dgm gm gm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE APPELLATE APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3078 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO.3078 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO.3078 OF 2008 IN IN IN CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. APPEAL NO. APPEAL NO. OF OF OF 2008 2008 2008 The State of Maharashtra Applicant (orig.complt.) Vs. 1.Ramesh Appa Khot 2.Ravindra alias Pintya Keshav Gend. Respondents (Orig.Accused Nos.1 & 2) Mr.A.S.Gadkari, APP for the Applicant-State. CORAM CORAM CORAM : BILAL NAZKI & : BILAL NAZKI & : BILAL NAZKI & ANOOP ANOOP ANOOP V.MOHTA,JJ. V.MOHTA,JJ. V.MOHTA,JJ. DATED DATED DATED : 14th January, 2009. : 14th January, 2009. : 14th January, 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. This is an application by the State for leave to file appeal against the order of acquittal of the respondents in Sessions Case No.214 of 2006, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sangli dated 15.5.2008. 2. The prosecution against the accused was that on 22.05.2006 in between 10 a.m. to 11.30 p.m., accused nos. 1 and 2, in furtherance of their common intention caused death of one Uttam by assaulting him on his neck with a ‘gupti’ and then threw his body on the Railway track so that the evidence was caused to disappear. On these allegations, charge was framed against the accused and they were tried. There was no ( 2 ) direct evidence in the case. During the trial, the prosecution tried to establish the guilt of the accused on the strength of two circumstances. The first circumstance was that the accused were last seen in the company of the deceased and the second circumstance was that weapons which were used for committing the crime were recovered at the disclosure made by the accused persons, but the prosecution never established either of the circumstances during the trial. There were two witnesses who were examined by the prosecution to show that the accused had been last seen in the company of the deceased. Both these witnesses contradicted each other and for reasons recorded by the trial Court, the testimony of these witnesses was not believed. Similarly, while analysing P.W.6 who was the Investigating Officer, the trial court came to the conclusion that no recovery had been made on a discovery made on any disclosed statements having been made by the accused in the police custody. It is well settled that if conviction on circumstantial evidence is to sustain then each and every circumstances must be proved and the circumstances should point out only proving guilt of the accused and if any other inference is possible then the benefit of doubt should go to the accused. ( 3 ) 3. In these circumstances, we do not find that this is a case for interference. Leave to file appeal refused. Application dismissed. ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (BILAL (BILAL (BILAL NAZKI, J.) NAZKI, J.) NAZKI, J.)