- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1171/2010 The State of Maharashtra. ...Applicant.. Versus Pandurang Vithal Bobade & four others. ...Respondents... ..... Shri B.V. Wagh, APP for applicant. Respondent no.1 deleted as per Court’s order dated 7.7.2010. Shri Manoj Shinde, Advocate h/f Shri S.T. Shelke, Advocate for respondent nos.2 & 3. Shri P.B. Patil, Advocate for respondent no.4. Respondent no.5 served. ..... CORAM: P.V. HARDAS & A.V. POTDAR , JJ. DATE: 02.09.2010 PER COURT : - 2 - 1] This is an application by which the applicant seeks leave to file appeal against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Parbhani, dated 17.12.2009, in Sessions Trial No.51/2009, acquitting the respondents for offence punishable u/s 302 r/w 34, 120-B and 201 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2] The prosecution went to trial relying upon the testimony of PW 5 Dnyanoba, PW 7 Madhukar and PW 8 Santosh as the eye witnesses to the incident. According to the prosecution, the accused / respondents had lured the deceased Shivaji and had offered him liquor and thereafter had killed him and in order to destroy the evidence and to screen themselves from punishment, had poured kerosene on the dead body of the deceased Shivaji and had set the dead body ablaze. 3] The trial Court from para 21 onwards of its judgment has considered the evidence of the three eye witnesses. Undisputedly, the evidence of these three witnesses came to be recorded after one month of the incident. The trial Court further found that the evidence of all the eye witnesses particularly PWs.5, 7 & 8 did not inspire confidence as all the three eye witnesses alleged that they had intervened in the quarrel between the deceased and the accused, yet the other eye witnesses do not show the presence of each other. The trial Court further found that the witnesses were interested and, therefore, no reliance whatsoever could be placed on their testimony. - 3 - 4] With the assistance of the learned APP on behalf of the applicant, we have perused the findings recorded by the trial Court and also the record and proceedings. It appears that PW 5 Dnyanoba was associated with two to three panchanamas and yet did not disclose the incident to the Police, but waited for about a month to disclose the incident to the Police. We are in agreement with the findings recorded by the trial Court that all the three witnesses are got up witnesses and, therefore, no reliance could be placed on their testimony. 5] From the perusal of the findings recorded by the trial Court, we are of the opinion that this appeal does not merit admission as there is no perversity in the reasoning of the trial Court and the view taken by the trial Court is a possible view to be taken on the basis of the evidence on record. In that light of the matter, therefore, we dismiss the Criminal Application No.1171/2010. Leave refused. (A.V. Potdar , J.) (P.V. Hardas, J.) ndk/cr291078