1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4055 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra...... ... Applicant. Versus Santosh Jaywant Chandane & Ors... .... Respondents. Ms. V. R. Bhosle, APP for the Applicant. None for the Respondents. CORAM : BILAL NAZKI and S. A. BOBDE, JJ. DATED : 11TH JANUARY, 2008. P.C.: The prosecution case was that the accused and the complainant had some transactions of money and the demand for Rs.500/- was made from accused No.1 on various occasion. 2. On the day of occurrence, the complainant and another person started on two motor-cycles and reached near Ware Vasahat where they saw accused No.1 and also 6 to 7 persons. The complainant took his motor-cycle where these 7 persons were chit-chating and questioned accused No.1 as to why he was demanding money from Naresh Patel every 2 now and then. Accused No.1 requisitioned him as to who he was to question him. Thereafter, accused No.1 and boys with him started making quarrel and rushed to the complainant. The complainant wanted to proceed further on his motor-cycle while his brother was sitting behind him but all the accused obstructed his way and pulled him, due to which, his motor-cycle fell down. At that time, accused No.1 took out a long, pointed weapon like `Kukari' and delivered a blow of it on the stomach of Raju and Raju cried. In the meantime, Santosh and Sachin took out knives and rushed to the complainant. Accused Santosh delivered blows of knife at the right eye-brow of the complainant. Ranajit Mane and Samrat Dukande tried to rush to rescue of the complainant and Raju. On seeing the other accused rushing towards them, they fled on the motor-cycle. On the basis of this occurrence, the case came to be registered being C. R. No. 142 of 2002 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 307, 341, 324 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. Charges were framed against seven accused persons, who denied the charge and claimed to be tried. After the trial, the trial Court convicted accused No.1 for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and also convicted accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC. The trial Court acquitted accused Nos.3 to 7. This appeal is filed against their 3 acquittal by the State. 3. we have gone through the records of the case and also the Judgment of the trial Court. The trial Court found that there was absolutely no evidence and no overt act had been attributed by any of the witnesses against Accused Nos.3, 5, 6 and 7. The learned Public Prosecutor has also not been able to show us any statement of any witness which would connect these accused persons to the offences for which they were charged. The trial Court found, however, that there were certain witnesses who attributed certain overt act to accused No.4 according to the learned Judge the act was that he rushed to the complainant. The learned trial Court did not convict accused No.4 on the basis of this evidence. Similarly, the prosecution has pressed into service certain recoveries made on the basis of the disclosure by all the accused persons which was rejected by the trial Court on the following ground: "These discoveries proved by the witnesses, in my opinion, are dis-believable as they all are either belonging to the profession of complainant or are related to him in any way as a friend or by occupation. Similarly, the investigating officer has clearly admitted that he has not made entry while leaving the police station for the purposes of discovery nor any entry in the lock up register has been 4 brought before this court to show that the accused was really taken out of lock up room for the purposes of discovery at his instance. Therefore, also the discoveries are dis-believable. The presence of panch witnesses, who are interested in the complainant exactly when they are needed, also is surprising. It could be co-incidence that they were passing every now and then by the side of the police station to be called by police. Hence the investigation is also carried out in tainted manner.” 4. Since the view taken by the learned trial Judge was possible on the factual matrix of this case, we do not think any interference is called for. Hence application for leave to appeal is rejected. Sd/- (BILAL NAZKI, J.) Sd/- (S. A. BOBDE, J.)