1 CRI.APPLN.NO.1557/2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1557 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra Through Public Prosecutor, High Court, Bench at Aurangabad. ..APPELLANT (Ori.Complainant) VERSUS (1. Sanjay Ramdas Pawar, Age 26 years, occu. Driver, r/o. Sawargaon, Taluka Georai, District Beed.) (Application dismissed as against Respondent No.1 as per Court's order dt.10.8.2011.) 2. Netaji @ Pinya Subhash Katmande, Age 23 years, occu. Driver, r/o. Daithana, Taluka Kaij, District Beed, at present Shivaji Nagar, Beed. 3. Atul @ Pappu Vikram Waghmare, Age 24 years, occu. Education, r/o Shivaji Nagar, Beed. 4. Nitin Ram Tarkase, Age 25 years, occupation labour, r/o. Telgaon, Taluka Wadwani, District Beed. 5. Sunil @ Shetti Vishnu Bagade, Age 27 years, occupation driver, r/o. Khadkoni, Taluka Barshi, District Solapur. 2 CRI.APPLN.NO.1557/2009 6. Vijaykumar @ Akshaya Goutam Kadam, Age 27 years, occu. Education, r/o Khadkoni, Taluka Barshi, District Solapur. ...RESPONDENTS (Ori.Accused) ... Mr. N.R.Shaikh, APP for applicant. Mr. Rahul Awasarmal, Advocate for respondent no. 6. Application dismissed as against Res.No.1 as per Courts order dt.10.8.2011. ... CORAM: A.H.JOSHI AND A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATE:SEPT., 15th, 2011 ... PER COURT: (Per A.H.Joshi, J.) 1. Heard. 2. Perused the impugned judgment. 3. The reasons recorded, which have led to acquittal, can be summarized as follows: (a) The test identification parade was defective, inter alia, on two grounds: (i) Failure to enlist the dummies. 3 CRI.APPLN.NO.1557/2009 (ii) To bring the suspects, or the accused in a masked condition, being un-available to be viewed by the witnesses. (b) The recovery being not proved. 3. Had it been a case that identification was vitiated and yet, recovery was duly proved, some nexus between the offense and the accused could have been established. 4. When it was a case of offence by un- identified persons, and the factors connecting the accused with the crime are absent, no other conclusion than one arrived at by the Sessions Court could have been arrived at. 5. We are, therefore, satisfied that the appeal does not have merits. 6. The application and appeal both are dismissed. (A.R.JOSHI) (A.H.JOSHI) JUDGE JUDGE ... (agp:1557-09crapl)