1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal APPA No.182 of 2010 (State of Maharashtra v. Mariba @ Anna s/o Sahebrao Jadhav and others) 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 : 15 th April, 2010 By this application, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against the judgment and order passed by the learned 9 th Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, on 20-4-2009 in Sessions Trial No.83 of 2007 acquitting the respondents of the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 511 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondents were convicted for having committed murder of one Walmik and for having attempted to cause disappearance of the evidence. The prosecution relied upon the evidence of the two eye-witnesses, namely PW 1 Mamta and PW 7 Dnyaneshwar. PW 7 Dnyaneshwar turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. Insofar as the evidence of PW 1 Mamta, the wife of 2 deceased Walmik, who claimed to be the eye-witness, is concerned, she admitted that she had not mentioned the names of fathers and also surnames of the accused as found in the FIR. Further PW 7 Dnyaneshwar, though did not support the prosecution, had stated in his substantive evidence that PW 1 Mamta came to her and informed him that someone was beating her husband Walmik. The learned Trial Judge held that PW 1 Mamta did not know the names of the accused and still the names of the accused along with their fathers' names and surnames were found in the report. The learned Trial Judge further observed that PW 1 Mamta had not correctly identified the accused even during her examination and based on this, the learned Trial Judge acquitted the respondents of the offences with which they were charged. The learned APP submitted that there were 47 injuries on the person of the deceased and the version of PW 1 Mamta has been wrongly disbelieved by the learned Trial Judge. Having heard the learned APP and having perused the record, we are of the considered opinion that the view taken by the learned Trial Judge is a probable view and the findings recorded cannot be said to be perverse warranting interference in appeal against acquittal. The evidence of PW 1 Mamta, who is the sole eye-witness to the incident, does not satisfy the test laid down by the Apex Court to base the conviction of the accused. 3 For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the application. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal is rejected. Judge. Judge. pdl.