1 Cri. Appln. 3115.2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3115 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Police Station, Patoda, Tal. Patoda, Dist. Beed ... Applicant V E R S U S Kantabai w/o Shivaji Hatagale, Age : 45 years, Occu.: Household, R/o Maulinagar, Patoda, Dist. Beed ... Respondent ... Mr. S.V. Kurundkar, A.P.P. for Applicant-State. Mr. C.K. Shinde, Advocate for respondent. ... CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND A.V.NIRGUDE, JJ. DATED : 5TH DECEMBER, 2009 ORAL ORDER 1] This Application has been filed by the applicant-State seeking leave to file Appeal against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Beed, dated 12.5.2009 in Sessions Case no. 68 of 2008 acquitting the respondent of the offence punishable under section 302 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2] The prosecution alleged that the respondent had committed murder of deceased 2 Cri. Appln. 3115.2009 Shivaji who was husband of respondent on the ground that the respondent and her daughters could not tolerate the alcoholic consumption of deceased Shivaji. It is also alleged by the prosecution that deceased Shivaji was suspecting the chastity of his wife-respondent/accused. The prosecution went to trial relying upon two eye witnesses namely P.W.1 and P.W.2. The evidence of P.W.1 indicates that on the day of the incident he heard commotion and was awakened by his in-laws. According to him P.W.2 arrived at his residence in the company of P.W.2 he went to the scene of offence which was near a brook and noticed respondent smashing the head of deceased Shivaji with a big stone. He states that he accordingly went to the Police Station and lodged a report. The evidence of P.W.2 indicates that he had heard commotion and had seen the incident from the terrace. Curiously P.W.2 does not identify accused no.1 as the assailant who had smashed the head of the deceased with a stone. However, according to P.W.2 thereafter he went to the house of P.W.1 and both of them went to the Police Station. He does not refer to going to the scene 3 Cri. Appln. 3115.2009 accompanied by P.W.1. 3] The trial Court has rejected the evidence of P.W.1 and 2 on the ground that their evidence was self-destructive and destructive of each other. Acceptance of evidence of P.W.1 necessarily indicates that the evidence of P.W.2 is false and vice-versa. In such circumstances, therefore the trial Court found that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses was rendered highly suspicious. The ground for rejecting the testimony of P.W. 1 and 2 as eye-witnesses was further fortified by the admission of the Investigating Officer that in the 161 statements of the witnesses name of the respondent/accused was not disclosed. Thus it is apparent that P.W. 1 and 2 were not eye witnesses and had not witnessed the incident. The trial Court therefore, extended the benefit of doubt to the respondents and acquitted them. 4] We have heard the learned A.P.P. who has vehemently urged before us that the reasoning of the trial Court for rejecting the testimony of 4 Cri. Appln. 3115.2009 P.W.1 and 2 is faulty and perverse thus entitling this Court to admit the present Appeal. We do not see any merit in the contention of the learned A.P.P. The trial Court has given adequate reasons for discarding the testimony of P.W.1 and 2. Upon perusal of the judgment of the trial Court no perversity in reasoning of the trial Court is brought to our notice to warrant grant of leave to the State for filing Appeal against the acquittal of the respondent. This is an Appeal against acquittal and the view taken by the trial Court is a possible view to be taken on the basis of the evidence on record and according to us it is the only view which can be taken on the basis of the evidence on record. In the light of that we see no merit in the present Application and the Application is accordingly dismissed. Leave refused. Sd/- Sd/- (A.V.NIRGUDE, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) arp