1 cr­apln­2833­10 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI. APPLN.NO. 2833 OF 2010 (for leave to appeal) IN CRI. APPEAL NO. OF 2010 (Against the order of acquittal) The State of Maharashtra (Through Kodoli P.St. ) ..Applicant Vs. Anandrao Sitaram Kanerkar and Ors. ..Respondents .... Mrs. M.M. Deshmukh A.P.P. for the Applicant-State .... CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE AND U.D.SALVI, JJ. DATE : JANUARY 14, 2011 P.C.: 1 Heard Mrs. Deshmukh, the learned A.P.P. 2 The State of Maharashtra has filed this application seeking leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 2 cr­apln­2833­10 against the order of acquittal passed on 5.4.2010 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Kolhapur in Sessions Case No. 35 of 2008 under Section 120-B, Section 302 read with Section 120-B, Section 201 read with Section 120-B of I.P.C. The respondents were tried for the offences punishable under Section 120-B, 302 read with Section 34, Section 302 read with Section 120-B, 201 read with Section 120-B and Section 201 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. The trial Court has convicted accused nos. 2 and 5 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 201 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. Both of them were sentenced to suffer R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and no separate sentence has been awarded for the offence under Section 201 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. Thus, the trial Court did not find any case of conspiracy against any of the accused and it held that it is only accused nos. 2 and 5 who caused the homicidal death of Bhagwan Gorad. 3 As per the prosecution, the son of Bhagwan i.e. Dhananjay was in love with Rupali the daughter of accused no. 4 Krishnat Khamkar. Bhagwan belonged to Dhangar community and was the Head Master in Zillha Parishad, Primary School at village Aarale. In May, 2007, Rupali ran away with Dhananjay and both of them performed marriage which 3 cr­apln­2833­10 was registered. The accused were not in favour of this marriage and they did not want Rupali to marry in a Dhangar family. It is alleged that on 25.11.2007, Bhagwan had gone to village Sonavade to meet Dhananjay and Rupali who did not enter the village after their marriage and while he was standing on the bus stand, accused nos. 2 and 5 attacked him and he was done to death. 4 The prosecution examined in all 20 witnesses and from the evidence of PW 16 Dr. Patil, it was clear that Bhagwan died a homicidal death. To prove the involvement of the accused in the murder of Bhagwan, the prosecution relied on the evidence of PW 1 Sridhar Gorad, PW 12 Yashwant, PW 13 Ashok Bhosale, PW 4 Shridhar, PW 17 Kiran Yedurkar and the Investigating Officer PW 20. The learned trial Judge considered the issue of discovery of weapons as well as the C.A. reports and did not find any case of conspiracy being hatched between the accused persons either on the day of the incident or any day prior to the same. Even as per the prosecution, accused nos. 1, 3, 4 and 6 were not present at the bus stand where Bhagwan was located and chased by accused nos. 2 and 5. The evidence of PW 4 Rupali was also considered and the trial Court held that only accused nos. 2 and 5 were responsible for causing the homicidal death of Bhagwan. Mrs. Deshmukh, the learned A.P.P. placed before us the copies of oral depositions of all the witnesses 4 cr­apln­2833­10 and on perusal of the same, as well as the reasonings set out by the trial Court in support of the acquittal of respondent nos. 1, 3, 4 and 6 as well as the acquittal of all the accused under Section 120-B of the I.P.C. we do not find any case for reconsideration of the evidence adduced by the prosecution before the trial Court. Hence, there is no case made out to grant leave to appeal. Consequently, the application is rejected and leave is refused. [ U.D.SALVI, J.] [ B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.]