1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 922 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 148 OF 2009 (State of Maharashtra .v. Samir Ramesh Mundegaonkar and others) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. CORAM : A.P. LAVANDE AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. 04TH MAY, 2009. Heard Smt. K.S. Joshi, the learned APP appearing on behalf of the applicant/State. By this application under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant seeks leave to file appeal against acquittal from the judgment and order dated 07.01.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Amravati in Sessions Case No. 70/2000. The respondents were prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 323, 307, 341, 506(II) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge, upon appreciation of the evidence, convicted the respondent Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 323 and 341 read with Section 34 of IPC. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 307 2 and 506(II) read with Section 34 of IPC and the respondent No.3 was acquitted of all the offences for which he was charged. Being aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3, the applicant has filed the present application. Having heard Smt. K.S. Joshi, the learned APP for the applicant and having perused the record, we find no ground to grant leave to appeal from the order of acquittal. Insofar as the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC is concerned, PW-1 Deepak, who is an advocate, in his FIR did not state that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 pressed pillow on his face and such a statement is to be found only in his subsequent statement recorded on 12.04.1999. No doubt, PW-2 Anand has stated in his statement which was recorded on 12.04.1999, however, the fact remains that PW-1 Deepak in his FIR did not make any reference about pressing of pillow on his face by accused/respondent Nos.1 and 2. In this view of the matter, the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge appears to be probable view and, therefore, we do not find that the prosecution has made out any case for interference with the acquittal of the respondent Nos.1 and 2, insofar as Section 307 of IPC is concerned. Insofar as the respondent No.3 is 3 concerned, it is the case of the prosecution itself that he was standing outside the room and since no offence under Section 307 of IPC is made out against the respondent Nos.1 and 2, obviously the prosecution has not been able to make out the case under Section 307 of IPC against the respondent No.3. Insofar as the offence under Section 506(II) is concerned, perusal of the evidence recorded before the learned Sessions Judge discloses that there is absolutely no whisper that the accused threatened PW-1 with dire consequences. The learned Sessions Judge was right in acquitting the respondents for the offence punishable under Section 506(II) of IPC. In view of the above, we find no infirmity in the impugned judgment and order. In our considered opinion, no case has been made out by the applicant to grant leave to appeal. Hence, the Criminal Application is dismissed. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 148 OF 2009 In view of the dismissal of the Criminal Application No.922/2009, the appeal also stands dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE *rrg.