-:1:- IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1602 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO.1602 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO.1602 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant. V/s. Pandurang Ganpati Wagare & Anr. ... Respondents. .... Mr. P.S. Hingorani for the Applicant. None for the Respondents. .... CORAM CORAM CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & : F.I. REBELLO & : F.I. REBELLO & K.U. K.U. K.U. CHANDIWAL,JJ. CHANDIWAL,JJ. CHANDIWAL,JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 16TH JUNE, 2008. : 16TH JUNE, 2008. : 16TH JUNE, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : . This is an application for leave to appeal by the State against the Judgment of the Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge dated 31.12.2007 in Sessions Case No.64 of 2007. The Respondents herein were charged for the offence of murder of one Dhondiba who apparently was in their employment. 2. We have perused the findings of the learned Judge. There are no admittedly eye witnesses. The case is purely based on a circumstantial evidence. In so far as the circumstantial evidence is concerned, the only evidence is of PW-13 Ravaji Akaram Wagare. In his examination-in-chief he had earlier deposed that he has no doubt about the incident and as to when it had occurred. This witness was declared hostile -:2:- from his evidence what has commonly recorded that in the previous night there was a quarrel between Nagesh and Dhondiba, Nagesh being Accused No.2. Apart from this evidence, there is no other evidence. Even PW-14 Akaram Yashwant Wagare has not support the prosecution case. 3. Considering the test which are to be applied in the case of acquittal, the learned Judge having considered the evidence on record and having given the benefit of doubt to the Appellant considering that the chain of circumstances have not been established beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution, we do not find that this will be a fit case that the Court should interfere. 4. In the light of that the application is dismissed. (F.I. (F.I. (F.I. REBELLO, J.) REBELLO, J.) REBELLO, J.) (K.U. (K.U. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.) CHANDIWAL,J.) CHANDIWAL,J.)