1 A-3437-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3437 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant /Appellant versus Gajanan Yashwant Darpe & Ors. ..Respondents Mrs. A. S. Pai – Additional Public Prosecutor for Applicant / Appellant. CORAM : D. D. SINHA AND A. P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : OCTOBER 08, 2010. P.C. : 1. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for applicant / appellant. 2. The Criminal Application is filed by the State seeking leave to file Appeal against the judgment and order dated 13th April, 2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri, whereby the respondents were acquitted for the offences charged. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that in the instant case there is a strong evidence adduced by the prosecution 2 A-3437-10 of Namdeo Sawant P.W. 8. It is contended that this witness had last seen the deceased with the respondents on 26th September 2008. It is contended that deceased was known to this witness since both of them were working with the same employer. It is the case of the prosecution that P.W. 8 has seen the photograph of deceased published in the newspaper Ratnagiri Times on 27th September 2008. P.W. 8 thereafter went to police station. The police showed him articles i.e. watch, ring and some clothes which he identified that of the deceased Sakharam. 3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has further contended that in the instant case the prosecution has established motive for the respondents to commit crime in question. It is contended that on the earlier occasion deceased had assaulted the father of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and the respondents had an axe to grind against the deceased. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further contended that in the instant case there is recovery of weapon of offence by the accused pursuant to the memorandum statement made by the accused. The knife / dagger which was discovered had a blood on it. Similarly the clothes of the accused also had blood of human origin. It is therefore contended that inspite of the above referred clinching circumstances brought on record by the prosecution, the trial court disbelieved the same without any justification. It is therefore 3 A-3437-10 submitted that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is unsustainable in law. 4. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Applicant / State and perused the judgment. It is not in dispute that the dead body of deceased Sakharam for the first time was found on 27th September 2008 at 2.30 p.m., if this is so, the question of publishing the photograph of deceased Sakharam in newspaper Ratnagiri Times on 27th September, 2008 does not arise. The prosecution has not filed on record the copy of the newspaper nor the statement which was made by P.W. 8 in his evidence was rectified. Evidence of P.W. 8 shows that he saw the photograph of deceased published in the newspaper on 27th September 2008 and went to the police station and identified the articles belonging to the deceased. Since the story of publishing the photograph in newspaper Ratnagiri Times on 27th September 2008 itself is improbable the question of seeing the photograph, later on visiting the police station by P.W. 8 is also difficult to believe. All these facts therefore creates doubt about the authenticity of the testimony of P.W. 8. 5. So far as motive is concerned, though the prosecution has examined 4 A-3437-10 19 witnesses, nobody has stated in their evidence regarding the incident of assault by the deceased on the father of the respondent nos. 1 and 2. In absence thereof, in our view, the prosecution has failed to prove any motive for commission of an offence by the respondents. Similarly so far as discovery of weapon of offence and the clothes by the accused which had blood of human origin by itself is wholly inadequate to complete the requisite chain. Consequently no case is made out for showing indulgence. Leave refused. Criminal Application and Criminal Appeal, both, are dismissed. (D. D. SINHA, J.) (A. P. BHANGALE, J.)