dgm gm gm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE APPELLATE APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.68 OF 2009 APPLICATION NO.68 OF 2009 APPLICATION NO.68 OF 2009 IN IN IN CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. APPEAL NO. APPEAL NO. OF OF OF 2008 2008 2008 The State of Maharashtra Petitioner (orig. complainant) Vs. Nandkumar Tukaram Mandale Respondent Mrs.P.H.Kantharia, APP for the State. CORAM CORAM CORAM : BILAL NAZKI & : BILAL NAZKI & : BILAL NAZKI & ANOOP ANOOP ANOOP V.MOHTA,JJ. V.MOHTA,JJ. V.MOHTA,JJ. DATED DATED DATED : 14th January, 2009. : 14th January, 2009. : 14th January, 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. This is an application by the State for leave to file appeal against the order of acquittal of the respondent in Sessions Case No.86 of 2006 passed by the District Judge-3 & Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli dated 30.08.2008. 2. The prosecution case is that in between 29.11.2005 to 30.11.2005 from 8.30 p.m. to 6.30 a.m. at village-Chopadewadi, accused committed the murder of his uncle Jaywant Namdev Mandale. A complaint was accordingly filed by Dhanaji Jaywant Mandale, a son of deceased, Vita Police Station and after investigation, chargesheet was filed. The whole case depended on the testimony of one witness who was projected as eye ( 2 ) witness. The witness was Vijay Tatoba Thombare. Although he claimed that he had accompanied the deceased and the accused, when the accused gave blow with a lathi over the head of the deceased, he did not inform anybody immediately and he went for grazing his goats, later slept and then returned to his house and ultimately the police got his statement recorded before the Magistrate after two and half months of the occurrence. The trial Court was of the view that this witness had behaved in most un-usual manner and, therefore, his testimony was not reliable. The trial Court also found that even the whole of FIR which was registered only on 29.11.2005 was not sent to the Magistrate. Out of four copies of the four page FIR, only first page had been received by the Magistrate and, therefore, there was a suspicion that something might have happened even after filing of the so-called F.I.R. The trial Court also found that there was discrepancy between the testimony of P.W.8-eye witness and the medical evidence. Though projected eye witness stated that blow was given by a lathi or stick, the opinion of the Doctor was that the injury found on the person of the deceased could not have been inflicted by a stick. 3. For the above reasons, we do not find any reason ( 3 ) to interfere in the matter. Hence, leave to appeal is refused. Application is accordingly dismissed. ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (BILAL (BILAL (BILAL NAZKI, J.) NAZKI, J.) NAZKI, J.)