JUDGMENT : V.K. Tahilramani, J. 1. The State has preferred this appeal against acquittal of respondent Nos. 1 to 5 i.e. original accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 6 vide Judgment & Order dated 30.1.1993 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur, Solapur in Sessions Case No. 18 of 1991. By the said Judgment & Order, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted all the accused including the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 302 & 182r/w S. 34 of the IPC. Being aggrieved thereby, this appeal has been preferred by the State. As far as respondent No. 4 Narmadabai Ramchandra Narale is concerned, the appeal against her has already abated, hence, this appeal is being considered only in relation to respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5. The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under: (a) Deceased Ranjana @ Kusum was the younger sister of PW.1 Jayram. Jayram was residing at Dharmapuri, Taluka Malshiras in Solapur district along with his family. His sister Kusum was married to respondent No. 1 Dnyandeo. After marriage, Kusum went to reside along with respondent No. 1 Dnyandeo and his family members at Pirale, Taluka Malshiras, Dist. Solapur. Respondent No. 1 Dnyandeo and Kusum resided in a joint family consisting of parents of Dnyandeo, two brothers of Dnyandeo and Dhurpabai who was the wife of one of the brothers of Dnyandeo. Respondent No. 2 Ramchandra is the father of respondent No. 1 Dnyandeo. Respondent No. 3 Chandrakant is the brother of respondent No. 1 Dnyandeo. Respondent No. 5 is the wife of the brother of respondent No. 1 Dnyandeo. (b) It is the prosecution case that all the respondents used to ill-treat and harass Kusum. Kusum used to tell her brother Jayram that her mother-in-law was ill treating her for petty reasons and the brothers of Dnyandeo used to abuse her and assault her at the instance of their mother. Kusum also informed this fact to PW. 2 Shankar who was residing in the same village as PW. 1 Jayram, brother of Kusum. (c) In the morning of 15.4.1986, Jayram was informed by PW. 4 Tukaram that his sister had died as she had been bitten. Then, Jayram took PW. 3 Dr. Kumbhar who was practicing in his village along with him to Pirale. Dr. Kumbhar examined Kusum and declared that she was dead. 1 Jayram, brother of Kusum. (c) In the morning of 15.4.1986, Jayram was informed by PW. 4 Tukaram that his sister had died as she had been bitten. Then, Jayram took PW. 3 Dr. Kumbhar who was practicing in his village along with him to Pirale. Dr. Kumbhar examined Kusum and declared that she was dead. Meanwhile, original accused No. 3 Maruti Narale (since deceased) came to the Police Station and gave a report which was reduced into writing by PW. 9 A.S.I. Mane. Thereafter, investigation commenced. The dead body of Kusum was sent for postmortem. PW. 12 Dr. Devdikar conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Kusum. On external examination, he found one incised wound over left post auricular region which was muscle deep. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed. In due course, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. 2. Charge came to be framed against respondent Nos. 1 to 5 i.e. original accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 6 as well as original accused No. 3 Maruti Narale under Sections 498-A r/w 34,302 r/w 34 and 182 r/w 34 of IPC. All the accused pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. Their defence was that Kusum fell down and sustained injuries on her head and died. After going through the evidence adduced in this case, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted all the original accused Nos. 1 to 6 of all the offences charged, hence, being aggrieved by the said acquittal, the State preferred this appeal. As original accused No. 3 Maruti Narale has expired, no appeal against acquittal was filed in relation to him. Though, appeal against acquittal was filed against respondent No. 4 Narmadabai Ramchandra Narale, she expired during pendency of the appeal on 21.8.2009, hence, the appeal has abated against her. Thus, this appeal is being considered only in relation to original accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 6 i.e. respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5. 3. We have heard the learned APP for the applicant-State of Maharashtra and the learned Advocate appearing for the respondents. We have perused the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. We have also perused the evidence adduced in this case. 1, 2, 4 and 6 i.e. respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5. 3. We have heard the learned APP for the applicant-State of Maharashtra and the learned Advocate appearing for the respondents. We have perused the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. We have also perused the evidence adduced in this case. After carefully considering the matter, for the reasons stated herein below, we are of the opinion that the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge does not call for any interference. 4. To show that Kusum was treated with cruelty by the accused persons, the prosecution has relied on the evidence of PW. 1 Jayram and PW. 2 Shankar. PW. 1 Jayram was the brother of Kusum and Shankar was residing in the neighbourhood of Jayram. Jayram has stated that Ranjana @ Kusum was his younger sister. Ranjana was married to accused No. 1 Dnyandeo prior to 12 years of the incident. Parents of Dnyandeo, his brothers and their wives were residing jointly with Dnyandeo and his family. The prosecution has placed heavy reliance on the evidence of Jayram where he has stated as under- "2. We used to bring our sister Kusum to our village for festivities. She used to tell her mother-in-law was ill-treating her for petty reasons. The brothers of Dnyandeo used to abuse her and assault her at the instance of their mother. There was dispute between the husband of Kusum and his brother on account of partition of their lands......." To show that there was ill-treatment to Kusum by her husband and in-laws, reliance is also placed on the evidence of PW. 2 Shankar who was residing in the same village as that of