: 1 : 5.appln.788.11 ata IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATIION NO.788 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant vs Gafur Fayyaz Sultan Shaikh @ Monu @ Aftab ..Respondent Dr. F. R. Shaikh, APP for State None for Respondent. CORAM: V. M. KANADE & A. M. THIPSAY, JJ. DATED : SEPTEMBER 6, 2011. P.C. : Heard the Learned APP for the State. The State has filed this application for leave to file Appeal against the judgment and order passed by Extra Joint Adopt Additional Sessions Judge, Thane. By the said judgment and order dated 11.04.2011, the Learned Judge was pleased to acquit respondent/original accused no.2 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case is that the complainant Mr. Arun Pimple P. S. I after returning from his night round in his Jeep noticed one person-Accused No.1 and he was having two bags in his hand. The complainant became suspicious and he asked his Driver to stop the vehicle near that person. When that person was questioned and he was asked to open the bag, the complainant PSI Pimple, noticed that in : 2 : 5.appln.788.11 one bag there were two human legs from hip to knee and in second bag there were two human hands from shoulder to palm. An enquiry was made and complaint was registered. The Accused No.1 informed the complainant that he was going to dispose of the dead body in the nearby hilly area. Panchanama was prepared and thereafter Accused No.1 informed the Investigating Officer that he was ready to show the place where other parts of the body were kept by him. Accordingly, the other parts of the body were discovered at the instance of the Accused No.1. Panchanama of scene of offence was prepared. When Accused No.1 was in Police custody, he informed the Police that Accused No.2 had also helped him in the disposal of the dead body. A charge was framed against both the accused. The prosecution examined about 16 witnesses . The Trial Court after going through the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt. Accused No.1 had committed the said offence of murder of the deceased and had tried to dispose of body. The Learned Sessions Judge , however, noticed that there was no evidence whatsoever against accused No.2, i.e. Respondent herein, and therefore, acquitted Respondent. We do not see any infirmity in the said judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court. In our view, this is not fit case to grant leave to file Appeal against the acquittal so far as respondent herein, i.e. Accused No.2, is concerned. Leave therefore, is refused. ( A. M. THIPSAY, J.) ( V. M. KANADE, J.)