1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 700 of 2010 IN Criminal Application No. of 2010 IN Criminal Appeal No. of 2010 [State of Mah. Vs. Murlidhar son of Kisan Karmankar & others] With Criminal Application No.701 of 2010 IN Criminal Application No. of 2010 IN Criminal Appeal No. of 2010 [State of Mah. Vs. Pramanik Ganpat Dambhare & others] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Criminal Application Nos. 700 & 701 both of 2010 : Mr. T.A. Mirza, APP for applicant. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 02nd December, 2010. 1. These two applications for condonation of delay along with applications for leave to appeal and appeals have come up for admission- hearing. 2. This Court has considered merits of 2 each case instead of mechanically sending notice on applications for condonation of delay. 3. Therefore, we have heard learned APP Mr. T.A. Mirza. Perused the judgments impugned and oral evidence. 4. These are two cross-cases. The Sessions Case No. 71 of 2009 arises out of charge for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 323 read with Sections 149 and 324 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. Sessions Case No. 91 of 2007 pertains to charge for offences punishable under Sections 147, 149, 325 read with Sections 149, 323, read with Sections 149 and 307 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. 5. It has come in evidence that it was a case of free fight and resultant cross-cases. 6. Witnesses, who are amongst injured in cross-cases, have turned hostile. 7. It is obvious that parties, who have settled their scores in a free fight, must have settled outside the Court directly or indirectly, leading to all witnesses turning hostile. 8. The learned Sessions Judge has recorded a finding that considering omissions and 3 contradictions, it is unworthy to rely upon the witnesses, on whose testimonies the prosecution is trying to base its case. 9. Considering the facts of the matter, both appeals have no merits. Thus, the State is not entitled to press for leave to appeal. 10. In this background, it would be futile to spend any further time and energy on these cases. 11. The applications for condonation of delay, therefore, do not deserve any further exercise. 12. Considering merits of the mater, applications for condonation of delay and applications for leave to appeal as well as both appeals are dismissed. Judge Judge |Hedau|