1 8.appa.202-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.202 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1257 OF 2006 Ravindra Sadashiv Mali. ..Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent. .......... Mr.Yug Mohit Chaudhary, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr.H.J. Dedhia, A.P.P. for the State. .......... CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 15th FEBRUARY, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the Applicant and the learned A.P.P.. 2. This is second bail Application. The first bail Application was however withdrawn presumably without arguing the case on merits. The order dated 1 st April, 2008 does not indicate that the matter was argued and then the application was withdrawn. In the circumstances, we heard the Counsel for the Applicant on merits. 3. The thrust of the argument is that finding of guilt has been recorded by the Court below essentially on the basis of evidence of PW-2. Learned Counsel has criticized the evidence of PW-2 on the PPD 2 8.appa.202-11 ground that he is a chance witness and his version cannot be accepted as it is in absence of any corroboration. According to the learned Counsel for the Applicant, there is variance in the prosecution case and the evidence of PW-2. The prosecution case is that four persons stabbed the deceased whereas PW-2 asserts that he saw four persons excluding the accused stabbing one person. He further submits that there is material omission in the evidence of PW-2. In his statement before the Police, he has not referred to holding of weapon by the Applicant, whereas for the first time in the evidence he has asserted that the Applicant was holding weapon of assault. It is further submitted that the incident took place on 29th October, 2005 whereas the statement of PW-2 has been recorded only on 31st October, 2005 as is noted by the trial Court. It is submitted that no reason is forthcoming as to why statement of PW-2 was not recorded immediately on 29th October, 2005 when he was available on the spot. It is further submitted that PW-2 has stated that large crowd had gathered on the spot. In substance, it is argued that evidence of PW-2 cannot be decisive to record finding of guilt against the Applicant. 3 8.appa.202-11 4. Incidentally, the Counsel for the Applicant wanted this Court to rely on the evidence of PW-2 recorded in the companion case tried against other accused. However, since the said case proceeded in subsequent point of time and the evidence in the said case is not part of record of the present case, the request for relying on such evidence cannot be allowed. 5. In the circumstances, we would proceed on the basis of evidence given by PW-2 in the present case. Insofar as this evidence is concerned, the trial Court has analyzed his evidence in detail and has accepted the version of PW-2 as a truthful witness. The fact that PW-2 was attached to local Crime Branch in Sangli, does not belie the evidence regarding the occurrence of incident which he had witnessed himself. The argument that his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer after two days of the incident, in our opinion, is inappropriate. Indeed, the trial Court has noted that fact, but, at the same time has found that there was no inordinate delay in recording of statement of PW-2 by the Investigating Officer. As a matter of fact, on close scrutiny of evidence of PW-2 as also PW-9 (Investigating Officer), there is 4 8.appa.202-11 nothing to indicate that the statement of PW-2 was recorded by the Investigating Officer on 31st October, 2005 and not on 29th October, 2005. Moreover, the fact that PW-2 has not made reference to possession of any weapon in the statement given before the Investigating Officer does not take the matter any further. That cannot be said to be fatal especially when overall evidence of PW-2 has remained unshaken. We are of the considered opinion that the view taken by the trial Court in accepting the version of PW-2 is a plausible view. Accordingly it necessarily follows that the finding recorded by the trial Court on the basis of that evidence cannot be said to be improper. Thus, no case for bail is made out. Application is rejected. (A. R. JOSHI, J.) (A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.)