1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1931/09 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2009 State of Maharashtra .vs. Sanjay Champatrao Jamankar & another _________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's orders. Registrars orders. CORAM : D.D. SINHA & P.B. VARALE, JJ. DATED : SEPTEMBER 14, 2009. Heard Mr. A.S. Fulzele, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant. The learned A.P.P. has submitted that both the respondents were prosecuted for committing murder of deceased, namely, Anil Vaidya. It is contended that apart from the other evidence, the prosecution has examined PW. 2 Geetabai (the mother of the deceased) as well as PW.7 Sunil (brother of the deceased) as eye-witnesses to the incident. It is contended that the entire case of the prosecution is based on the testimony of these two eye- witnesses since so far as the Chemical Analyser’s report is concerned, the result of the same is inconclusive and the witnesses also turned hostile. The learned A.P.P. has submitted that the testimony of both these eye-witnesses clearly establishes the presence of the respondents on the spot of incident as well as their participation in the assault on deceased. It is contended that the respondent no.1 was holding axe and 2 respondent no.2 was holding stick and assaulted the deceased by means of these weapons. It is submitted that the prosecution case is corroborated by the medical evidence. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned A.P.P. and also taken into consideration the omissions in the police statement of these eye-witnesses. It is no doubt true that both these eye-witnesses claim that they have witnessed the incident and at the time of assault, the respondent no.1 assaulted the deceased by means of an axe, whereas respondent no.2 by means of a stick. However, there is an omission in their respective police statements in this regard. These omissions in our view are not only material but they create a genuine doubt about authenticity of the nature of evidence adduced by the prosecution, coupled with the other circumstances, we are of the view that the finding of acquittal is just and proper. No case is made out for showing indulgence. Hence, the leave to appeal is refused. The Criminal Application stands rejected. JUDGE JUDGE. J.