Judgment : 1. This appeal stems from judgment and order in Sessions Trial No. 75/2007 passed on 4th June, 2009 by learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhandara, who acquitted the respondent-accused of the offence punishable under sections 304 & 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Background facts in nutshell are these : The respondent-accused was prosecuted upon accusation that he had applied electric current around crop of paddy in his field situated at village Kodurli Tah. Paoni, Dist. Bhandara. The electric current was allegedly circulated through iron wire as well as on flexible wire and it was sourced from DP of Electric Motor pump. One Bhagwat Bhure, while passing through the field of accused, sustained an electric shock and died. After the incident, it is alleged that the accused had removed all iron wires and flexible wires as also the bamboo sticks from the field in order to destroy the evidence. Investigation was set in motion pursuant to the report (Exh.14) made by Mr Bisan Shrawan Jibhkate registered at Paoni Police Station. During the course of investigation, a crime being Crime No. 97/2007 was registered at Paoni Police Station and the accused came to be arrested. Upon completion of investigation, the accused was chargesheeted before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Paoni, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions. 3. The trial Court, after recording evidence and hearing submissions in the course of trial, found that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove offences punishable under sections 304 and 201 of the IPC and recorded acquittal. 4. Learned APP in support of the Appeal submitted that the trial Court erred in not convicting the accused for culpable homicide not amounting to murder and /or for destruction of evidence of electric wire, bamboo-sticks etc. 5. The learned Advocate for respondent-accused supported judgment and order of the trial Court. 6. I have heard submissions of respective Counsel and perused the record. The case of the prosecution rests upon circumstantial evidence as there was no any direct evidence about the occurrence. PW 2, 3, 7 and 9 are closely related to deceased Bhagwat. Their evidence is in the nature of hearsay or conjectures, surmises and guesswork which could not throw any light as to how the incident happened. The case of the prosecution rests upon circumstantial evidence as there was no any direct evidence about the occurrence. PW 2, 3, 7 and 9 are closely related to deceased Bhagwat. Their evidence is in the nature of hearsay or conjectures, surmises and guesswork which could not throw any light as to how the incident happened. It is alleged that dead body of Bhagwat was dragged to his field; however, there is no circumstantial evidence to prove any abrasion on dead body in order to believe such version. No evidence was led beyond all reasonable doubt to believe that deceased met his death due to alleged crime. The trial Court has examined totality of evidence; but did not find any nexus between death of injured and the seized articles etc. Hence no fault can be found with the findings recorded by trial Court based upon the evidence. In Ghurey Lal vs. State of UP : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 60, the Apex Court held thus: “If the trial Court view is possible and plausible, High Court should not substitute the same by its own possible views. Due or proper weight and consideration must be given to the trial Court's decision and findings.” Furthermore, in para 75 of the said judgment, it is observed, “ that the trial Court has the advantage of watching the demeanour or witnesses who have given evidence, therefore, appellant Court should be slow to interfere with the decision of the trial Court. An acquittal by the trial Court should not be interfered with unless it is totally perverse or wholly unsustainable.” 7. I am of the opinion that the trial Court appears to have examined the evidence and by the well-reasoned judgment impugned herein, acquitted the accused. No perversity or infirmity is found. In view of the law laid down in Ghurey Lal's case (supra) no interference is required in the impugned judgment and order. The appeal being sans merit, deserve dismissal, which I direct.