AJN 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3925 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra. ... Applicant Vs. Roshan @ Sachin Laxman Kamble & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. V.B. Konde-Deshmukh, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM: MRS. RANJANA DESAI & MRS. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATED : 6TH APRIL, 2010. P.C.:- 1. The State of Maharashtra has challenged judgment and order dated 27/5/2009 passed by the Court of Session, at Kolhapur whereby the respondents are acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”). AJN 2 2. We have heard learned A.P.P. appearing for the State at some length. In our opinion, the view taken by the Sessions Court is a reasonably possible view which calls for no interference by this court. 3. There is no eye-witness to the incident in question. The deceased left her house on 25/2/2008 and her dead body was found near a stream-let on 26/2/2008. Father of the deceased PW-2 Sanjay lodged the complaint on 27/2/2008. The Medical Officer has opined that the injuries suffered by the deceased might be caused after death and those injuries are possible because of the nibbling of the body by aquatic animals. The prosecution has led evidence to prove that the deceased was washing clothes sitting near a well at about 10.30 a.m. on 25/2/2008. Trial court has rightly observed that it is difficult to believe that in broad day light the accused could have murdered the deceased and dropped the dead body in the pond, without anybody noticing it. There is also no other cogent circumstantial evidence adduced by AJN 3 the prosecution to prove the involvement of the accused. The prosecution has also not satisfactorily proved offence under Section 498-A of the IPC. 4. Independent witness PW-3 Archana had turned hostile. Therefore, case of murder is not made out. Hence, leave to appeal is refused. [MRS. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [MRS. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.]