1 CR.APPEAL NO.45 of 1994 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.45 OF 1994 Date of decision:9/9/2011 For approval and signature HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.H.JOSHI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.R.JOSHI 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Papers Yes/No. may be allowed to see the Judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes/No 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see No. the fair copy of the Judgment ? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial? No. question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950, or any order made thereunder ? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the No. Civil Judges ? 6. Whether the case involves an important No question of law and whether a copy of the Order should be sent to Bombay, Goa and Nagpur Office ? Private Secretary AGP/office/45-94cr.a 2 CR.APPEAL NO.45 of 1994 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.45 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra. ...APPELLANT (Ori.Complainant) VERSUS Devrao Nagoba Holgire, aged 25 yrs., occu.Agri., r/o. Chenapur, Tq. & Dist.Nanded. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr.V.D.Godbharle, APP for appellant State. Mr. G.G.Suryawanshi, Adv., for respondent absent. ... CORAM: A.H.JOSHI & A.R.JOSHI, JJ. Date: SEPT., 9th, 2011 *** ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per A.H.Joshi, J.) 1. Heard learned A.P.P. None appears for the respondent. Perused the record. 2. The accused was charged for offense under Section 302 of IPC for murdering his wife Santabai Bhagwan Holgire, by assaulting on her neck by weapon Katti. 3 CR.APPEAL NO.45 of 1994 3. The prosecution had examined 12 witnesses. Out of these witnesses, PW No.4 (Exh. 23), Anjanabai, widow of Gangaram Holgire and PW No.8 Purbhaji w/o Chimnaji Hire are relied upon by the prosecution as eye witnesses. 4. Perusal of testimony of PW No.4 reveals that she has narrated that she is eye witness to the incident and she has seen the accused person assaulting the deceased on her neck by a weapon (Katti). She admits that the distance between place of offense and where she was sitting is 20 cubits and, in the cross examination she admits that she could see the photo frames hung on the wall of the court hall, however, could not identify the person in the photograph, as to whether it is of a male or female; as the photographs appeared to her to be blurred. Worthiness of this witness was, thus, impeached. 5. PW 8 Purbhaji w/o Chimnaji Hire remains the solitary eye witness who is cousin of the accused. In the examination in chief she, however, admitted that her near relations were standing nearby and that suddenly she went inside the house because she was cooking Rotis. She, further admits that she did not reveal to anyone assembled at the place of incident as to what she had seen earlier. 4 CR.APPEAL NO.45 of 1994 6. Considering the sum effect, the learned Sessions Judge has rendered the judgment of acquittal. 7. As we find, out of two witnesses, worthiness of one witness is impeached and another is not believed on account of her conduct. 8. In the given situation, the conclusions arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge are based on most possible view and just because the State is aggrieved and urges that other view is possible, it does not constitute a ground for interference in an appeal against acquittal. 9. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal. (A.R.JOSHI, J.) (A.H.JOSHI,J.) ... AGP/45-94cr.a