1 cri3592.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3592 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra Trough P.S.O. Police Station Patoda, Taluka Patoda, District Beed. ..APPLICANT -VERSUS- 1. Santosh S/o Prabhakar Kashid Age : 19 years, Occ : Education, R/o Shahu Nagar, Tq. & District Beed. 2. Santosh S/o Ashok Changan Age : 22 years, Occ : Education, R/o Ankush Nagar, Tq. & Dist. Beed. 3. Sonu S/o Manoj Sable Age : 20 years, Occ : Driver, R/o Shahu Nagar, Tq. & Dist. Beed. 4. Ganesh S/o Motilal Gaikwad Age : 30 years, R/o Vadarwadi, Barshi Naka, Beed. ..RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3593 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra Trough P.S.O. Police Station Patoda, Taluka Patoda, District Beed. ..APPLICANT -VERSUS- 1. Ganesh S/o Yellappa Pawar Age : 20 years, 2. Jallu @ Deepak S/o Durga Shinde Age : 19 years, Both R/o Vdarwadi, Barshi Naka, Beed. ..RESPONDENTS ..... Smt. S.D. Shelke, A.P.P. for applicant/State. ..... CORAM : A.H. JOSHI AND A.M. THIPSAY , JJ. DATE : 18th November, 2011 2 cri3592.11 JUDGMENT : (PER JOSHI, J) 1. These are the applications by the State for leave to appeal. 2. Accused persons were tried in two different Sessions Cases i.e. Sessions Case No. 109 of 2010 and Sessions Case No. 144 of 2010 for charge of wrongful restraint and dacoity, by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Beed. 3. Heard learned A.P.P. Perused the notes of evidence. It is seen that admittedly, the accused were not of prior acquaintance. The prosecution has relied upon the evidence by way of identification parade for identifying the accused persons. 4. The identification parades have come under cloud of doubt, since the accused persons were shown to the witnesses, before conducting the identification parade. 5. As the sum effect, the learned Sessions Judge was constrained to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the involvement of the accused persons and consequently, acquitted the accused. 6. Perusal of evidence suggests that the conclusions arrived at by learned Sessions Judge are most plausible. It is not shown that any crucial piece of evidence is not considered by the learned Sessions Judge. 7. Considering that the judgment is based on sound reasons and well supported by the evidence, there is no ground to grant leave to appeal. 8. Therefore, leave is refused and applications and appeals are rejected. (A.M. THIPSAY, J.) ( A.H. JOSHI, J.) ga s/cri3592.11