drp {1} Cri. Application No.4771/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4771 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra APPLICANT VERSUS Mahadeo Vishwanath Waiabhase RESPONDENT ....... Mr. B.V.Wagh, APP for applicant State ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 8th December 2010 PER COURT: 1. This application has been filed by the applicant State challenging the judgment of the Ad Hoc Additional Sessions Judge-1 Ambajogai, dated 19.05.2010, in Sessions Case No. 17/2010, acquitting the respondent-accused for an offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The respondent-accused is alleged to have strangulated deceased Limba Abaji Waiabhase on 31.10.2009. The complainant was along with the deceased on that day in the market, till afternoon. Thereafter, according to prosecution, the deceased left in the company of 3 persons. Dead body of deceased drp {2} Cri. Application No.4771/2010 was found on the next day and accordingly Accidental Death was registered. The Postmortem report in no uncertain terms indicates that the deceased had died as a result of strangulation. Three days of the alleged incident, PW-3 Prabhakar informed the complainant that he had witnessed the murder of his father and accordingly an offence came to be registered against the respondent-accused. Prosecution relied upon the testimony of PW-3 Prabhakar and PW-4 Maroti, as eye witnesses to the incident. Statements of both these witnesses came to be recorded on 03.11.2009 i.e. after 4 days of the incident. The trial court declined to place any reliance, whatsoever, on the testimony of PW-3 and PW-4, on account of unnatural conduct of these witnesses. The stoic silence of these witnesses for four days impelled the trial court to discard their testimony. 3. We have heard learned APP for the applicant and we have also perused the findings recorded by the trial court. Upon such perusal of the findings recorded by the trial court, according to us, the view taken by the trial court is a possible view to be taken on the basis of evidence on record. Thus, there is no merit in the present application and the application is dismissed. Leave refused. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/B10/criapln4771-10