1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 818 of 2010 IN Criminal Appeal No. of 2010 [State of Maharashtra Vs. Shrikant Prabhakar Charate & others] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. T.A. Mirza, APP for the applicant-appellant. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI AND A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ. DATE : 13th January, 2011. 01. This is an appeal against acquittal by the State. 02. Accused persons were tried for offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 03. The learned Judge delivered the judgment of acquittal. 04. The State is in appeal against the said order of acquittal. 05. Heard. 2 06. It is seen that it is a case of administering poison and thereby causing the murder. 07. PW 5  Rajendra was cited as an eye- witness. From the testimony of the witness, learned Sessions Judge found that he was not at all an eye-witness, though cited so. His statement as eye-witness came to be recorded by Police on 12th September, 2006, though he claims to be an eye-witness and is also said to have attended the funeral. No explanation, whatsoever, had come forward for delayed recording of statement, which seriously reflected on the truthfulness of his testimony. 08. Evidence relating to ill-treatment leading to offence under Section 498-A is in the nature of hearsay. 09. Judgment of acquittal is, thus, based on sound reasons. Learned Sessions Jude had no other choice than ordering acquittal. 10. Application and appeal have no merit, and are rejected. Judge Judge |Hedau| 3