- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.271 OF 1995 Shaikh Mubarak Shaikh Chotumiya, Age major, Occupation Labour, Resident of Takali, Taluka Paithan, District Aurangabad. ... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra (Copy to be served on the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Bench at Aurangabad) 2. Syed Kasim s/o Syed Osman, Age 27 years, Occupation Service, Muster Clerk, Irrigation Department, R/o Pachod, Taluka Paithan, District Aurangabad. 2. Syed Shahadatta s/o Syed Issak, Age 22 years, Occupation Labour, R/o Pachod, Taluka Paithan, District Aurangabad. 3. Bharat s/o Panditrao Shelke, Age 23 years, Occupation Labour, R/o Pachod, Taluka Paithan, District Aurangabad. 4. Vikram s/o Dagdu Parade, Age 28 years, Occupation Labour, R/o Pachod, Taluka Paithan, District Aurangabad. ... RESPONDENTS (Nos.2 to 4 Original Accused) ----- Shri B.R. Warma, Advocate for the petitioner Shri K.J. Ghute Patil, A.P.P. for respondent No.1. Shri R.R. Suryawanshi, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 5 ----- - 2 - CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ. DATED : 8th March, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER HARDAS, J.): 1. This criminal revision application has been filed challenging the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Beed, dated 1.7.1995, in Sessions Trial No.149/1994, acquitting the respondents 2 to 5 for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal code. The prayer which is made in the revision memo is for quashing and setting aside the said judgment and for punishing the respondents 2 to 5 in accordance with law. 2. With the assistance of Shri B.R. Warma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri R.R. Suryawanshi, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5, we have perused the evidence recorded by the trial Court. The trial Court has recorded a finding that it was established by the prosecution that an amount of Rs.15,000/- had been borrowed by the accused from the deceased Shaikh Manjoor Shaikh Chhotumiya. The trial Court, however, came to the conclusion that there was no evidence whatsoever which would unerringly establish that the deceased was last see alive in the company of the accused. The prosecution relied upon circumstantial evidence which the trial Court found inadequate to compete - 3 - the chain of circumstantial evidence which would rule out every possibility of the innocence of the accused and unerringly point to his guilt. 3. Mr. Warma, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that the evidence of the handwriting expert clearly establishes that the disputed writing was that of the accused and this finding has been recorded on the basis of the specimen writing of the accused. Mr. Warma, therefore, urges that this factor has been completely ignored by the trial Court and the trial Court has shut out this piece of admissible evidence. 4. The evidence of handwriting expert being an opinion evidence, is liable to be accepted if duly corroborated. The trial Court has taken this evidence into consideration and has held that no reliance can be placed on the report of the handwriting expert as the prosecution has failed to establish that the specimen writing of the accused had been obtained before independent panchas. In the light of the fact that the trial Court has recorded a finding that the prosecution has not proved the specimen writings to be that of the accused, no reliance at all can be placed on the report of the handwriting expert. We have perused the other evidence recorded by the trial Court and we do not notice any perversity in the reasoning by the trial Court. The view taken by the trial Court is a possible view to be taken on the basis of evidence on record. The trial Court has not shut out any admissible evidence nor has the trial Court relied upon any other admissible evidence or has taken into - 4 - consideration any extraneous matter. In that light of the matter, therefore, according to us, no interference is called for in this revision against acquittal. 5. The revision being thus, sans merits, is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged. [SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.] [P.V. HARDAS, J.]