1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1016 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant V/s. Rama Baban Kharade ..Respondent M.M.Deshmukh, A.P.P, for the State None for respondent CORAM : F.I.REBELLO & K.U.CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATE : 6TH JUNE, 2008 P.C. . The State is in appeal against the Judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, who by Order dated 12th October, 2007 in Session Case No.286 of 2006 gave a benefit of doubt in favour of the accused and consequently, acquitted the accused of the charge as framed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2 2. We have perused the Judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge. The case is based wholly on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution earlier had sought to rely on the evidence of P.W.13 Mr.Jamir Kalandar in support of what can be said as last seen theory. P.W.13 further in his evidence did not support the case of the prosecution. The other aspect of the matter is motive for the crime. The learned Judge noted that the case of the prosecution was that the deceased was killed by the accused as the deceased had not paid the money for the sound boxes. The evidence of the son of the deceased would show in his deposition that sound boxes were deposited by the accused with the deceased as the accused was unable to pay the money towards the toddy charges which he used to consume at the shop of the deceased. Apart from that, in so far as theft of money is concerned, the learned Judge noted that it was the deceased who has introduced shopkeeper to the accused and requested him to give the articles to the accused. The learned Judge also noted that the payments made to the shopkeeper were before the incident. In the 3 F.I.R also there was no mention of theft of any money. Subsequently, supplementary statement was filed. 3. In so far as a weapon is concerned, the learned Judge noted that the panch witness P.W.8 in his evidence has deposed that the accused did not make any statement before him in the police station on 11th January, 2006 that he would point out the place where the weapon was deposited. Apart from that, the learned Judge also noted that P.W.14 Mr.Ghanvat is silent on the point of sealing of the weapon. On this count, the recovery of weapon was rejected. In so far as recovery of the ring is concerned, the learned Judge has noted that the ring produced in the Court is like any other Gold ring of a common design. Apart from that the relevant evidence is of Mr.Oswal. In his deposition he specifically stated that the accused pledged the Gold ring and he did not produce the article before the police. The case of the prosecution was that the ring was of the deceased which was pledged by the accused with Mr.Oswal. The evidence of P.W.14 does not support the case of the prosecution. 4 The recovery of the Gold ring has to be discarded. 4. The C.A report would indicate the blood stains of ' B' group on the clothes of the accused were of the deceased. The Court has also noted that the clothes were sealed with the paper slips bearing the signatures of the I.O and panchas. The recovery of the clothes therefore, was established. However, there is nothing on record to indicate that as to what was the Blood group of the deceased. 5. Considering all this material the question was whether the Trial Court was right in giving benefit of doubt to the accused. In a case of circumstantial evidence the prosecution has to prove chain of the circumstances. In the instant case, the prosecution has not been able to show the circumstances which could lead to the conclusion that it was the accused and he was alone liable for the offence. 6. Apart from that, the learned Judge has taken a view which on the facts was not only a possible view but a probable view. In the 5 light of the matter, in our opinion, this is not a fit case to grant leave. Application is rejected. (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.)