1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 474 OF 2011 (Imam Rahman Regiwale .v. The State of Maharashtra and another) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri A.P. Tathod, Advocate for the appellant. Smt. N.R. Tripathi, APP for the respondent No.1. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. 02ND DECEMBER, 2011. This is an appeal against acquittal at the behest of the complainant challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Washim dated 28.02.2011, in Sessions Trial No. 34 of 2008, questioning the correctness of the judgment acquitting the respondent/accused for offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution against the respondent/accused was based on circumstantial evidence in support of the allegations that the appellant had committed murder of Imran son of PW-2 Imam Rehman Regiwale. On the basis of the complaint of PW-2 Imam, the investigation had commenced. The trial Court in its judgment, has summarized the prosecution case and has found that the three circumstances are alleged against the respondent/ accused. The aforesaid three circumstances are - (i) deceased was last seen alive in the company of the respondent/accused; (ii) seizure of the weapon at the behest of the respondent/accused; and (iii) seizure of the cell phone of deceased from the possession of the respondent/accused. In respect of the circumstance of deceased being last seen alive in the company of the respondent/accused, the trial 2 Court at paragraph 28 has held that as per the postmortem report since the rigor mortise was well developed and the time of death was stated to be 05:45 p.m., the evidence of the witnesses that deceased was last seen alive in the company of the respondent/ accused at 07:30 p.m., appears to be doubtful. In respect of seizure of the weapon at the behest of respondent/accused, the trial Court has come to the conclusion at paragraph 29 of the judgment that the medical evidence indicated that the weapon which had been used for inflicting the said injury had a blade like that of saw; while the weapon which was seized at the behest of respondent/accused was a knife and did not have serrated blade. In such circumstances, therefore, the trial Court found that no reliance could be placed on the circumstance of discovery of the weapon at the behest of the respondent/accused. In respect of third circumstance that the cell phone of the deceased was found in the house of the respondent/accused, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the number of the cell phone which was stated in the bill differed with the number of the cell phone which was seized from the house of the respondent/ accused and, therefore, no nexus was established between the cell phone of the deceased and the cell phone which was recovered from the house of the respondent/accused. The trial Court, therefore, gave benefit of doubt to the respondent/accused and acquitted him. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned APP for the respondent/State. Upon perusal of the findings recorded by the trial Court, we noticed that the view taken by the trial Court is a possible view to be taken on the basis of evidence on record. We did not notice any perversity in the reasonings of the trial Court to warrant any interference in the appeal against acquittal. Consequently, there being no merit in the appeal, the appeal is summarily dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE *rrg.