JUDGMENT :- Heard Mr. B.A. Shinde h/for Mr. V.P. Latange, Advocate for the Applicants, Mrs. Rashmi Kulkarni, Advocate h/for Mr. S.D. Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mrs. Pratibha Bharad, A.P.P. for the State of Maharashtra. With the assistance of learned counsel for the respective parties, I have gone through the impugned judgment and also the record. 2. The present Cri.Revn.Appln. is filed by first informant - Dattatraya Narayan Shitole, on whose report dated 2nd May, 1996, CR No.117/1996 was registered against Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 with Police Station, Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar for the offences punishable U/Section.s. 436, 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After the trial in Sessions Case No.264 Of 1996, the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar vide his Judgment and Order dated 27th February, 2001 was pleased to acquit Resp.Nos. 1 to 3 for the offences punishable U/Section.s. 436, 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The State has not preferred Criminal Appeal questioning the correctness of the Judgment and Order of acquittal. 3. As per the prosecution case before the court below, on 1st May, 1995 at 23.00 hrs. first informant - Dattatraya, his brother Bapu, his parents and wife Lalita were slipping outside the hut. Smt. Rajubai was the wife of Bapu. They have one son by name Ghanashyam, who was 2 ½ years old at the relevant time. Since Ghanashyam was having fever, Rajubai was sleeping inside the hut with him; where-as other members of the family were sleeping outside the hut. First informant woke-up due to dog barking that time, he noticed presence of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Respondent No.1 alighted match stick and set the hut of first informant on fire. Resp.Nos. 1 to 3 thereafter ran away. He could notice Resp.Nos. 1 to 3 in the light of the flames. Due to hue and cry raised by him, other family members woke up and the neighbourers also gathered at the spot. They tried to extinguish the fire however, since water was not available, fire was not extinguished, resulting into death of Rajubai and Ghanashyam. From the First Information Report and also case which was unfolded during the course of evidence, it was noticed that, dispute in respect of the agricultural land in between first informant and Resp.Nos. 1 to 3 was pending. From the First Information Report and also case which was unfolded during the course of evidence, it was noticed that, dispute in respect of the agricultural land in between first informant and Resp.Nos. 1 to 3 was pending. PW No.7 Bapu Shripati Bhosale was related to both the first informant and Resp.Nos. 1 to 3. The court below on appreciation, found that the prosecution has failed to prove its case and therefore, acquitted Resp.Nos. 1 to 3. 4. It is rightly observed by the court below that enmity is double edged weapon, it provides a motive for commission of offence and at the same time it induces party to involve the persons who are in inimical terms. The court on appreciation of the evidence found that PW No.7 Bapu Bhosale had certain property in the village of Resp.Nos. 1 to 3 and the first informant bearing land Gat No.s. 179, 165 and 180. According to his evidence, some portion of the agricultural land Gat No.177 was sold to Resp.Nos. 1 to 3 and Sanjay Maruti; where-as portion of the landed property bearing Gat No.s. 165 and 180 was sold by him to the mother of first informant. However, he specifically denied that in respect of land Gat No.180 there was an agreement to sale with Respondent No.1. Not only that, he denied that Respondent No.1 was in possession of land Gat No.180. However, the first informant testified that prior to the sale deed, respondent No.1 entered into an agreement with Bapu and was in possession of said land. Thus, the court below has found that dispute in respect of landed property was going on and in fact, same civil litigation was also pending. 5. It is to be noted that as per the versions of first informant PW No.2 Dattatraya, he had seen accused persons prior to setting the fire and actually seen Accused No.1 while setting the fire to hut. He further claimed that, he raised hue and cry, therefore, neighbourers arrived at the spot. However, none of the neighbour was examined by the prosecution before the court. It is established on record that hut was surrounded by dwelling houses of Sadashiv Bhosale, Dada Ganpat Late and others. 6. Further after the incident, P.W. No.4 Bapu Shitole, brother of first informant and PW No.2 immediately approached to his brother-in-law – Nalage. However, none of the neighbour was examined by the prosecution before the court. It is established on record that hut was surrounded by dwelling houses of Sadashiv Bhosale, Dada Ganpat Late and others. 6. Further after the incident, P.W. No.4 Bapu Shitole, brother of first informant and PW No.2 immediately approached to his brother-in-law – Nalage. The prosecution has not examined said Nalage before the Court. It is in evidence of PW No.4 Bapu that he went to Bhausaheb Pansare, who made telephonic call to the Police. This Bhausaheb Pansare at the relevant time was the Director of Sugar Factory with whom, PW No.4 Bapu was working as driver. Thus, it appears that criminal law was set into motion by this Bhausaheb Pansare. Said Bhausaheb Pansare is also not examined by the prosecution. 7. It is thus clear that entire prosecution case rests on the testimony of PW No.2 Dattatraya Narayan Shitole and his brother PW No.4 Bapu Shitole. The court below in my view has correctly assessed the situation in respect of the fate of the prosecution case, for non examination of the Investigating Officer. Further the court below has correctly appreciated that though the water was available at the distance of 200 fts. in land Gat No.165 which is having well, fitted with electric motor however, no attempt was made to douse the fire by the family members of the first informant. 8. It is settled position of law that revisional jurisdiction should not ordinarily be invoked merely because the lower court has mis appreciated the evidence on record In the present case, nothing could be point out by the learned counsel for the applicant, as to on what ground it could be said that the appreciation on the part of the court below while assessing the prosecution case is erroneous. The learned counsel could not point out as to why it could be said that the court below mis-directed himself while appreciating the evidence. Merely because another view is possible, that alone cannot be a ground to upset the impugned Judgment and Order of acquittal; unless it is shown that the order of acquittal is perverse and in any case the findings cannot be reached on the assessment of the evidence of the prosecution case. In the present case such events is not there. 9. In the present case such events is not there. 9. The learned court below in my view has correctly assessed, evaluated and appreciated the prosecution case and it was found by the court below itself that prosecution failed to prove its case against Resp.Nos. 1 to 3. Resultantly, I see no reason to upset the well reasoned Judgment and Order of acquittal. Hence, Cri.Revn.Appln. is dismissed. Rule discharged. Cri.Revn.Appln. dismissed.