IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 61 OF 2010 IN STAMP NUMBER MAIN NO. 3578 OF 2009 STATE THROUGH PONDA POLICE INSPECTOR, PONDA POLICE STATION ... Applicant Versus CARLOS @ PAKLO CARDOZ ... Respondent Mr. C. A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor for the Applicant. Mr. Mahesh Amonkar, Advocate for the Respondent. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 5th April, 2010 P.C.: The complainant/State seeks leave to appeal against the acquittal of the accused under Section 392 of IPC by judgment dated 31/07/2009. 2. Heard Shri Ferreira, the learned Public Prosecutor and Shri Amonkar, the learned advocate on behalf of the accused. 3. The allegation against the respondent/accused was that on 27/10/2007, the accused engaged the taxi of PW1/Deelip Turi to take him to Ponda and after both reached at upper baazar, the accused gave fist blows on his face and chest and removed a gold chain with locket and a gold finger ring and pulled him up and threw him in the bushes. In the course of the trial, prosecution examined 9 witnesses. Although the accused, according to the prosecution, was seating on the front seat of the said taxi being driven by Deelip Turi, the said Deelip Turi, was unable to identify the accused. The prosecution had also examined PW6/Sunil Lotlikar, who according to the prosecution had purchased the said gold chain and the finger ring from the accused. However, what was recovered from him was melted gold of two chains and one finger ring and, ultimately, the gold chain and the finger ring remained without being identified by the accused. 4. The learned trial Court has come to the conclusion that the said PW1/Deelip Turi had failed to identify the accused both at the TI parade as well as before the Court and this inspite of the fact that both of them had travelled from Marcella to Usgaon. The recovery of the said gold articles has also been doubted by the learned Magistrate because the panch witness who was examined was not present and the other panch witness was not examined. The view taken by the learned JMFC is a plausible view which has resulted in the acquittal of the accused. 5. Considering the facts and the evidence produced, this is not a fit case to grant leave to appeal. Application dismissed. N. A. BRITTO, J. NH