: 1 : APPLN-879-11 Dixit IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.879 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra, Akkalkot South Police Station ... Applicant V/s. Iranna Sharnappa Choulgi & Ors. ... Respondents Ms. A.T. Jhaveri, APP, for the Applicant-State. None for the Respondents. CORAM: V.M. KANADE & A.M. THIPSAY, JJ. DATED : 12 TH OCTOBER, 2011. P.C. : 1. This is an application filed by the Applicant-State of Maharashtra against the Judgment and Order dated 9 th March, 2011 passed by the Ad- hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in Sessions Case No.213 of 2009, whereby he acquitted the Respondents, who were accused in the said case, of the offences punishable under Sections 363 IPC, 302 IPC, 201 IPC read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. We have gone through the grounds on which the leave is sought, as mentioned in the application. We have heard Ms. Jhaveri, the learned APP for the Applicant-State. We have gone through the impugned judgment. We have also gone through the copies of the notes of evidence that have been annexed to the Criminal Application. : 2 : APPLN-879-11 3. The case of the prosecution was that, that Jagdevi (the deceased) was married to one Dhanappa Ramanna Gadde. Jagdevi was doing labour work in the field of Iranna Sharnappa Chulgi–the Respondent No.1. Illicit relations were developed between Jagdevi and the Respondent No.1 Iranna. The Respondent No.1 Iranna had kept Jagdevi in a rented premises at mauje Karajgi, Taluka Akkalkot. Thereafter, the Respondent No.1 Iranna had kept Jagdevi at Jeur. Jagdevi had a daughter from the Respondent No.1 Iranna. The Respondent No.1 Iranna, subsequently, got married. The wife of the Respondent No.1 learnt about the illicit relations between the Respondent No.1 and Jagdevi, which gave rise to quarrels between the husband and wife. The Respondent No.1, therefore, with the help of Respondent Nos.2 to 7 decided to kill Jagdevi and her daughter. That, Jagdevi and her daughter were taken from the house of Rajaram Konnur of Vijapur by the Respondents and they were ultimately killed. The dead body of Jagdevi was thrown in Almatti Dam and the dead body of the daughter of Jagdevi in a canal. The dead body of Jagdevi was found by the Police of Kolhar Police Station of Karnataka State. The post-mortem examination on the dead body revealed the cause of death to be “asphyxia due to drowning”. Thereafter, the mother of Jagdevi lodged a report with the Police alleging that the Respondents had committed murder of Jagdevi and her daughter Rajshri. This was treated as the First Information Report, on the basis of which the investigation commenced and the Respondents were arrested and prosecuted. 4. The prosecution examined 19 witnesses during the trial. Several witnesses turned hostile and their evidence was of no help to the prosecution. As aforesaid, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the accusation against the Respondents was not proved and acquitted them. : 3 : APPLN-879-11 5. The learned Judge has discussed the evidence adduced by the prosecution during the trial. The case was based only on circumstantial evidence. The learned Judge observed that there was no evidence that Jagdevi and her daughter had accompanied the Respondents, or any of them, immediately before their death. He also observed that there was no evidence to indicate that anybody had seen Jagdevi and her daughter with any of the Respondents at the material time. He also observed that the motive alleged by the prosecution was not satisfactorily proved. He also observed that, even if the Respondent No.1 had illicit relations with Jagdevi, that by itself would not be sufficient to connect him with the death of Jagdevi and her daughter. He also noted that the medical evidence indicated the death to be by drowning and not caused of throttling. He observed that the suspicion, even if it was strong, could not take the place of proof. 6. We do not find any infirmity or impropriety in the appreciation of evidence as done by the trial Court. We do not find that the reasoning resorted to by the learned trial Judge is perverse. In any case, the view of the matter, as taken by the learned Judge, was undoubtedly a plausible view of the matter. 7. We, therefore, do not think that the matter requires reconsideration by us. In our opinion, this is not a fit case where leave to appeal should be granted. 8. Leave is refused. The Criminal Application is rejected. (A.M. THIPSAY, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)