* 1 * Cri.Appln. 3629.2007 23.11.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3629 OF 2007 [For Leave to Appeal] IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2007 [Against the order of Acquittal] The State of Maharashtra .... Applicant/Orig.Compl V/S. Ramesh Shankar Sutar .... Respondent/Orig.Accd * * * * * * Mr. V.B. Kondedeshmukh, APP for the applicant. None for the respondent. Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 23 November, 2010. P.C. : 1. This is an application by the State for leave to challenge the judgment and order dated 2nd August, 2007 passed by the Ad­Hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Criminal Appeal No. 93 of 2005 setting aside the judgment and order dated 7th May, 2005 of the trial court in Regular Case No. 58 of 1997. The trial court * 2 * Cri.Appln. 3629.2007 23.11.2010 had convicted the respondents under Section 379 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/­ each. In default of payment of fine, the respondents were to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. 2. The entire case of the prosecution rested upon the evidence of P.W.3 who according to the prosecution case had purchased the stolen property i.e. he­goat from the respondent. P.W.3 had stated that a third person i.e. one, Dharma Pujari who is not the complainant, informed him that the he­goat purchased by him was a stolen goat. The appeal court found that the complainant had nowhere in his testimony deposed anything about Dharma Pujari. The complainant did not state that Dharma Pujari had gone to him or that P.W.3 had disclosed to him about any statement made by Dharma Pujari. In these circumstances, based only upon the two statements of P.W.3 which does not connect the respondent directly to the allegations of stealing, the appeal court rejected the contention of the prosecution that the evidence of P.W. 3 corroborated the evidence of the complainant. There can be no * 3 * Cri.Appln. 3629.2007 23.11.2010 infirmity with this finding of the appeal Courts. There is no merit whatsoever in the challenge to the order of the appellate court. The application for leave to file appeal by the State is rejected. [Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J]