1 (crim appln 2807 of 2010) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2807 OF 2010 Shekhar Pandurang Keer ...Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ----- Ms.Ameeta Kuttikrishnan for Applicant Mr.S.A. Shaikh -APP for the State ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 2ND AUGUST, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. The Applicant is challenging the order passed by the Sessions Court, who was pleased to reject the application for discharge filed by the Applicant herein. 3. The Applicant was arrested in connection with an offence punishable under sections 363, 302, 376, 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. According to the prosecution, a minor girl Ms.Jainab Khan was playing outside of her house at about 4.30 p.m. and at about 6.00 p.m. the Complainant realized that her grand-daughter was missing. 2 (crim appln 2807 of 2010) Thereafter, a complaint was lodged. The dead body of Jainab was recovered and the present Applicant was thereafter, arrested on 14.5.2009. Police recovered the cloths of the deceased at the instance of the accused from a public toilet. Thereafter, chargesheet was filed after the statements of the witnesses were recorded. It is submitted that test identification parade has not been conducted and, therefore, on that ground alone, the Applicant deserves to be discharged. 5. It is further submitted that the medical report indicated that there was no injury on the private part of the deceased and the final report of the Chemical Analysis has not been submitted. It is further submitted that the age mentioned by the other witness of the accused is 16 to 17 years wherein the Applicant is 40 years of age. It is, therefore, submitted that there was no evidence on record to implicate the application in the said offence. 6. It is not possible to accept the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Applicant clearly because the test identification parade would not be a ground to discharge the Applicant since the accused can be identified by the witnesses in the Court. Apart from that there is also material on record to show the 3 (crim appln 2807 of 2010) involvement of the Applicant viz. recovery of the cloths of the deceases at the instance of the Applicant. At this stage, therefore, it is not possible to hold that the Applicant is not involved in the said offence. 7. Hence, application is rejected and disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)