother of the complainant. PW.3 Dr. Vidya Sagar, who medico legally examined the complainant, proved his MLR Ex.PC. PW.4 Lila Ram has stated that on the day of occurrence, at about 9.45 PM, he was taken by the accused to her house, where he found the complainant hanging by ceiling fan and his one leg was on the bed, while the other was hanging on the floor. Thereafter, Naveen and Hawa Singh came there and with their help, he got the complainant down after untying the rope from the ceiling fan. Thereafter, Ved Parkash and others had also come on the spot and took the complainant to the Hospital. PW.5 Sub Inspector Balbir Singh is the Investigating Officer of the case. PW.6 Sub Insepctor Dharam Chand, PW.7 ESI Uday Singh, PW.8 Anil Kumar Jain, Draftsman and PW.9 Sub Inspector/SHO Om Parkash are the formal witnesses. 8. In her statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the respondentaccused denied all the allegations appearing against her in the prosecution evidence. She pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. PW.6 Sub Insepctor Dharam Chand, PW.7 ESI Uday Singh, PW.8 Anil Kumar Jain, Draftsman and PW.9 Sub Inspector/SHO Om Parkash are the formal witnesses. 8. In her statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the respondentaccused denied all the allegations appearing against her in the prosecution evidence. She pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. She stated that the complainant wanted to re-marry and his brothers are getting his land and the entire income from the land is being utilized by them, regarding which she raised objection, to which they got annoyed and got the false case registered against her. She stated that she neither served any poisonous substance to the complainant nor tried to hang him by the ceiling fan. However, she did not examine any witness in her defence. 9. The trial court, after considering the evidence and the documents available on the record, while granting benefit of doubt, acquitted the respondent-accused. 10. We have heard Shri G.S. Chahal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, and Shri Anil Kshetarpal, Advocate, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant-husband, and have also gone through the impugned judgment, whereby the trial court has acquitted the respondent, while granting her benefit of doubt. In our view, the trial court has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. In order to prove the offence under Section 328 IPC, the prosecution has not led any evidence to establish that there was some poisonous substance in the Churma served by the respondent-accused to the complainant and after taking the same, he became unconscious. Even in the Medico Legal Report (Ex.PC), there was nothing to indicate that due to some poisonous substance, the complainant became unconscious. 11. As far as the alleged offence under Section 307 IPC is concerned, learned trial court, while taking into consideration the statement of PW.3 Dr. Vidya Sagar and the Medico Legal Report (Ex.PC) of the complainant, came to the conclusion that there was no visible mark of injury on any part of the body, except anterior of neck and in view of the statement of PW.3 Dr. Vidya Sagar, possibility of the said injury to have been self inflicted could not be ruled out. Vidya Sagar and the Medico Legal Report (Ex.PC) of the complainant, came to the conclusion that there was no visible mark of injury on any part of the body, except anterior of neck and in view of the statement of PW.3 Dr. Vidya Sagar, possibility of the said injury to have been self inflicted could not be ruled out. It has been further held by the learned trial court that it is improbable, rather impossible, that complainant Parvesh Kumar, who being a Military personnel was very healthy in body, age and stature, while lying unconscious on the floor of the room in his own house or even sitting in a chair, was picked up by his wife, after putting a noose, made out of a rope, around his neck and then hanged by the ceiling fan in the room, while his one leg was on the bed and the other was hanging on the floor. Taking into consideration all these facts and further the fact that the prosecution version, as put forwarded by the complainant and PW.4 Lila Ram, is highly improbable, the learned trial court has come to the conclusion that the evidence led by the prosecution is not sufficient to convict the respondent for the offence under Section 307 IPC. The learned trial court has also come to the conclusion that possibility of the complainant to have enacted the whole drama on account of having motive against his wife cannot be ruled out, as the relations between the husband (complainant) and the wife (accused) were strained. The wife was getting maintenance of ‘ 2,600/- per month for herself and her two children. Rather the wife along with her children was living with her parents, therefore, the trial court has come to the conclusion that it does not stand to reason that the wife will come to the house of her husband and commit the alleged offence. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court acquitted the respondent after giving her the benefit of doubt. 12. After considering all the aforesaid factors, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the trial court is one of the possible view, which can be taken from the evidence led by the prosecution in the instant case. 12. After considering all the aforesaid factors, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the trial court is one of the possible view, which can be taken from the evidence led by the prosecution in the instant case. It cannot be said that the view taken by the trial court, while acquitting the respondent-accused, is totally perverse, which cannot be taken, at all, in the given circumstances. It is settled law that the judgment of acquittal is to be interfered only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. It has been held by the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Sohan Lal and others, (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 53 that the High Court should interfere in the judgment of acquittal only when it finds that the evidence on record clearly and absolutely indicate the guilt of the accused. The High Court should not interfere merely on the basis that from the evidence on record a different view as to the trial Court is possible. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any ground to grant leave to appeal. 14. Consequently, the application seeking leave to appeal, filed by the State of Haryana, as well as the revision petition, filed by the complainant, are hereby dismissed. —————————