1 Ladda IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No.3238 OF 2009. The State of Maharashtra.. Applicant. vs. Bhaskar Kisan Tandale ..Respondent. Mrs P.H. Kantharia, A.P.P. for the State-applicant. CORAM: BILAL NAZKI, AND A.R.JOSHI,JJ DATED : 28th JULY,2009 P.C. :- 1. This is an application seeking leave to file an appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge,Pune in Session Case No.598/2007 against the respondent-accused. 2. The prosecution tried to establish guilt of the accused on the basis of two circumstances; firstly, that there was extra judicial confession made by the accused before P.W.1 Ranjitsingh and secondly P.W.2 Taherakhan had last seen the accused in the company of the deceased. The 2 alleged extra judicial confession has been made before P.W.1 Ranjitsingh, who is the real brother of deceased. It is not believable that accused would choose brother of deceased to make an extra judicial confession. Therefore, it was rightly not believed by the Trial Court. 3. P.W.2 Taherakhan has stated that the deceased had come to her shop at about 1:30 p.m.,and consumed liquor, the accused came running and pulled the deceased and took him beyond railway line which was at the distance of 20 feet from her shop. She did not know as to what happened thereafter. In her cross-examination she has admitted that a number of criminal cases were filed against her by police and she was on bail. On the next day of the incident also police filed case against her and she was arrested. She also stated that she was scared that police would file further case against her. Dilipsingh was dead and she came to know about it on the next day of the occurrence. Arun Gangaram P.W.3, the panch witness examined by the prosecution to prove the recovery of wooden stick, at the instance of the accused, has not supported the prosecution. He was declared hostile. For all these reasons we do not find that the prosecution has been able to produce any evidence before the Trial Court in order to sustain the conviction of the accused. 4. In the result, we do not find any error whatsoever 3 in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. Leave is refused. The application for leave to file appeal is dismissed and disposed of. (BILAL NAZKI,J) (A.R.JOSHI,J)