1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2906 OF 2007 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra.... ... Applicant. Versus Vilas Tulashiram Bokade & Ors.. .. Respondents. Mr. A. S. Gadkari, APP for the Applicant. Mr. Dilip Bodke for Respondent Nos.1 to 4. CORAM : BILAL NAZKI and S. A. BOBDE, JJ. DATED : 11TH JANUARY, 2008. P.C.: Five persons were charged with offences under Sections 307 read with 149, 143 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code. After they were charged, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In the trial the accused were acquitted and the State has preferred this application for leave to file an appeal against their acquittal. 2. There are witnesses who have claimed to be the eye witnesses and have also claimed that they were injured witnesses. There is also evidence 2 produced by the prosecution to suggest that the recovery of certain weapons were made at the instance of the injured persons. As per the prosecution case and the testimony of the witnesses, accused No.4 Tulshiram was the main accused and he along with other accused have assaulted the complainant and his family members with deadly weapons including axes. But during the trial, the trial Court found that Tulshiram was on duty when the alleged occurrence took place. Tulshiram was on his duty as sweeper in Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation on the day of occurrence i.e. 28th February, 2001 from 6.30 a.m. To 1.30 p.m. The accused No.4 Tulshiram took the defence of alibi and produced DW 1 Hari Matukade who has produced copy of general muster roll maintained by the Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation. Since the trial Court was convinced that Tulshiram had proved that he was not on spot when the alleged occurrence took place and Tulshiram was the main accused, he acquitted the accused and also observed that since Tulshiram could not be connected to the alleged occurrence, the offence of conspiracy also could not be established. Since it was proved that Tulshiram was not at the place of occurrence when the occurrence took place, the learned Judge also doubted the presence of other accused as the witnesses who were produced as the eye witnesses and who had categorically stated in their 3 statements that Tulshiram assaulted the complainant with an axe. For this reasons, we do not find this to be a fit case in which leave can be granted to file appeal against the acquittal. 3. Criminal application is, accordingly, rejected. Sd/- (BILAL NAZKI, J.) Sd/- (S. A. BOBDE, J.)