-:1:- IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2395 OF 2007 APPLICATION NO.2395 OF 2007 APPLICATION NO.2395 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra. ... Applicant. V/s. Shivaji Ganubhau Bhosale & Anr. ... Respondents. Mr.P.S. Hingorani, A.P.P.for the State. Mr. Ganesh Gole,A.P.P. for the Respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & : F.I. REBELLO & : F.I. REBELLO & K.U. K.U. K.U. CHANDIWAL,JJ. CHANDIWAL,JJ. CHANDIWAL,JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 22ND APRIL, 2008. : 22ND APRIL, 2008. : 22ND APRIL, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : . Criminal Application No.57 of 2008 is for condonation of delay in preferring the application for leave to appeal. There is a delay of 304 days. The learned Counsel for the Respondent Shri Gole opposed the condonation of delay. 2. We shall come to the aspect of condonation of delay, subsequently. We have considered the judgment of the Trial Court which has considered the evidence against Accused No.3 and Accused No.4 in respect of whom the present applicatiion for leave has been filed. The learned Trial Court in so far as the Respondent - Original Accused No.3 and Accused No.4 has come to the conclusion that evidence fell short of proving beyond doubt the involvement of Accused Nos. 3 and 4. The entire case of the prosecution against -:2:- Accused Nos.3 and 4 is that Accused Nos.1 and 2 entered the house and Accused Nos.3 and 4 were standing outside the house. The offence against the Accused Nos.3 and 4 is on account of purported common intention by invoking Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. From the evidence we find that the prosecution case was that Accused No.2 had assaulted Balasaheb with a vili which is from the house of the complainant. In the statement of Balasaheb recorded by the Police (Exhibit 36) it is stated that sword blows were dealt upon him in the Gandhi Chowk. It is only in his evidence before the Court for the fact that he has stated that the first sword blow was given in the house. PW-6 Malan Jagtap witness stated that the first assault on the complainant by Accused No.1 with a sword was at Gandhi Chowk. 4. It is thus clear that even if Accused Nos. 1 and 2 had accompanied with Accused Nos.3 and 4 at house, they had not gone inside the house and considering the case of the prosecution and the evidence recorded of accussed using the weapon from the house of the complainant itself, it would be difficult to hold that prosecution has established common intention on the part of Accused Nos.3 and 4. -:3:- 5. Considering the above, in our opinion as on merits itself, there is no case to grant leave to appeal, the application for leave to appeal as also condonation of delay is rejected. (F.I. (F.I. (F.I. REBELLO, J.) REBELLO, J.) REBELLO, J.) (K.U. (K.U. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.) CHANDIWAL,J.) CHANDIWAL,J.)