1 A-5079-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5079 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant versus Shankar Dharmendra Mal ..Respondent Mrs. A. S. Pai – Additional Public Prosecutor for Applicant / State. CORAM : D. D. SINHA AND SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATED : NOVEMBER 24, 2010. P.C. : 1. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the applicant / State. 2. The criminal application for leave to file appeal is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 29th June 2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Vasai, District Thane, whereby the respondent - accused came to be acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that in order 2 A-5079-10 to bring home the guilt of the respondent, the prosecution has examined 11 witnesses, out of which P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 4, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 were examined by the prosecution to show that the respondent used to ill treat deceased Somaru (Sonali) who was his wife. It is contended that the evidence of P.W. 1 Dr. Ghuge demonstrates that deceased died due to strangulation. It is further contended that nylon rope was recovered from the house of the respondent and it is the case of the prosecution that the same must have been used by the respondent for strangulating his wife deceased Somaru. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the trial court did not appreciate the entire prosecution evidence in the right perspective and wrongly recorded the finding of acquittal. 4. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. At the outset, we would like to express that the tenor of the evidence adduced by the prosecution by examining number of prosecution witnesses shows that the respondent was ill treating his wife deceased Somaru. It is pertinent to note that there is no charge framed against the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. In absence thereof, we are of the view, that the evidence adduced by the prosecution in this regard is not of much help to the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the respondent for murder of his wife 3 A-5079-10 Somaru. So far as the recovery of rope from the house of the respondent is concerned, it is not in dispute that the spot panchnama was drawn by the investigating officer in the presence of panchas; there is no mention about the finding of rope at the place of the incident. Panch witness examined to prove the spot panchnama is consistent with this. It appears that at latter point of time the nylon rope was recovered from the house of the respondent. It is in these circumstances, much importance cannot be attached to the nylon rope which was alleged to have been recovered from the house of the respondent. It is also not in dispute that though it is the case of the prosecution that there were nail marks found on the neck of the deceased, however, the medical evidence does not support the said story of the prosecution. 5. Taking into consideration the totality of the nature and quality of evidence adduced by the prosecution, we are of the view, that the view taken by the trial court is a possible view and therefore no case is made out for showing indulgence. Leave refused. Application is dismissed. (D. D. SINHA, J.) (SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)