1 Cri.AppealNo.334/1992 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.334 OF 1992. The State of Maharashtra = APPELLANT (orig.Complainant) Versus 1) Bajirao s/o Suryabhan Mangde Age: 25 Yrs., occu. Agril. 2) Machindra s/o Vishwanath Jadhav, Age: 24 Yrs., 3) Shivaji S/o Suryabhan Mangde, Age: 30 Yrs., 4) Pandharinath s/o Rangnath Mangde, Age: 32 Yrs., All Agriculturists and r/o Bhutegaon, Tq. And District Jalna. = RESPONDENTS (orig.Accused) *** Mrs.SD Shelke, APP for Appellant/State. Mr.Joydeep Chatterji, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 4; ----- CORAM : A.H.JOSHI & A.R.JOSHI,JJ. DATE : 18th August, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per:A.H.Joshi,J.) 1) Heard learned APP for the appellant/State and learned Advocates for the 2 Cri.AppealNo.334/1992 respondents/accused. 2) The accused persons were charge-sheeted for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC for causing murder of Jayabai and under Section 323 r/w 34 of IPC for causing simple hurt to Gangubai. 3) The prosecution has examined in all seven witnesses. PW 1 – Gangubai and PW 5 – Dadarao have supported the prosecution. PW 2 – Appa; PW 3 – Bapurao; and PW 4- Shantbai were declared hostile. PW 6 – Ramling is Medical Officer, who had examined Gangubai and PW 7 is an Investigating officer. 4) Perusal of the record reveals that the prosecution has failed to prove the testimony of PW 6 - Ramling, who had either examined deceased Jayabai or conducted her autopsy; while cause of death, described in the post mortem examination, is brain injury and haematoma etc. The prosecution had only to prove that the alleged act of assault which has resulted into death of the deceased, was caused by other accused persons. 5) Evidence of PW 1 and PW 5, does not in any manner, bring home the intention of the 3 Cri.AppealNo.334/1992 accused persons and as to why Jayabai or her deserted daughter had to stay in her house. 6) In absence of the evidence on the point of intention and actual assault by any member of the accused, the learned Sessions Judge was left with no other option than to render the judgment of acquittal. 7) Though the learned APP has taken us through the evidence, he is not in a position to address the court on the point that any material piece of evidence was left out from consideration or that the judgment and order of acquittal is otherwise perverse. 8) In the appeal against acquittal, we find that there is hardly any scope to interfere in the facts and premises brought on record. The Appeal has no merit and the same is dismissed. sd/- sd/- (A.R.JOSHI,J.) (A.H.JOSHI,J.) bdv/ Authenticated copy (BD VADNERE,PS)