1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.138 OF 2009 Pandit Ramchandra Shelke .... Applicant Vs. Sopan Ramchandra Shelke & Ors..... Respondents Mr.Milind Deshmukh, Advocate for Applicant Mr.J.P. Kharge,APP, for State CORAM : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. Date : 21st August, 2009 P.C. : 1. This Criminal Revision Application takes exception for judgment and order dated 7th January 2009 by which respondents have been acquitted of the charge under Section 302, 201 read with 34 Indian Penal Code. It is alleged by the prosecution that the respondents in furtherance of their common intention, committed murder of one Ramchandra, father of respondents no. 1 and 2 and caused the evidence of offence to disappear with an intention of screening themselves from the legal punishment. According to the prosecution, Ramchandra was murdered sometime between 11.30 pm to 11.00 am. There is no direct evidence as regards the commission of the offence. It is also not the case of the prosecution that respondents were last seen with the deceased. The prosecution essentially relies upon recovery statement of respondent no.1 at whose instance spot of incident 2 and the spot where dead body was thrown into the canal was discovered. After recording the statement,PW-7 accompanied by respondent no.1 had gone to the house of complainant and thereafter to the canal. The panchanama at Exhibit 42 which is the recovery panchanama relates not to discovery of the place of incident and the spot from which the body was thrown into the canal but relates to the recovery of nylon rope which was found in the canal. Therefore the learned Sessions Judge found that the deposition evidence of recovery by PW-7 is not consistent with the panchanama at Exhibit 42. Without this evidence, there is no material whatsoever of any circumstance connecting the respondents to the offence of murder of Ramchandra. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents. The view taken by the trial Court is a fair and possible view. There is no need to interfere with the same. Hence, the Revision Application is dismissed. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J.)