..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.24 OF 2007 Shri.Dastagir Balu Mulani. ..Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ..Respondents. .... Mr.R.V.Bansode, Adv. for applicant. Mr.Vikas Kolekar, Adv. for respondent No.2. Ms.A.T.Jhaveri, APP, for State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 30th July, 2008. DATED : 30th July, 2008. DATED : 30th July, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the applicant- orig.complainant. 2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 2nd March, 2006 passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli in Sessions Case No.96 of 2005 this Revision has been filed by the orig.complainant. By the said judgment and order the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent No.2-orig.accused of the offence under Sections 302 and 404 of IPC. The prosecution case is that the respondent committed murder of Halima. There is no eye witness to the incident. The case rests only on the circumstantial ..(2).. evidence. The said circumstantial evidence is that pot, one shirt and one stone came to be recovered at the instance of the respondent-accused.. All these articles were recovered under panchanamas Exh.18 and 19. PW-4 Eknath Jadhav was the panch in respect of these panchanama. This witness has admitted that he had helped the police in 10-12 cases by acting as a panch. This witness has also admitted that when he was called to the police station the police disclosed him the specific place and specific articles to be seized. Looking to these facts, the recovery at the instance of the accused of the above said articles cannot be safely relied upon. 3. The learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that pendent, shimpla-wati (padak) which came to be recovered at the instance of the applicant was identified by the husband of the deceased. It is seen that the padak was seized from the shop of PW-8 Kailas. The prosecution case is that the accused led the police and panchas to the shop of PW-8 Kailas and from the said shop the gold ornaments came to be seized. 4. The recovery panchanama (Exh.19) shows that the ..(3).. name of the shop of PW-8 Kailas is "Laxmi". However PW-8 Kailas has stated that he is running his shop under the name of "Kailas Art and Jewellers". Thus this discrepancy raises doubt in the mind regarding recovery of pendant. Moreover though it has been stated by PW-6 Nijam who is husband of Halima that Halima used to wear Mangalsutra containing one "Padak" containing four to five golden beeds. In cross-examination he admits that there is no documentary evidence to show that "Padak" before the Court belongs to them. It is pertinent to note that PW-8 Kailas has stated in his cross-examination that "Padak" before the Court does not belong to Muslim community but belongs to Hindu community and the said type of "Padak" is easily available in the market. Hence, taking into consideration this evidence on record it is rather doubtful whether the pendant, which was attached by the police, was worn by the deceased at the time of the incident. Moreover looking to the evidence of panch witness, I am of the opinion that the recovery cannot safely be relied upon. The learned Sessions Judge has taken all these aspects into consideration and thereafter he has acquitted the respondent-accused. I find that the order is legal, proper and correct. No interference ..(4).. is called for. Revision Application is rejected. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)