1 APPLN5094.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5094 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra : Applicant (Orig.Complainant) V/s. Selwan Kumar Chandran & Ors. : Respondents ... Ms M.H.Mhatre, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the applicant. .... CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATE : NOVEMBER 26, 2010. P.C.: Heard the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the applicant. 2. This Criminal Application is directed against the judgement and order dated 17.7.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pune, whereby the respondents (original accused nos.1, 2 and 4) came to be acquitted for the offences punishable under sections 302 and 394 read with section 34 of the I.P.C. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has submitted that the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and the circumstances established by the prosecution to prove the charge against the respondents are as follows: 2 APPLN5094.10 Original accused no.4 Raju Namdev Dandekar discovered the wrist watch belonging to the deceased. Original accused no.1 Selwan Kumar Chandran discovered car tape-recorder and accused no.2 Iranna alias Shivappa Inchnal discovered Indica car. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has submitted that the deceased who was the Driver and was working with the company which used to rent out cars to the people at large. It is contended that the discovery of the above referred articles by original accused nos.4 and 1 belonging the deceased, directly connect these accused with the crime in question. Similar is the situation insofar as original accused no.2 Iranna alias Shivappa Inchnal is concerned. It is submitted that originally four accused were prosecuted out of which the trial Court convicted original accused no.3 and original accused nos.1, 2 and 4 were acquitted. Being aggrieved by the order of acquittal, the State has preferred the present appeal. The circumstantial evidence, as referred to hereinabove, clearly establishes the charge against the respondents beyond reasonable doubt. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned judgement and order passed by the trial Court cannot be sustained in law. 3. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. In the instant case, it is not in 3 APPLN5094.10 dispute that though accused no.4 Raju appeared to have discovered the wrist watch and original accused no.1 discovered the car tape-recorder, there is no evidence adduced by the prosecution to show that both these articles belonged to the deceased. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has not disputed that there is no identification evidence on record to demonstrate that the said articles belonged to the deceased. Similar is the situation insofar as the discovery of car is concerned. In the absence of live connecting link between the articles discovered and the ownership thereof, the trial Court, in our view, was justified in not placing reliance on the said evidence. Even otherwise the mere circumstance of discovery by itself, without any corroboration, in our view, also is not sufficient to prove the charge against the respondents beyond any reasonable doubt. 4. For the reasons stated hereinabove, no case is made out for showing indulgence. Leave refused. Criminal Application is dismissed. (D. D. SINHA, J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.)