1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No.2702/2007 with Criminal Revision No.177/2007 [The State of Maharashtra .vrs. Jasbirsing Pyarsing Kalsi and two others] [Vasantrao Govindrao Muke .vrs. State of Maharashtra and three others] ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................................... Mr. Y.B. Mandpe, APP with Mr. P.D. Meghe, Advocate for the appellant, Mr. C.H. Jaltare, Advocate for the respondents. .......... CORAM : K.J. ROHEE AND B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ DATED : JULY 1, 2008 1. Heard the learned APP for the appellant/State and the learned counsel for the respondents/accused. 2. According to the prosecution, by agreement dated 9.6.1997 (Exh.38) Vasantrao Muke (PW 8) agreed to sell his land to respondent no.1 Jasbirsing Kalsi. On the date of agreement earnest money of Rs.50,000/- was paid and the remaining consideration was to be paid subsequently. The document shows that on the same day possession was delivered to respondent no.1. 2 3. On 1.7.2003 PW 8 Vasantrao Muke lodged report at Police Station, Kalmeshwar that on that day at 11.00 a.m. when he went to his field, he found his son Amol, aged about 20 years, in burnt condition. PW 8 Vasantrao Muke learnt from his nephew Baba s/o Murlidhar Chikate that Amol had told him that respondent no.1 had come to the field with two unknown persons, respondent no.1 warned Amol not to cultivate the land and threatened him with life. 4. The report (Exh.68) itself shows that PW 8 Vasantrao received in all Rs.2,75,000/- from respondent no.1 and that he delivered possession of the field to respondent no.1. In 2001, respondent no.1 erected compound and constructed a house and was cultivating the land. However, since respondent no.1 failed to get sale deed executed, PW 8 Vasantrao did some agricultural operation before one month of the incident. 5. It may be seen that there is no direct evidence in the present case and it entirely rests on circumstantial evidence. PW 8 Vasantrao has not seen any of the respondents. He learnt from his nephew that Amol had told him that respondent no.1 came to the field with two unknown persons, respondent no.1 warned Amol not to cultivate the land and threatened him with life. However, 3 PW 6 Pravin Chikte turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. 6. The only evidence on which the prosecution can rely is the chit written by deceased Amol on an invitation card to the effect that respondent no.1 threatened him with life. However, the report of handwriting expert does not establish beyond doubt that the writing on said invitation card is in the handwriting of deceased Amol. The trial court found that there were no circumstances establishing the guilt of any of the respondents. We find that prima facie there is no perversity in the finding. Hence leave to file appeal is rejected. Appeal as well as revision are dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Gulande