1 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.APPLICATION NO. 5800 OF 2009 (FOR LEAVE TO FILE APPEAL) IN CRI.APPEAL NO. OF 2009 (AGAINST THE ORDER OF ACQUITTAL) The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant Vs. Sou.Nandabai Satish Dhavate- Patil and Anr. ..Respondents .... Mr.H.J.Dedhia APP for Applicant-State .... CORAM : SMT.RANJANA DESAI AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATE : JUNE 9, 2010 P.C.: 1 The State of Maharashtra has challenged the judgment and order dated 2nd September, 2009 passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in Special Case No. 39 of 2007 acquitting the respondents of the offences under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC and also under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2 2 We have heard learned APP Mr.Dedhia at some length. Learned APP submitted that the impugned judgment and order is perverse and hence, needs to be interfered with. He submitted that the prosecution has led evidence of PW 5 Laxmi Bharat Dange and PW 8 Suman Sudhakar Dukare to establish that the deceased was last seen in the field of the accused on 7.5.2007. Learned APP urged that on 11.5.2007 body of the deceased was found in the field of the accused. Learned APP submitted that PW 6 Ram Dange who is husband of the deceased, has stated that accused 1 and the deceased had quarrel a few months before and that accused 1 was alleging that deceased had illicit relations with accused 2. Learned APP further pointed out that PW 6 Ram Dange has also stated that because the deceased stopped going to work in the field of the accused, accused 2 went to the house of the deceased and called her to work. Pursuant to this invitation, the deceased went for work on 7.5.2007. Learned APP submitted that in these circumstances, prosecution has conclusively established the guilt of the accused and hence, learned Judge was wrong in acquitting the accused. 3 We are unable to accept the submissions of the learned APP. 3 PW 6 Ram Dange is the husband of the deceased. According to him, the deceased had told him that accused 1 was alleging that accused 2 had illicit relations with the deceased and hence he had asked the deceased not to do any work in the field of the accused. He has further stated that accused 2 came to his house on 7.5.2007 and asked the deceased why she had not come for work and told her that she was to get some wages from him. According to PW 6 the deceased refused but unwillingly went with accused 2 and thereafter never returned. He, therefore, lodged missing report on 10.5.2007. In the cross-examination PW 6 has stated that after asking the deceased to come to his field, accused 2 left his house and thereafter the deceased left the house. Therefore, the case that the deceased and accused 2 left together cannot be accepted. It also does not stand to reason that when such serious allegations were made against the deceased, the deceased would go to the field of the accused or PW 6 would permit her to go there. It is pertinent to note that in the missing report Exh. 46 dated 11.5.2007 lodged by PW 6 he has not expressed any suspicion about the accused. In fact, he has stated that he did not suspect anybody. There is also contradiction in the version of PW 7 Gajrabai the mother of PW 6 and PW 6 Ram as to why the deceased went to the field of the accused. 4 4 PW 10 Balu Dange the son of the deceased has given a totally different version. According to him, on 7.5.2007 in the morning accused 2 came to their house and demanded key of the electric motor box installed in his field. He took it from the deceased and gave it to accused 2. Accused 2 then left his house. According to PW 10 thereafter the deceased went to the house of the accused, brought the amount and gave it to him. This evidence completely demolishes the prosecution case. 5 Two witnesses have been examined by the prosecution to establish that on 7.5.2007, the deceased was seen working in the field of the accused. These witnesses have stated that they did not disclose this fact to anybody till their statements were recorded by the police. This conduct is unusual. 6 All the above shortcomings in the evidence adduced by the prosecution make it ’s case shaky. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must unerringly point to the guilt of the accused which is not the case here. Merely because the corpse of the deceased was found in the field of the accused, in the absence of 5 cogent and clinching evidence, they cannot be held guilty of murder. 7 The view taken by the learned trial Court is reasonably a possible view which cannot be disturbed in this appeal against acquittal. There is no substance in the appeal. Appeal is dismissed. [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]