1 2.apln3712-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3712 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2010 State of Maharashtra. ..Applicant. Vs. Rohit Himmatsing Thakur and ors. ..Respondents. .... Mr.A.S. Pai, A.P.P. for the State. .... CORAM : D. D SINHA & A. P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : 07th OCTOBER, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. Criminal Appeal is filed by the State against the judgment and order dated 12.5.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Satara in Sessions Case No.40 of 2009, whereby the respondents were acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 395 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the prosecution case was based on the circumstantial evidence and in order to prove the chain of circumstances, the prosecution has examined seven witnesses, however, the testimony of complainant PW-1 Kedarnath is material. It is contended that the testimony of PPD 2 2.apln3712-10 Kedarnath is corroborated by evidence of Medical Officer PW-2 Dr.Sunanda. The vehicle in question was owned by one Mr.Tiwari who was examined by prosecution as PW-4. Similarly the vehicle in question was hired by Dhanashree Travel Company. Therefore in order to prove this fact, the prosecution has examined Rekha (PW-5). It is contended that the First Information Report was lodged by PW-1 on the next day of the incident. It is further submitted that the circumstances which are brought on record by the prosecution complete the requisite chain coupled with the medical evidence and therefore the trial Court ought not to have discarded the circumstances brought on record by the prosecution. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside. 4. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the judgment of the trial Court. Perusal of the judgment of the trial Court would show that the prosecution failed to hold identification parade, to identify the accused. It is observed that in absence of identification parade, it was not possible to bring home the guilt of the accused whose identity, as a culprit, could not be established by the prosecution. The trial Court has further observed that though it was case of the prosecution that the vehicle was hired by the accused from the Travel Company, 3 2.apln3712-10 however, Rekha who was an employee of the travel company, though examined by the prosecution as PW-5, did not produce the receipt in this regard. In absence thereof, the trial Court has observed that the prosecution evidence in this regard is not trustworthy. In the instant case, the prosecution also failed to establish the motive. 5. Taking into consideration the overall circumstances brought on record by the prosecution, we are also of the view that they are insufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused. Hence, no interference is called for. Leave is refused. Criminal Appeal is dismissed. (D. D. SINHA, J.) (A. P. BHANGALE, J.)