1 CRI.APL.NO.5046/2010 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD 4. APPLN/5046/2010 THE STATE OF MAH [Criminal] V/S BHIMA ARJUN WAYASE WITH APPLN/5047/2010 THE STATE OF MAH V/S BHIMA ARJUN WAYASE In APPLN/5046/2010 -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Smt. S.D.Shelke, APP for applicant/appellant. ... CORAM: A.H.JOSHI AND A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATE:SEPT., 15th, 2011 ... 1. We had called upon the learned Public Prosecutor to address us on merits since, issuing notice on application for condonation of delay, in mechanical manner, results in vexing the respondent, notwithstanding merits of the appeal. 2. Heard learned A.P.P. 3. Perused the judgment. 4. It is a case of circumstantial evidence. The circumstantial evidence is of last seen together. 5. The version of the witness - bare statement that the accused was at home at the relevant time does not, in itself, constitute complete evidence of last seen together. 2 CRI.APL.NO.5046/2010 6. Learned Judge, therefore, rightly held that there is no ocular evidence as to the accused persons being last seen in the company or association of the deceased between 4 p.m. to 4.30 p.m. i.e. at the time of occurrence of the offence. 7. In this situation, though the State has filed appeal, it is not in a position to show that the impugned judgment suffers due to defect of being perverse. 8. Appeal has no merits. In view of this, the application for condonation of delay and the appeal both are dismissed. (A.R.JOSHI) (A.H.JOSHI) JUDGE JUDGE agp/5046-10crapl