1 MSS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4532 OF 2008 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA .. APPLICANT Vs. SUMIT MOHAN PATOLE .. RESPONDENT Mr. V. B. Konde Deshmukh, APP CORAM:SMT.RANJANA DESAI & R. G. KETKAR, JJ. DATE: 9/4/2009 P.C. . In this appeal the State of Maharashtra has challenged the judgment and order dated 30/8/08 delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Sessions Case No. 141/06 acquitting the respondent of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. In short the case of the prosecution was that the respondent had a love affair with deceased Reena. Deceased Reena used to visit Bombay often for the purpose of searching a job for herself. She got acquainted with the respondent. The 2 prosecution mainly relied on the fact that the deceased and the respondent were last seen together. 3. PW 21 Anjali is the star witness of the prosecution. According to PW 21 Anjali the accused had come to her house to meet Reena the deceased on 21/6/06 and on 30/6/06. Anjali has stated that the deceased had gone with the respondent on 30/6/06 at about 11-30 a.m. Thereafter the deceased was not seen. She was missing and her dead body was found on 7/7/06. 4. It is pertinent to note that PW 21 Anjali stated in the evidence that neither she nor her husband contacted the deceased’s father PW 7 Peter on phone. Neither she nor her husband, who is a police officer lodged any complaint. Except her husband she did not disclose any facts to anybody till her statement was recorded by the police on 15/7/06. It is also pertinent to note that after the deceased and the respondent were last seen together on 30/6/06 after long gap the body was recovered on 7/7/06. Learned judge has rightly observed that possibility of involvement of some other person cannot be ruled out. 3 5. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased and the respondent stayed together in Chavan Guest House from 1/6/06 and 3/6/06. The prosecution has relied on register which is at Exhibit-15 where the respondent’s signature is found. The handwriting expert PW 22 has given opinion that the specimen handwriting of the accused which was forwarded to him tallied with that of the respondent found in the register. The handwriting expert’s evidence is expert’s evidence which in the nature of things needs independent corroboration which is found lacking in this case. On the basis of handwriting expert’s evidence and on the basis of the circumstance that the respondent and the deceased were last seen together about 7 days prior to the incident, the respondent cannot be convicted of murder. 6. The view taken by the Sessions Court is a reasonably possible view which cannot be interfered with in an appeal against acquittal. Hence application for leave to appeal is rejected. JUDGE 4 JUDGE