1 appln-2967-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2967 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2010. The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant /Appellant. versus Narasgonda alias Bandya Adgonda and Anr Chinchwade and Anr. ..Respondents. Ms M. H. Mhatre, Additional Public Prosecutor – for Appellant / State. CORAM : D. D. SINHA AND A. R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : SEPTEMBER 06, 2010. P.C. : 1. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State. 2. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 26.3.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli, whereby the respondents are acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 302, read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2 appln-2967-10 3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the prosecution has examined two eye-witnesses, namely, PW 3 Vikrant and PW 4 Bablu. It is submitted that their evidence is quite consistent with the material particulars of the prosecution case and has also been corroborated by the other circumstantial evidence, such as discovery of weapon, under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, as well as the blood stained clothes of the deceased having blood group “A”, which was blood group of the deceased. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contended that in spite of the above referred convincing evidence adduced by the prosecution, the trial Court wrongly acquitted the respondents. Hence, the present criminal appeal against the order of acquittal. 4. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the judgment of the trial Court. In paragraph 17 of the judgment, the trial Court has discussed the evidence of PW 3 Vikrant and PW 4 Bablu as well as their subsequent conduct. It appears that after the incident, both these witnesses attended the funeral of deceased Santosh and though met father of Santosh at the funeral, they did not disclose about the incident to the father of deceased and, therefore, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the conduct of these two witnesses being unnatural, creates grave suspicion about the genuineness of the case of the prosecution. 3 appln-2967-10 5. The trial Court in paragraph 25.4 of its judgment has observed regarding discovery of weapon and seizure of the clothes. It is observed that there is no evidence on record to show that after the clothes were seized, they were sealed and kept in the sealed condition till they were sent to the Chemical Analyser for analysis. It is in these circumstances, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the possibility of tampering was not ruled out by the prosecution. 6. Considering totality of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, we are of the view that omission on the part of the eye-witnesses, to narrate the incident to the father of deceased Santosh, creates serious doubt about the testimony of the eye-witnesses, coupled with the fact that the clothes, which were seized, were not sealed and, therefore, possibility of tampering with the said articles was not ruled out. In the circumstances, the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court appears to be just and proper. Hence, Criminal Application for leave to appeal and appeal, both, are dismissed. (D. D. SINHA, J.) (A. R. JOSHI, J.) 4 appln-2967-10