1 Cri.Application No. 4525 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4525 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra ..APPLICANT VERSUS Dnyaneshwar Vishnu Hipparkar & ors. ..RESPONDENTS Mr K.G. Patil, A.P.P. for the applicant. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 12th January, 2011 PER COURT : This is an application filed by the applicant - State seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Latur, dated 14.7.2010, in Sessions Case No.67 of 2009 acquitting the respondents/accused for offence punishable under section 302 read with sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case against the respondents rested on circumstantial evidence. Prosecution had alleged that dead body of one Padminbai 2 Cri.Application No. 4525 of 2010 was found in the morning of the date of the incident. The prosecution had alleged that there were illicit relations between Padminbai and accused no.1. The web of evidence which was woven by the prosecution consisted of three circumstances. The first circumstance was that the accused were seen proceeding from their own field. The evidence on record indicated that there were 20 fields intervening between the field of the accused and the scene of the offence where the dead body of Padminbai was found. The second circumstance was of motive as it was alleged that the accused no.1 had illicit relations with deceased Padminbai and relations in between them were strained on account of Padminbai demanding certain land from the accused. There was evidence about institution of a chapter case against the accused also. The third circumstance on which reliance was placed by the prosecution was that the blood stains on the clothes of accused no.1, i.e. on his Dhoti as per the D.N.A. examination was found to be that of deceased. 3. In respect of the first circumstance, according to us the aforesaid circumstance is neither here nor there. The said circumstance does not advance the prosecution case any further. In respect of the second and third circumstance, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that there was discrepancy in respect of the seizure of the clothes. The respondent/accused is alleged to have been apprehended in the field and is alleged to have been wearing the same clothes. The evidence of the panch indicated that the accused had produced the clothes from his 3 Cri.Application No. 4525 of 2010 house, whereas the evidence of the other witnesses was in respect of seizure of clothes from the person of the respondent/accused. The Trial Court also found that there was no evidence in respect of sealing of the clothes of Padminbai as well as that of accused no.1. In such circumstances, therefore, the Trial Court declined to place any reliance upon the third circumstance i.e. D.N.A. profile test. 4. With the assistance of learned A.P.P. we have perused the record and proceedings and the findings recorded by the Trial Court. Upon such perusal, according to us the view taken by the Trial Court is a possible view to be taken on the basis of the evidence on record and we do not notice any perversity in the reasoning of the Trial Court to warrant any interference in this appeal against acquittal. Consequently, there being no merit in the application, application is dismissed. Leave refused. (A.V. POTDAR, J.) ( P.V. HARDAS, J.) amj/criap4525.10