1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2182 OF 2009 State of Maharashtra .. Applicant. vs Suyog Tamanna Suttar .. Respondent. (Orig.Accused No. 4) WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 166 OF 2009 Rekha Kumar Jhende .. Applicant. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents. Mr. A.S. Gadkari, APP for the applicant/State in Application No. 2182/09 and for Respondent No. 1 in Revision Application No. 166/09. Mr. Umesh Mankapure for respondent in Appln. No. 2182/09 and for respondent no. 2 in Revn. Appln. No. 166/09. Mr. Amit Sale for applicant in Rev. Appln. No. 166/09. 2 CORAM : J. N. PATEL & A. A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 9TH NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C. : This is an application for leave to appeal preferred by the State wherein they seek to take exception to the judgment and order passed by the learned Ad­hoc Additional Sessions Judge­1, Sangli in Sessions Case No. 201 of 2007 on 30.12.208 in acquitting the respondent Soyog Tamanna Sutar, original accused no. 4. It is the prosecution s’ case that on 23.06.2007 at about 3.00 p.m., the original accused no. 1 and his two companions came near Rohit Zende and Rohit and Ramesh started talking with each other and suddently Ramesh and his two companions took out weapons like chopper from their waist and started assaulting Rohit who suffered injuries on head, face, chest and other parts of the body also. Due to fear, the complainant and Ganesh stood at some distance and when they tried to chase them they ran away from there. According to the prosecution, when Ramesh Koli and his two companions ran away from there, then the complainant and Ganesh Kengar returned back on the spot and found that Rohit Zende was lying dead by sustaining injuries. Therefore, they ran to Vishrambag Police Station and lodged a report. It is further the 3 prosecution case that the victim Rohit was murdered pursuant to a conspiracy wherein the principal conspirator was the original accused no. 4 Suyog Tamanna Sutar. The learned Trial Judge found that the prosecution has failed to prove the theory of conspiracy and acquitted accused no. 4 who was the principal conspirator having alleged to have entered into a conspiracy with accused nos. 1 to 3 whereas convicted accused nos. 1 to 3 for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The learned A.P.P., pointed out to this Court that the trial Court ignored the evidence of P.W. 21 Smt. Rekha Zende who is the mother of the deceased Rohit. The relevant part of the evidence is discussed by the learned Ad­hoc Sessions Judge in paragraphs 45, 46 and 47 of his judgment and we find that the learned trial Judge has not committed any error or illegality in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the original accused no. 4 beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand, it has observed that at the most whatever evidence the prosecution has led only creates a suspicion in one s mind. Merely on suspicion, a person cannot be ’ convicted for such a heinous offence, namely, conspirary to commit murder. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the matter so as to grant leave to the prosecution to file an appeal against the acquittal. 4 Therefore, the application seeking leave to appeal is dismissed so also the criminal appeal. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 166 OF 2009 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant i.e. the Rekha Kumar Jhende, the mother of the deceased. The learned counsel appearing fo the petitioner in Criminal Revision Application No. 166 of 2009 has submitted that there was material to establish the conspiracy. The nature of material is in the form of certain talks on mobile. At the most, this can be considered as corroborative evidence. In the absence of any direct or indirect evidence for proving the charge of conspiracy, such material may not be sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that the person is guilty or not and in light of the fact that the prosecution having failed to establish its case and having rejected the application for leave to appeal, we do not find any merit in the criminal revision application. The same is also dismissed. ( J. N. PATEL, J.) ( A. A. SAYED, J.)