- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1032 OF 2007 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra. .. Applicant Vs. Sudhir Ramchandra Thopate & Ors. .. Respondents -- Shri H.J.Dedia, APP for the Applicant. Shri Chetan Agarwal for the Respondents. -- CORAM : SRI R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR & SRI A.A.SAYED, JJ DATED : 27TH MARCH, 2008 P.C. 1. Heard. This is an application for leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 10th October, 2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Satara. By the impugned judgment and order, the respondents-accused have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned APP has stated that the trial Court erred in acquitting the accused inspite of the sufficient evidence on record which discloses that the respondent - 2 - No.1-accused had telephoned to the complainant and he had given threat that his son will be killed unless some property is transferred in the name of his wife. Apart from this telephonic conversation, the prosecution examined the PW-3 who had seen the accused in company of the deceased at Panchgani, Pune. Inspite of such clear evidence on record disclosing involvement of the respondents-accused, the trial Court erred in acquitting the respondents. 2. Perusal of the impugned judgment and order discloses that the learned Sessions Judge, Satara, has disbelieved the testimony of the PW-3 Ujwala Dhole in relation to the case of the prosecution that the accused were seen in company of the deceased prior to the death of the latter. The learned Sessions Judge found that the statement regarding the last seen together was made by the PW-3 for the first time in the Court nearly two years after the incident and at no point of time earlier thereto, the same was disclosed to the investigating agency. Undoubtedly, if the accused were seen in company of the deceased prior to the death of latter, it would be a relevant factor and very important piece of evidence in support of the prosecution case. Being so, the person who might have seen the accused in company of the deceased - 3 - would not suppress the same for two years and admittedly the statement of such witness was recorded by the police in the course of investigation and yet no such allegation was made by the said witness in such statement. Being so, the Trial Court is apparently justified in arriving at a finding that there was a clear improvement over his statement to the police and the same therefore cannot be believed. The said testimony of the PW-3 does not establish the chain of events which could reveal that the respondents-accused had been responsible for the death of the said person. In a case where the prosecution on the strength of circumstantial evidence wants to establish the guilt of the accused, it is well settled law that the prosecution has to lead necessary evidence establishing the chain of events and link between such events and acts of the accused which could reveal his or her involvement in the offence. Once the prosecution fails to establish the same, no fault can be found with the order passed by the Trial Court acquitting the respondents-accused. We have not been shown any relevant piece of evidence which has been ignored or not considered by the Trial Court nor the applicant has been able to point out that the analysis of the evidence of the Trial Court is either perverse or not in proper perspective. On the - 4 - contrary, the learned Sessions Judge had considered the entire evidence on record and arrived at a clear finding about the failure on the part of the prosecution to establish guilt of the accused and the said finding is borne out from the record and hence there is no case for interference. The application, therefore, fails and is hereby rejected. ( R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR, J ) ( A.A.SAYED, J )