: 1 : USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2311 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant v/s. Shri Vitthal Chima Pawar & Ors. .. Respondents ........ Smt. V.R. Bhosale, APP for Applicant State None for respondents ........ CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & R.Y.GANOO, JJ. Dated : 16th November, 2009. P.C. : 1. We have heard Mrs. Bhosale, learned APP. This is an application filed under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. for seeking leave to appeal against the order of acquittal passed on 24.12.2008 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge at Baramati in Sessions Case No.23 of 2007. : 2 : 2. The respondents were put on trial in the said case for the offences punishable under Section 364(A), 365, 385, 302 and 201 r/w. Section 34 of the I.P.C. It was the case of the prosecution that Shri. Raajkumar Londhe, the victim was put under threat and with intention to wrongful confinement at a secret place for extortions and subsequently he was murdered and his dead body was thrown in a well. The prosecution examined in all 35 witnesses and a large number of them turned hostile. Amongst the witnesses examined, the wife of the deceased Sandhya (PW-2) and Vishal (PW-3), her brother were also examined. As per Sandhya (PW-2), the deceased while leaving his house in the morning on the fateful day, had informed her that he would be going to house of accused No.1 and would return at about 8.00 p.m. whereas Vishal (PW-3) had claimed that he had received telephones calls from unknown persons demanding money and the police had led trap but none turned out. As per Vishal (PW-3), the telephone calls came from accused Nos.1 and 2 and on that basis they were arrested. The last seen theory has not been proved by the prosecution and even the recovery of cloths of the deceased and blood stained having been found on their cloths has been discarded by the trial Court as the evidence to support the prosecution case. : 3 : 3. We have gone through the reasoning set out by the trial Court while acquitting of the accused. The prosecution case on the basis of circumstantial evidence has not been proved beyond reasonable doubts. The trial Court was, therefore, left with no alternative but to acquit the accused and hence we do not find any case made out to reconsider the reasoning set out by the trial Court in support of the order of acquittal. 4. In the circumstances, leave to appeal is refused and the application is rejected. [R.Y.GANOO, J.] [B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.]