1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Criminal APPA No. 211/2009 in Criminal Appeal No. ________/2009 ( State of Maharashtra .vs. Santosh Pandurang Savsundar and others. ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Mr. T.A. Mirza, APP for Applicant. Mr. V.G. Wankhede, Advocate for Respondents. CORAM : A.P. LAVANDE & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATED : FEBRUARY 24, 2010. Heard Mr. Mirza, learned APP for the applicant and Mr. Wankhede, learned counsel for the respondents. By this application, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 15.6.2009 acquitting the respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 369 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC. All the respondents were charged for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of IPC and respondents no.1 and 2 were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 369 and 201 read with 34 of IPC. The trial Judge acquitted the respondents of the offences for which they were charged. The prosecution alleged that Rohan, aged 2 years was kidnapped by respondents no.1 and 2 and all 2 the respondents in furtherance of common intention committed his murder and caused the disappearance of the evidence. The prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of two eye witnesses namely PW2 Uttam and PW4 Shivaji to prove that that the accused were last seen in the company of minor. The prosecution also relied upon the evidence of PW5 Vaijinath to establish that respondent no.2 had thrown the child in the Pathanwada. The trial Court did not place reliance on the evidence of these witnesses on the ground that their statements were recorded late. Admittedly their statements were recorded after a period of almost five days. Since there was no plausible explanation coming from either the witnesses or the Investigating Officer, the trial Court did not feel it safe to place reliance upon the testimony of these witnesses and consequently the respondents were acquitted of the offences for which they were charged. Having heard the learned APP for the applicant and the learned counsel for the respondents, we find that the learned trial Court did not commit any illegality in recording findings against the prosecution. There is no perversity in the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. It is well settled that unless the findings recorded by the trial Court are perverse, the appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal should not interfere. In view of above, we do not find any merit in the application. Hence the same is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE halwai