1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Cr. Appln. No. 3098/2007 State of Mah. Vs. Ghanshyam Harishchandra Kanjar and 3 others Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. CORAM : A.P. LAVANDE AND A.B.CHAUDHARI, JJ. DATED : 28/3/2008 Heard Mr. Jaiswal, learned A. P. P. for the applicant and Mr. A. Manohar, learned counsel for the respondents. By this application under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the State of Maharashtra takes exception to the judgment and order dated 16th August 2007 passed by Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Sessions Case No. 50/2006 acquitting the respondents for offences punishable under Sections 302, 109, 201, 404 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In support of the prosecution case, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW 11 Kamlabai who claimed to be eye witness and the evidence of PW 3 Vinod and PW 8 Saroj, who claimed that just one day prior to the incident 2 the deceased Vijay had gone along with accused no.2 – Deepak in the marriage pendal. The trial Court refused to place reliance upon the testimony of Kamlabai on the ground that Kamlabai, who is 80 years old had weak eye sight and that she had admitted in her evidence that she was not wearing spectacle on the day of the incident. Moreover, the alleged incident had taken place on 28.2.2006 but her statement was recorded on 27.4.2006. In our opinion, the trial Court was justified in not placing reliance upon the evidence of Kamlabai. Insofar as evidence of PW 3 Vinod and PW 8 Saroj that on the previous night the deceased had left along with accused no.2 is concerned, we find that the said evidence is very weak in nature to prove the offences alleged against the respondents. In our opinion, there is no perversity in the findings of the trial Court. Hence, we find no merit in the present application. Hence, the application is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Ambulkar