1 6.appln2898-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2898 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra. ..Applicant. Vs. Sadiq Isak Mukadam. ..Respondent. .... Mr.Y.S. Shinde, A.P.P. for the Applicant­State. .... CORAM : D.D.SINHA & A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 08TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has submitted that originally three accused persons namely Ajay Surve, present respondent Sadik Mukadam and Anant Tambe were prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 120­B, 302, 392 and 201 of Indian Penal Code. It is contended that original accused No.1 Ajay was convicted for the offence punishable under Section PPD 2 6.appln2898-10 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. He is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 392 of Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. Similarly accused No.1 Ajay also came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 201 & 182 of Indian Penal Code. 3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further states that original accused No.3 Anant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 414 of Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine in sum of Rs. 500/­ in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months was also imposed. 4. It is further submitted that original accused No.2 Sadiq (present respondent) was acquitted of all the offences with which he was charged. The State has filed application for leave to appeal and appeal against acquittal only against original accused No.2 Sadiq Isak Mukadam. 5. The Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the circumstance of recovery of brief­case of the deceased at the instance of the present respondent was not considered by the trial Court in its 3 6.appln2898-10 right perspective. It is contended that the bag which was discovered by the respondent was containing sum of Rs.6300/­ and UTI master card which belonged to the deceased. It is contended that this circumstance was incriminating circumstance which ought to have been relied upon by the learned trial Court and should not have been discarded only on the ground that this discovery was effected not in the investigation of the present crime, but, in the investigation of another crime No.80/2007 which was registered in another police station. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has not disputed that except the circumstance of discovery of briefcase and ATM card, there is no other evidence available against the present respondent. We want to express that while considering appeal against acquittal this Court exercises limited jurisdiction and same can be invoked only if the findings of acquittal recorded by the trial Court, on the face of it, are unsustainable in law. In the instant case, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has specifically contended that the only circumstance which connects the respondent with the crime in question was/is discovery of brief­case and UTI ATM card. Even if this circumstance is accepted even then this solitary circumstance, in our view, would be hopelessly inadequate even remotely to prove the 4 6.appln2898-10 charge against the respondent for robbery and murder. If the case is based on the circumstantial evidence, it is well settled that the circumstances required to be brought by the prosecution should be such which rule out the hypothesis of innocence and must bring home the guilt of the accused. 6. For the reasons stated hereinabove, Criminal Application as well as Criminal Appeal both are dismissed. (D.D.SINHA,J.) (A.R.JOSHI,J.)