1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3214 OF 2007 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. _______ OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant Versus Arati Jalas Pasawan & Anr. ... Respondents. Mr. H.J. Dhedia, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the Applicant CORAM: B ILAL NAZKI and S.A. BOBDE, JJ. DATE: FEBRUARY 11, 2008 P.C.:- This is an application for leave to file an appeal against acquittal of the accused persons in an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Case No. 341 of 2004. 2. The case of the prosecution against the accused persons was that one Vinod Sheshrao Dudhane had been to Manish Bar, along with his friends. He and his friends enjoyed dance of the accused persons up to 4 a.m., and thereafter, the deceased, along with his friends, came 2 out of the said bar, and at that time, accused Arati also came out of the bar. There was quarrel between the deceased and Arati Pasawan. On the night of the incident, after the quarrel between the accused and the deceased, accused No. 2 asked the deceased to come to Dhyansadhana College, near Ganesh Garden. Then, accused No. 1 killed the deceased by stabbing his neck. 3. The trial Court found that there was no direct evidence produced before the Court, and the prosecution relied only on the circumstantial evidence. The first and foremost circumstance that was pressed into service was that the accused and the deceased were last seen together; and to prove this, the prosecution had examined P.W. 8, who was a star witness for the prosecution. What he stated before the Court was that the deceased and the accused went in two different auto-rickshaws, but their destination was the same. Therefore, when P.W. 8 saw them together, the accused and the deceased were going in two different auto-rickshaws in different directions. Whether they met again or not was only a conjecture, and was not proved by any evidence. The learned Sessions Judge observed, “The entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. It was argued on behalf of the accused that it is not the case of last seen 3 together of accused and the deceased because both the accused as well as deceased went in different auto rickshwas but their destination at one and the same point is not proved by the prosecution.” 4. Since this first and foremost circumstance was not proved, therefore, it weighed with the trial Court in acquitting the accused. The trial Court also found that there was no other evidence which could connect the accused to the offence. As any such evidence has also not been shown to us by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, which may connect the accused to the offence, therefore, this application for leave to file appeal against acquittal is rejected. BILAL NAZKI, J. S.A. BOBDE, J.