1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1697 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant V/s. Govind Shrikisan Biyani & anr. ..Respondents Smt.V.R.Bhosale, A.P.P, for the State None for the respondents CORAM : F.I.REBELLO & K.U.CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATE : 1ST JULY, 2008 P.C. . This an application for leave to appeal against the Order dated 31st December, 2007 in Session Case No.317 of 2004. The respondents were charged for the offence punishable under Sections 364A, 302, 387, 120B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Judge in paragraph 16 after considering the law on the subject has framed the points for determination. Thereafter, the learned Judge has dealt with every aspect of the matter and has given the reasons 2 as to why it is not possible to accept the evidence on the last seen circumstance as also the recovery at the instance of the accused. We have perused the findings by the learned Judge. We find from the facts and the evidence on record that it is not possible to accept the evidence of P.W.10 Shankar Kashid. Considering that, apart from other factors though, the incident is of July, 2003 he made disclosure on 3rd November, 2003. In the mean time, the deceased who was kidnapped had been killed. It is impossible to accept that the person who had last seen the deceased with the accused, would keep his silence for over three months and not disclose the same to the police. Insofar as the recovery at the instance of the accused is concerned, the learned Judge after considering the evidence on record has doubted the recovery as deposed by various witnesses. Insofar as mobile is concerned, in the absence of corroborative evidence it would not be possible to hold that it was the same mobile which was sold to the said shop keeper. 2. This is a case of involving a charges under Section 364A 3 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The normal rule in the case of circumstantial evidence is that the chain must be complete in all respect has not been estblished in this case. Even, apart from that we find that the evidence of the most of the witnesses raises doubt on material point. 3. Considering the above, in our opinion and as this is an appeal against acquittal and the learned Judge has given reasons to show that the chain of circumstance has not been established, application for leave to appeal is rejected. (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.)