IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3333 OF 2011 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VERSUS SANTOSH APPARAO GHATTE AND ORS ... APP for Applicant / Appellant : Shri N.R.Shaikh ... CORAM : A. H. JOSHI & A. R. JOSHI, JJ. Dated: August 26, 2011 ... 1. The State has filed Criminal Application for condonation of delay of five days caused in filing the criminal appeal. 2. We had called upon the learned APP to address the Court on merits, since it should not happen that notices are issued to the accused un-mindfully and mechanically. 3. Learned APP addressed the Court on merits. 4. We have perused the judgment. 5. It is seen that the case is based on sole testimony of PW 1- Swaminath. The learned Sessions Judge has observed in paragraph Nos.25 to 27 of the judgment as regards worthiness of testimony of PW 1. It is seen that the conduct of PW 1 is not natural. He akl IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD (2) CR.APPLN/3333/2011 either did not disclose the fact to his uncle nor has used the telephone equipment available with him. His conduct reveals that he is either not an witness nor his behaviour is natural. In other words, his testimony could not be believed and was not believed by the learned Sessions Judge. 6. We are satisfied with the reasons, based upon appreciation of the evidence, drawn by the Sessions Court. The judgment is not challenged as perverse. 7. Second view could have been taken from the evidence, is no ground available in the appeal of acquittal. 8. There is no merit in the appeal. We are not inclined to grant order of notice in the application for condonation of delay. 9. We, therefore, dismiss the application and appeal both. ( A. R. JOSHI, J. ) ( A. H. JOSHI, J. ) ... akl