1 Cri.Appln. no.520 of 2011 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 520 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra ... Applicant Versus Yuvraj Shankar Patil ... Respondent Mr. P.S. Hingorani, A.P.P. for State. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & K.U. CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATED : JULY 28, 2011 P.C. Heard. The trial court disbelieved the version of PW 4 who was nephew of the deceased. P.W. 4 who is stated to be the eye witness. But surprisingly he preferred to remain quiet for two days. The explanation given by the witness is that he was frightened and that is why he did not disclose the incident of assault made by respondent on the deceased. The trial court considered the other circumstances. The learned 2 Cri.Appln. no.520 of 2011 A.P.P. submits that PW 4 is the only eye witness. It is settled legal position that to appreciate the evidence of the single eye witness, his evidence must be reliable and in the given facts and circumstances, corroboration is required in support of such evidence. Perusal of the evidence on record and reasoning adopted by the trial court indicates that the prosecution has failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt against respondent. Leave to file appeal is refused. Application rejected. Consequently appeal stands dismissed. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.) (NARESH H. PATIL,J.)