1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.450 OF 2008 Dinesh Kumar Ramdular Mourya ..... Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.R.M. Yadav, Advocate for applicant. Mr.S.A. Shaikh, APP for respondents. Coram : Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota, J. Date : 31st July 2009. PC : 1. By the judgment and order dated 26th June 2008, the respondents were acquitted of the offence to commit murder of one Vinod Kumar. That order is under challenge in this revision filed by brother of deceased Vinod Kumar who was examined as a witness by the prosecution (PW-4). 2. The brief facts of the case of prosecution are that on 5th May 2006 at about 1.15 am., the complainant- PW 2 while fetching water from the tap at Kharegaon Kalwa saw the deceased walking in unsteady manner on the foot-path. PW 2 went near him and noticed that he was injured and blood was oozing from the injury. Vinod was initially taken to the hospital at Kalwa and from there transferred to Sion hospital where he succumbed to the injuries 2 received on his neck and legs. 3. The prosecution examined in all 10 witnesses to prove the guilt against the accused. It was the evidence of the prosecution that Vinod Kumar had told PW 2 that he was assaulted by Gopal and Pramod by means of knife at Indira Nagar. He, however had not stated full names of the assailants. PW 3 and PW 4, the brothers of the deceased deposed that the deceased had told them that he was assaulted by Gopal @ Ramtirth and Pramod by means of knife. The learned Sessions Judge, however found that the full names of Gopal and Pramod had been stated for the first time in the evidence and the same were not disclosed in the statements of these two witnesses recorded by Police. There is also evidence of PW-7 that when injured Vinod Kumar was brought to Kalwa Hospital, he was not in a position to speak. In these circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge found that evidence of PW 3 and PW 4 who had met him in the hospital cannot be relied upon to connect the respondents to the offence of murder. The only evidence of PW-2 which did not give full names of the assailants was not found sufficient by the trial Court to convict the respondents. I have perused the evidence led in the matter as also the judgment of the Sessions Court and I am of the opinion that the view taken by the Sessions Court while acquitting respondents no.1 and 2 is a possible view. 3 4. It is also brought to my notice by the learned APP that the application filed by the State for leave to appeal against the order of acquittal was rejected by the Division Bench by it’s order dated 26th November 2008. In the circumstances, the Criminal Revision Application is dismissed. (Smt.R.P. SondurBaldota, J.)