1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Criminal Application No.1152/2008 (State of Mah. .vs. Mohammad Anees Abdul Rashid and five others ) with Criminal Revision No.296/2007 (Smt. Khairunnisa Mohammed w/o Gulam Nabi Qureshi and another .vs. State of Mah. And six others) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders ======================================= Mr. Y.B. Mandpe, APP for the Appellant/State Mr. A.S. Agrawal, Advocate for Revision Applicant. Mr. E.W. Nawab, Advocate for Respondents 1 to 6/Original Accused. .......... CORAM : K.J. ROHEE &, B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 4, 2008 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 8.4.2004 in the evening Arif Gulab Nabi Qureshi was called at the football ground where he was assaulted by a group of boys. One of them gave blow by hockey stick on his head. Thereafter Arif started running away from the place. He was followed by the said group and one of them stabbed Arif over abdomen with Gupti. It is alleged that this was seen by PW2 Mohd. Aasif 2 Gulab Nabi Qureshi (the real brother of deceased Aarif) and PW12 Santosh Arun Potey. It is alleged that the statement (Exh.42) of PW2 Mohd. Aasif was recorded in the hospital itself. However, the statement does not disclose the name of any of the accused persons except Imran (a juvenile) as he was not knowing them. The statement further shows that one Balya was with Mohd. Aasif and he saw the incident of stabbing. However, the evidence of PW12 Santosh nowhere shows that he is also known as Balya. Thus neither the presence of PW12 Santosh is established nor the identity of any of the accused except Imran (a juvenile) is established. The testimony of PW8 Kamal Raju Shrivas relates to the assault on Arif by a hockey stick. However, the ocular evidence in this respect is not corroborated by medical evidence. It was tried to be shown on behalf of the prosecution that proper investigation was not done by the Investigating Officer in as much as he never recorded the statement of Santosh (PW12) who was material witness and did not arrange identification parade. We are not impressed with this submission because evenif lacunae in investigation is ignored, there is no evidence on record to establish the guilt of any of the accused. Thus we find no perversity in the judgment. Leave to appeal is, therefore, rejected. 3 3. In view of rejection of leave to file appeal, the revision No.296 of 2007 is also dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE halwai