1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRI. APPA NO.205 OF 2011 IN CRI. APPEAL NO. OF 2011 (STATE OF MAH. THR. P.S. DARATI..VS.. VIDHYADHAR DEORAO RANE.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. T.A.Mirza, APP for Appellant/ State. CORAM : MRS. V.K. TAHILRAMANI AND M.L.TAHALIYANI, JJ. DATE : APRIL 11, 2011. The State has applied for grant of special leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 14th December, 2010, passed by Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad, District : Yavatmal in Sessions Trial No.52 of 2007. The respondent was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He has been acquitted by the impugned judgment and order. Heard the learned A.P.P. Mr. Mirza for the applicant-appellant. It is submitted on behalf of the State that the judgment and order suffers from serious infirmity inasmuch as the learned trial Judge has not taken into consideration the extra judicial confessions made by the respondent. It is submitted that the extra judicial confessions made by the respondent were a strong piece of evidence and should have been believed. We have gone through the judgment of the learned trial Court as well as record and the evidence. We have noted that P.W. 7 has stated that the respondent had 2 confessed on mobile phone that he had killed his wife. The learned trial Judge has rightly stated that there is no evidence as to how P.W. 7 could identify the voice. Moreover call data record of the cellular company had also not been produced. Other piece of evidence against the respondent is eyewitness P.W. 6 who is son of the deceased and the accused. It was stated by him that it was around 3.00 p.m. that his father had beaten his mother by means of pestle and went out of the home. It can be seen from the judgment of the trial Court that the statement of this witness was recorded by the Investigating Officer after about one month of the incident, when the witness was residing along with his grandmother. The witness was taken to the Police Station by his grandmother and maternal uncle. The witness was about 7 years old at the time of incident. Therefore, possibility of tutoring this witness could not be ruled out. The P.W.6 has admitted in cross-examination that police did not make any inquiry from him and that the statement was recorded as per the version given by his grandmother to the police. As such it can be seen from the judgment of the trial Court that the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence with regard to the so called extra-judicial confession and oral evidence of the child witness. We do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the learned trial Judge. No case is made out for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment and the order. The application is, therefore, rejected. The appeal, accordingly, stands dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE RR..