1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1599 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. _____ OF 2008 DIST.: SATARA The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant Versus Kisan Maruti Jadhav & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr. P.S. Hingorani, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the Applicant Mr. Rahul Kute for the Respondents. CORAM: B ILAL NAZKI and A.A. KUMBHAKONI, JJ. DATE: SEPTEMBER 25, 2008 P.C.:­ This is an application for leave to appeal against acquittal of the respondents in Sessions Case No. 63 of 2003. 2. The prosecution tried to establish the case against the accused persons with regard to alleged murder of Leelabai Hanmant 2 Ghadge on the basis of circumstantial evidence. A report was filed by one of the witnesses before the police, who was serving in the Irrigation Department as an officer. While he was inspecting the flow of water in the canal, he noticed, near Door No. 18, at about 12.15 hours, that there was a dead body of a female, aged about 35 years, in naked condition, and the body was without head and facing the sky. He went near the body. The body had certain marks and also certain tattooing marks. Two of the names inscribed on the left hand of the dead body were 'Hanmant' and 'Lilabai'. 3. Thereafter, the investigation started. Primarily, the prosecution wanted to establish the following two circumstances in order to connect the accused to the alleged crime:­ (1) With reference to last seen person, the daughter of the deceased was produced as a witness, being P.W. 5. She stated that her mother left the house on 2nd February, 2003 at about 11 a.m. She left the house on the pretext that she would go for Darshan to Jejuri, but she did not return. At about 9 a.m. on the next day, a neighbour received a 3 phone call. The telephone was picked up by the neighbour's daughter, and she told her that her mother had gone to Kokan for four days. The name of the neighbour, who received the phone call, was Vaishali Sadashiv Deokar. It may be noted that this person was also not cited as a witness. Nothing happened between 2nd and 7th February, 2003, when the witness gave a phone call to accused No.1, asking him to inform whether her mother had gone to the house of her aunt, Sitabai, and according to the witness, accused No.1 told her that he would get back to her after getting information. Therefore, this witness has nowhere stated that either she had seen accused No.1 in the company of her mother or her mother had even told her that she was going to meet accused No.1. (2) Coming to the next circumstance of production of axe and the disclosure made by accused No.2, we do not understand, even if the recovery is believed, how could it connect the accused persons with the crime? The axe was recovered from the house of accused No.2, and 4 every house in the village would have an axe. This axe was not even sent for chemical examination to get a report whether it had been used for committing murder or not. Therefore, on the basis of the recovery of the axe, which was nowhere connected by the witness to the crime, the prosecution could have succeeded in the case. 4. For these reasons, we do not find any merit in this application, which is accordingly dismissed. BILAL NAZKI, J. A.A. KUMBHAKONI, J.