(-1-) MGN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1884 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant Versus Shailesh Ratan Samarth & Ors..Respondents Mr. P.S. Hingorani, APP for Applicant. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO REBELLO REBELLO & A.A.KUMBHAKONI,JJ. A.A.KUMBHAKONI,JJ. A.A.KUMBHAKONI,JJ. DATED: 13th October, 2008 DATED: 13th October, 2008 DATED: 13th October, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . This is an application by the State for leave to appeal against the order dated 14th March, 2008 of learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge -1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Thane in Sessions Case No.375 of 2005. 2. The respondents herein were charged for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 for having caused death of deceased Raju Mhatre. The prosecution examined P.W.2- Guddi Chandya Pawar. In so far as this witness is concerned, she has deposed to the fact that on 10th May, 2005 she was sitting in front of her house on a platform along with her daughter Radha when she heard shouts "Aai Melo Vachava Mala" and on hearing these shouts she rushed to the spot of offence and she saw accused Shailesh, (-2-) Vasant and Bakka assaulting deceased Raja by means of knife due to which Raja sustained bleeding injuries on his person. She further deposed that she informed Kalwa Police Station on phone that Shailesh, Vasant and Bakka assaulted Raja and Raja died. In her cross examination it has come on record that there are four criminal cases pending against this witness for theft and it is defence of the accused that deceased Raja used to receive stolen property from this witness Guddi Pawar. The husband of Guddi Pawar was also prosecuted by Police for the offences of committing murder and many criminal cases are pending against him. The Court further found that there are several other material contradictions in the evidence of P.W.2. In cross examination she admitted that she did not inform police on telephone the names of the accused. After examining the evidence of witnesses in extenso the learned Judge found that it will not be safe to rely on the said evidence. 3. The other evidence of a purported eye witness is of Rekha Arun Bhosale. So far as this witness is concerned, the learned Sessions Judge considering the evidence in cross examination, that between 7.30 p.m. till 12. O’Clock in the midnight she did not know what happened and further that she has not disclosed the names of the assailants to (-3-) police nor she had seen who assaulted whom held that it would not be safe to rely on the said witnesses. 4. So far as the recovery is concerned, the learned Judge noted that the C.A. reports do not support the prosecution case in as much as blood could not be traced at Exhibits 1 to 4 and 10 and showed inconclusive in so far as Exhibit 85. In Exhibit 84 the blood group was not suitable for chemical analysis of Exhibits 3, 4 and 5. 5. We are concerned here with an Appeal against acquittal. In the instant case the learned Judge has considered all the evidence and after through scrutiny thereof has arrived at the conclusion that the case against the respondents have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. . In our opinion considering the consideration of evidence and the view taken by the learned Judge we find that the order does not suffer from any illegality. 6. In the light of the above, we find no reason to interfere with the order of acquittal and consequently application is rejected. (A.A.KUMBHAKONI, J.) (A.A.KUMBHAKONI, J.) (A.A.KUMBHAKONI, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)