Jayram. Shankar has stated that Kusum used to come to his house whenever she came to her parents' place. Kusum used to tell him that the accused persons were ill-treating her on account of partition in the family, however, Kusum used to be sent back to her matrimonial house. But Kusum used to come after about a month or so and tell about the ill-treatment to her. It is pertinent to note that the averments made by PW. 1 Jayram which are reflected above is an omission. So also the evidence of PW. But Kusum used to come after about a month or so and tell about the ill-treatment to her. It is pertinent to note that the averments made by PW. 1 Jayram which are reflected above is an omission. So also the evidence of PW. 2 Shankar where he has deposed about Kusum telling him about ill-treatment to her by the accused persons is also an omission. Besides these averments made by Jayram and Shankar, they have not stated anything else about ill-treatment or cruelty to Kusum by the accused persons. Whatever is stated by them in relation to ill-treatment and cruelty has been found to be an omission. There is no other evidence to show that Kusum was ill-treated or treated with cruelty by the accused persons. 5. Thereafter, the prosecution has tried to capitalize on the fact that Kusum died an unnatural death just 12 years after the marriage. As the incident occurred 12 years after the marriage, the presumption under Section 113 of the Indian Evidence Act is not attracted in this case. However, the prosecution has relied on the evidence of PW. 1 Jayram and PW. 2 Shankar to show that Kusum died an unnatural death in the house of her husband and in-laws. Reliance was also placed on the evidence of PW. 1 Jayram wherein he has stated that PW. 4 Tukaram came and informed him that his sister had died as something had bitten her. Reliance is also placed on the evidence of PW. 2 Shankar who has stated that one Tukaram (PW 4) came to their village and told them that something had bitten Kusum, therefore, Kusum had died. It is pertinent to note that PW. 4 Tukaram only states that he informed Jayram that his sister had died. Tukaram does not state that he told Jayram or anyone else that Kusum died due to being bitten. 6. It has been pointed out by the prosecution that Jayram has stated that when he was informed that his sister had died as something had bitten her, he took the Doctor from his village to the village of his sister and the Doctor examined his sister and informed that she was dead and according to the Doctor, nothing had bitten his sister and he suspected that she was killed. PW. 3 Dr. PW. 3 Dr. Kumbhar is the Doctor who has stated that Jayram came to his house and informed that his sister had expired at village Pirale. Jayram wanted Dr. Kumbhar to accompany him to village Pirale, hence, he went with Jayram to village Pirale on motorcycle. On going to village Pirale, he examined Ranjana and declared that she was dead. This Doctor has not stated anything about making any statement to Jayram that nothing had bitten his sister and he suspected that she was killed. 7. As stated earlier, it is the prosecution case that Kusum was assaulted by the accused persons and hence, she died. Reliance is placed on the evidence of PW. 2 Shankar who has stated that then he, Jayram and the Doctor went to village Pirale, the Doctor examined Kusum and marks of injuries were seen on the chest, left thigh and on the head of Kusum. PW. 12 Dr. Devdikar conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Kusum. He has stated that only one injury was seen on the body of Kusum. On external examination, he found the following injuries on the body of Kusum:-- (a) Incised wound over left post auricular region 1 cm x 1.5 cm muscle deep and was oblique in direction. There was clotted blood at the site of the injury. This was the only external injury found on her person. On internal examination, Dr. Devdikar found fracture of the skull and intra cerebral hemorrhage. As stated earlier, it is the defence of the accused persons that Kusum fell down and sustained injuries and died. Dr. Devdikar has categorically stated that the external as well as internal injuries may be possible due to fall. It is pertinent to note that Dr. Devdikar has not stated the cause of death of Kusum nor has he stated that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. We have also observed earlier that the defence of the accused persons is that Kusum fell down and sustained injuries and died. This is borne out by the evidence of PW. 5 Tanaji who was the Sarpanch of village Dharmapuri i.e. the village in which Jayram was residing. Tanaji has stated that he knew Vandana, the daughter of Kusum and he and Jayram had inquired with Vandana about the incident. This is borne out by the evidence of PW. 5 Tanaji who was the Sarpanch of village Dharmapuri i.e. the village in which Jayram was residing. Tanaji has stated that he knew Vandana, the daughter of Kusum and he and Jayram had inquired with Vandana about the incident. Vandana informed them that Kusum had fallen down and therefore, she had expired. Thus, the evidence of PW. 5 Tanaji gives a death blow to the prosecution case. Looking to the evidence on record, we find that conclusion arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge is a reasonable and possible view. The plenitude of power available to the Court hearing an appeal against acquittal is the same as that available to a court hearing an appeal against an order of conviction, but, however, the court hearing an appeal against acquittal, will not interfere solely because a different possible view may arise on the evidence. The Supreme Court in the case of C. Anthony v. K.G. Raghavan Nair reported in (2003) 1 SCC 1 : [2003 ALL MR. (Cri) 130 (S.C.)] has observed that while hearing an appeal against an order of acquittal, if two reasonable conclusions can be reached on the basis of evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of the trial court. We have already observed that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is a reasonable and possible view. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere in the judgment and order of acquittal. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed.