HVN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1513 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra ... Applicant Versus Sandeep Nimba Wagh and Ors. ... Respondents Mr.P.S. Hingorani, A.P.P. for State. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO REBELLO REBELLO & K.U.CHANDIWAL,JJ. K.U.CHANDIWAL,JJ. K.U.CHANDIWAL,JJ. DATED: JUNE 26, 2008 DATED: JUNE 26, 2008 DATED: JUNE 26, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. . Five respondents were charged for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of I.P.C. as also section 204 read with 34 I.P.C. and 498A read with 34 I.P.C. The learned trial court on considering the evidence has convicted the respondent No. 1 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. and acquitted them for the offence punishable under Section 304B I.P.C. He is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498 A read with 34 of I.P.C. and 201 read with 34 I.P.C.The Respondent No. 2 has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 201 of I.P.C. and acquitted of the offence under section 302 of I.P..C and 498A as also of the offence under section 302 read with 34 of I.P.C. The accused Nos. 3 and 5 were acquitted of the charges. The accused No. 4 was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of I.P.C. but however, convicted under Section 4098 A read with 34 of I.P.C. as also under section 201 read with 34 of I.P.C. . The state is int the appeal against the acquittal of the accused under Section 302 of I.P.C. as also other offences. . We have considered the evidence and the judgment of the learned trial Judge. From the record, we find that Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 were residing in the same house as Respondent No. 1 and the deceased. The body was found in hanging position in the room occupied by Respondent No. 1 and deceased. Considering the evidence on record, the learned Judge has rightly held that the offence under Section 302 read with 34 was not proved against Respondent Nos. 2 to 5. We are therefore, clearly of the opinion that this would not be a fit case for this court to grant leave to appeal. In the light of the above, application for leave stands dismissed. (K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.) (K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.) (K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)