FARAD FARAD FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. CONTINUATION SHEET NO. CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE. APPELLATE SIDE. APPELLATE SIDE. CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 6975 OF 200 APPLICATION NO. 6975 OF 200 APPLICATION NO. 6975 OF 2005 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- ---------------- Office Notes, Office Memorada Court‘s or Judge‘s orders or directions and Orders. Registrar‘s orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Smt. V.R.Bhosale APP for appellant. Shri R.W.Adik Sr.Adv. with S.D. Kedan for Respondents 1 to 3. CORAM; CORAM; CORAM; V.G.PALSHIKAR Acg.C.J.& V.G.PALSHIKAR Acg.C.J.& V.G.PALSHIKAR Acg.C.J.& SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE,J. MHATRE,J. MHATRE,J. DTAED: DTAED: DTAED: 21ST AUGUST, 2006 21ST AUGUST, 2006 21ST AUGUST, 2006. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. By this application, State impugns the judgment dated 1st July 2005 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Niphad in Sessions Case No. 16/04. 2. According to the prosecution, the accused persons committed murder of one Chandrakala wife of accused no.1 and threw her dead body on the rail track where it was smashed beyond recognition. The learned Judge on appreciation of evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish that the dead body found on the track was that of Chandrakala. Convicting the accused persons on circumstantial evidence of weak nature was not proper. Factually the basic or substantial link in the chain of circumstances was identity of the dead body. That itself being not proved, no interference in the order of acquittal is possible. Hence application is rejected. ...