sat 1 cri.appln 552-2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 552 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant (Orig.Complainant) vs. Ashok Harilal Kanojiya ...Respondent (Orig.Accused) Mr.P.S. Hingorani, APP for the State. CORAM : V.M. KANADE AND M.L. TAHALIYANI, JJ. DATED : DECEMBER 7, 2011 P.C. (PER M.L. TAHALIYANI, J.) :- 1 The State has moved this Court for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 11th January, 2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Vasai. The respondent no.1 has been acquitted of the offence punishable u/s.302 of IPC by the impugned judgment and order. 2 The respondent was prosecuted for the offence punishable u/s. 302 of IPC for having committed murder of the sat 2 cri.appln 552-2011 deceased Keshav on or about 30th March, 2008 at village Umela. It was alleged that there was dispute between the deceased and the respondent in respect of some money transaction and therefore, the respondent had committed murder of the deceased. 3 The whole case of the prosecution was based on the circumstantial evidence. It was alleged in the chargesheet that there was one eye witness to the incident viz. Manishkumar Yadav. His statement was recorded by the police. The statement was also recorded u/s. 164 of Cr.P.C. However, the said witness was not examined during the course of trial. It appears from the impugned judgment that the number of opportunities were given to the State to produce the witness. 4 The evidence which was adduced before the learned trial court was of circumstantial nature. The prosecution has examined witnesses to establish that there was dispute between the deceased and the accused over money transaction sat 3 cri.appln 552-2011 in a country liquor bar. One witness is examined to prove that the report of dog squad indicated involvement of the respondent in the alleged crime. The part of scissor was allegedly recovered at the instance of accused which was allegedly stained with blood. Blood group of the deceased was not established. The part of scissor was found stained with blood group ‘AB’ 5 As such pieces of evidence adduced before the learned trial court were of feeble nature. All the circumstances taken together did not lead to the conclusion that the respondent had committed murder. The finding given by the learned trial Judge does not call for any inference. We are not able to form any other opinion than what is expressed by the learned trial Court. We do not find the case fit grant of leave to appeal. Hence, leave is refused. 6 Criminal Application stands dismissed. (M.L. TAHALIYANI, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)