HVN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1553 OF 2006 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1553 OF 2006 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1553 OF 2006 The State of Maharashtra ... Applicant Versus Ashok @ Narendra Gangaprasad Pande and Ors. ... Respondents Mr. F. Shaikh, A.P.P. for Applicant/State. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO REBELLO REBELLO & K.U.CHANDIWAL,JJ. K.U.CHANDIWAL,JJ. K.U.CHANDIWAL,JJ. DATED: JUNE 03, 2008 DATED: JUNE 03, 2008 DATED: JUNE 03, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. . We find from the record that earlier this court had directed notice to be served on the respondents. Thereafter the prosecution has taken time to serve respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on their fresh address. Till date it appears that the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have not being served. . With the aid of the learned A.P.P. we have ourselves gone through the case and the judgment. The entire case of the prosecution rests on the evidence of P.W. No. 3 Pooja an Aprover. The incident is of 4.9.2001. Pooja was arrested on 4.4.2002. The learned Judge has noted considering the evidence of P.W. No. 6 P.I. Jungle that his evidence is doubtful as to on what date the police arrested Aprover Pooja and the accused involved in the case. The accused respondents were arrested purportedly after Pooja disclosed their names to the police. The learned Judge from the record has recorded a finding that prior to the arrest of Pooja, the accused No. 1 and 2 had been arrested. The case of the P.W. No. 3 was that she had shown accused No. 1 and that is how he came to be arrested. This the court found is contrary to the record and there is doubt as to when the police arrested Pooja and when police arrested accused No.1. The other aspect of the matter is that Pooja has disclosed the purported fact of murder to one P.W. No. 2 Yasmin after the incident. Considering this the learned court found that the silence of Pooja in not disclosing the names of the accused to the police and silence of Yasmin also creates a doubt. Apart from that the court found that the silence of Pooja for six months has not been satisfactorily explained. Before the police instead of mentioning the real names, she had given nick names. . The other aspect of the matter is that from the medical evidence the learned Judge has noted that P.W. No.5 Dr. Ghuge has set out that there is only ligature marks only on the front portion of the neck and not the entire neck though the weapon used was a rope according to the prosecution to strangulate the deceased. The court held that absence of ligature mark on the entire neck, raised a serious doubt about prosecution case. . To our mind, considering the only evidence available of P.W. No. 3 and the learned Judge has considered the same and found it doubtful, this at least would not be a fit case for this court considering that there is no perversity in the findings recorded, to interfere. Hence, application for leave rejected. (K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.) (K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.) (K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)