-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3114 OF 2007 In CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra (through Mira Road P. Stn.) : Applicant/Appellant (Orig.Complainant) V/s. Smt.Nasrin Aslam Shaikh & Anr. : Respondents (Orig.Accused Nos.1 & 2) ... Mrs.P.H.Kantharia, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. ... CORAM : BILAL NAZKI & S.A.BOBDE,JJ. DATE : JANUARY 08, 2008. P.C. Heard the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This is an application for leave to appeal against acquittal of the respondents in Sessions Case no.517/2005 with Sessions Case no.306/2006 passed by the III Ad hoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Thane. The prosecution case was that the accused no.1 was living with her husband, the -: 2 :- deceased, in building no.87/102, Poonam Complex, Meera Road, and the accused no.1 with the help of her associate, accused no.2, committed the murder of the deceased by using a wooden hammer. The prosecution examined ten witnesses in all after the accused were charged for an offence under section 302 to which they pleaded not guilty. The accused did not produce any defence. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution case was based exclusively on circumstantial evidence and there was not, as a matter of fact, any circumstance connecting the accused with the guilt. 3. We have gone through the judgement and seen the evidence. No witness has stated anything which could connect the accused persons to the offence with which they were charged. It is true that P.W.5 is the Doctor who testified to the fact that the death of the deceased was homicidal, but in order to prove that the death of the deceased was caused by the accused, the prosecution had to show the circumstances which would point to the guilt of the accused. The only circumstance on which the prosecution tried to rely on was that the hammer by which death was caused was found in the house of the accused no.1. There is nothing on record to show that this hammer was used by the accused for causing fatal injuries to the deceased. That hammer was in the house which belonged to -: 3 :- the deceased as well as accused no.1. Therefore, the mere finding of hammer from the house of the accused no.1 and the deceased would not be, in our view, sufficient to convict a person for an offence under section 302. Since the prosecution has failed to prove any of the circumstances which could connect the accused persons to the offence with which they were charged, we do not find that this is a fit case in which the leave to appeal against conviction should be granted. 4. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is dismissed. (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (S.A. BOBDE, J.)