1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No.390 of 2009 (The State of Maharashtra, through P.S. Hingna, Nagpur v. Rakesh Manohar Kamble and another) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri T.A. Mirza, APP for Applicant. Coram : A.P. Lavande and R.C. Chavan, JJ. Dated : 22 nd March, 2010 1. By this application, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against the impugned order dated 14-9-2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, in Sessions Trial No.481 of 2006, acquitting the respondents of the offences punishable under Sections 392/397, 302 and 212 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Briefly, the prosecution case is as under : Informant PW 8 Sheela Khode, resident of Surendra Nagar, Nagpur, was returning home along with deceased Savita Waghmare on a Kinetic Honda Motor Cycle on 16-12-2005. Savita was driving the Motor Cycle. At about 5.15 p.m., when they reached the corner of Padmawatinagar, two persons stopped their Motor Cycle and one of them took out a knife and threatened the informant. Thereafter both of them snatched the Mangalsutra of Savita. When Savita resisted, one of the persons gave a blow of knife on her chest and hand. Thereafter both the persons ran away from the spot. The informant then lodged a report at Police Station Hingna. Since Savita was profusely bleeding, she was taken to Orange City Hospital, where she was 2 declared brought dead. 3. The investigation was taken up and the chargesheet was filed against the respondents and one absconding accused Amarsingh. In the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses and produced several documents. The prosecution primarily relied upon the evidence of informant Sheela and the recovery of a piece of gold from the goldsmith. In the course of cross-examination, informant Sheela admitted that respondent No.1 was shown to her in the Police Station and she had identified him as the person, who had assaulted Savita. Admittedly, no test identification parade was held. In view of this finding, the Trial Court refused to place reliance on the evidence of the informant. 4.. Insofar as the recovery of a piece of gold seized from the goldsmith is concerned, the recovery was not of the ornament robbed from the deceased, but it was in the form of melted gold. 5. In view of this factual position, the learned Trial Court refused to place reliance on the prosecution evidence and acquitted the respondents. 6. Having heard the learned APP for the applicant and having perused the report, we are of the considered opinion that the evidence recorded by the learned Trial Judge cannot be said to be perverse. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Judge are borne out from the evidence on record. Therefore, no interference is warranted in the impugned order acquitting the respondents. 7. The application, therefore, stands rejected. Judge. Judge. pdl