1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1308 OF 2009 State of Maharashtra ..APPLICANT VERSUS Ashok @ Balu s/o Bajiraoi Markanday and ors. ..RESPONDENTS Mr N.N. Jadhav, APP for the applicant – State CORAM: P.V. HARDAS AND R.K.DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 11th JUNE, 2009. PER COURT : By this application the applicant – State seeks grant of leave to file an appeal challenging the acquittal of the respondents as recorded by the Sessions Judge, Beed by judgment dated 5.1.2009 in Sessions Case No.96 of 2008. 2. It appears that on 8.5.2007 deceased Pandurang was killed at about 9.00 p.m in front of the Court building. Accordingly an offence came to be 2 registered and upon completion of the investigation which included the arrest of the accused, a charge- sheet against the respondents came to be filed. Upon committal of the case to Court of Sessions, the trial in respect of murder of deceased Pandurang commenced. The prosecution very strongly relied upon the testimony of two eye-witnesses, namely P.W.1 Sanjay and P.W.3 Rajendra. Unfortunately during the trial both these eye-witnesses were declared hostile and were cross-examined by the prosecution. Nothing of importance was elicited in the cross-examination on behalf of the prosecution. The prosecution placed reliance upon the recovery of the hammer at the instance of accused no.1. The said hammer was found to be blood stained. The Trial Court, therefore, came to the conclusion that as P.W.1 Sanjay and P.W.3 Rajendra had not supported the prosecution and were declared hostile, the case rested only upon the circumstantial evidence. The Trial Court upon appreciation of the evidence found that no reliance can be placed on the discovery of hammer at the behest of accused no.1. 3. With the assistance of the learned APP we have 3 perused the findings recorded by the Trial Court and upon such perusal we find that the view taken by the Trial Court is a possible view to be taken on the basis of the evidence on record. We do not notice any perversity in the reasoning of the Trial Court to warrant grant of leave to the State. Consequently, this application fails and is dismissed. Leave refused. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J ] [ P.V. HARDAS, J ] amj/criap1308.09