((-1-)) mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.261 OF 2008 Chandrakant Dattatraya Pawar Petitioner versus Mohammad Babalal Maner & ors. Respondents U.R.Mankapure for petitioner. Sudatta Patil for respondent. Miss A.T.Javeri, APP for State. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 04th May 2009 PC : 1. This is a revision application preferred by the brother of the victim of the alleged offence for challenging the judgement and order dated 22.4.2002 by which the respondents-accused were acquitted of the offence under section ("u/s" for short) 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the revision applicant has taken me through the notes of evidence and the impugned judgement. In the present case, all the witnesses whose statements u/s 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C." for short) were recorded have turned hostile. The learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the evidence of the learned Magistrate who recorded ((-2-)) the said statements u/s 164. He also placed reliance on the evidence of investigating officer. He stated that both the witnesses have supported the prosecution. He submitted that the statements u/s 164 of the Cr.P.C. could have been always relied upon to corroborate other evidence. He invited my attention to the finding of the Sessions Court regarding absence of motive. He invited my attention to application at Exhibit-31 made by the prosecution before the Sessions Court. In the said application it is stated that at the instance of accused no.4, a FIR was lodged against the deceased as well as against the first informant for commission of offences under sections 324, 427 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation charge sheet has been filed. He pointed out that the first informant was second accused in the said case which is lodged at the instance of 4th accused. He submitted that the very fact of lodging the said FIR establishes the motive on the part of the accused and therefore by the said application at Exhibit-31 record of the case filed at the instance of 4th accused was called for. He submitted that on the said application no order was passed by the learned ((-3-)) Sessions Judge. He, therefore, submitted that interference was called for in the revisional jurisdiction. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions. It is not in dispute that all material prosecution witnesses have turned hostile. It is true that the learned JMFC who recorded the statements of the witnesses u/s 164 of the Cr.P.C. was examined as a witness. After all the prosecution witnesses turned hostile, the order of conviction could not have been based only on the evidence of the investigating officer and the learned Magistrate who recorded the statements u/s 164 of the Cr.P.C.. Even assuming that an opportunity was given to the prosecution to establish the motive, unless there was substantive evidence of the involvement of the accused in the offence, the evidence regarding motive by itself was not sufficient to convict the accused. 4. No interference is called for in revisional jurisdiction against the order of acquittal. Revision Application is accordingly rejected. ((-4-)) (A.S.OKA, J.)