[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVN.APPLN.NO.185 OF 2008 Sou.Parvati Laxman Chavan ..Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents ... Mr.Ganesh Gole advocate for applicant Mr.S.S.Pednekar A.P.P. for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : AUGUST 28, 2008 DATE : AUGUST 28, 2008 DATE : AUGUST 28, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 8.1.2008 passed by the Ist Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Palghar in Sessions Case No. 22 of 2003, this revision has been filed by the applicant who is original complainant. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent nos.2 to 5 i.e. original accused nos.1 to 4 of the offence under Section 302 r.w. 34 of IPC. 3. The case of the complainant is that there was some dispute between respondent nos.2 and 4 in [-2-] respect of land, hence, on 8.10.2002, the Respondents murdered her son Vilas by giving him electric shock with telephone wire and thereafter by throwing his body in the river. 4. There is no eye witness who has implicated any of the present respondents. There is no recovery at the instance of the present respondents. The case is based on circumstantial evidence. The circumstance relied upon by the learned advocate is that the deceased Vilas was last seen with the respondent. Reliance is placed on the evidence of the complainant in support of this fact, however, this fact is also incorrect as the complainant has not stated anywhere that she had seen the deceased and the respondents going for fishing. The complainant has stated that Vilas told her that he was going to the river for fishing along with Nilesh Malavkar, Gangaram and Ravya i.e. respondent no.5 and respondent no.3. Thereafter, Vilas did not return back home. The complainant has only stated the names of respondent nos.3 and 5 and she has not named the respondent nos. 2 and 4. It is pertinent to note that this witness had not actually seen Vilas proceeding to the river along [-3-] with any of the accused. She has categorically stated that Vilas told her that he is going fishing with these accused persons. Thus, she has not seen Vilas along with any of the accused persons, hence, it cannot be said to be a case of last seen. There is no evidence on record to show that in fact Vilas had gone with any of the accused for fishing. 5. The further case of the complainant is that thereafter she went to the house of Gangaram i.e. respondent no.5 to enquire about Vilas and he disclosed that when he came back from the river, Vilas did not accompany him, however, as far as this averment is concerned, it is seen that there is material contradiction in the evidence of this witness because as per earlier version of the complainant when she had gone to the house of accused Gangaram, he was not in his house and he had not met her. 6. The learned Sessions Judge has taken into considerations all the above aspects and thereafter he has acquitted the respondents-accused. Looking to the evidence on record and looking to the facts of this case, I find that the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is correct, [-4-] legal and proper and no interference is called for. Revision application is rejected. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]