- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMIINAL APPLICATION NO.3066/2010 The State of Maharashtra, through Police Station, Hadgaon Dist.Nanded. ...Applicant.. (Org.complainant) Versus Sheshrao Maroti Jogdand, age 40 yrs., occu.labour, r/o Koli Tq.Hadgaon Dist.Nanded. ...Respondent... (Org.accused) ..... Shri B.V. Wagh, APP for applicant. ..... CORAM: P.V. HARDAS & A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE: 07.10.2010 PER COURT : 1] This is an application filed by the applicant – State seeking grant of leave to file an appeal against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-2, Nanded, - 2 - dated 29.4.2010, in Sessions Case No.166/2008 acquitting the respondent – accused for offence punishable u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2] The prosecution alleged that the accused had committed murder of father of PW 1 Shamrao. PW 1 Shamrao was examined by the prosecution as an eye witness. The trial Court repelled his testimony on the ground that he had earlier filed a report stating that some unknown persons had killed his father and on the basis of which, an accidental death case had been registered. We can not find fault with the reasoning of the trial Court in not placing any reliance on the testimony of PW 1 Shamrao. PW 2 Bhagwan was not found reliable by the trial Courtu for the reason that in the statement recorded u/s 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, PW 2 Bhagwan had not referred to the accused as the assailant. Further, it was found by the trial Court that PW 2 Bhagwan was sleeping at the time of the incident. The prosecution thereafter placed reliance on the evidence of PW 4 Pawan, PW 5 Shivaji and PW 6 Datta in order to establish that the accused had a motive for committing murder of father of PW 1 Shamrao. The trial Court found that no reliance at all could be placed on the testimony of these witnesses as firstly their statements had been recorded belatedly and their evidence was riddled with material contradictions and omissions on vital aspect of the prosecution case. 3] With the assistance of the learned APP, we have perused the findings recorded by the trial Court and upon such perusal, we do not find that the view - 3 - taken by the trial Court is perverse. In fact, the view taken by the trial Court is a possible view to be taken on the basis of evidence on record. In that light of the matter and there being no merit in the present application, the same is dismissed. Leave is refused. (A.V. Potdar, J.) (P.V. Hardas, J.) ndk/cr710101