1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 95/11 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2011. The State of Maharashtra .vs. Ambadas Mahadu Tayade Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. T.A. Mirza, A.P.P. for appellant, CORAM : MRS. V.K. TAHILRAMANI & M.L. TAHALIYANI, JJ. DATED : JUNE 9, 2011. Heard Mr. T.A. Mirza, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the applicant/appellant. 2] The applicant State of Maharashtra has preferred this appeal against the acquittal of the respondent/original accused No.2 in Sessions Case No. 39/10. By judgment and order dated 20.11.2010 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Buldana acquitted the respondent in Sessions Case under Sections 302 & 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3] The prosecution case, briefly stated, is as under :- 2 Original accused No.1 Ramdas Yeshwant Tayade had purchased bullocks from Sardarsingh (deceased). The purchase price was to be paid by accused No.1. Hence, Sardarsingh sent some persons to the village of accused no.1 to collect the money. The money was not paid. Hence, Sardarsingh himself went to the village of accused no.1 on 20.12.2009 to collect the money. Thereafter, Sardarsingh did not return. Hence, his son PW.1 Shersingh lodged a missing report. The police along with Shersingh went to the house of the accused in order to search for Sardarsingh. It is the prosecution case that in the field of accused No.1 they noticed some debris covered with thorns and stones which looked suspicious. Hence, some earth was removed from the debris and as foul smell emanated from under the earth, they dug further and found the dead body of Sardarsingh. Thereafter, FIR came to be lodged against accused no.1 who had purchased the bullocks, his son accused no.3 Vilas Ramrao Tayade and the respondent, who is the brother of accused no.1. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed. 4] Charge came to be framed against all the three accused under Sections 302 & 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. They pleaded “not guilty” to the said 3 charge and claimed to be tried. Their defence was of total denial and false implication. After going through the evidence adduced in this case, the learned Sessions Judge convicted original accused nos. 1 & 3 but he acquitted the respondent/original accused No.2, as stated in paragraph no.2 above. 5] We have heard Mr. T.A. Mirza, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the applicant/appellant. We have perused the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge as well as the evidence adduced in this case. After carefully considering the matter and for the reasons stated hereinbelow, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal. 6] It is the case of the prosecution that it was the accused no.1 who had purchased the cattle from Sardarsingh. No role is attributed to the present respondent in relation to purchase of cattle by accused No.1. It was accused No.1 Ramrao who had to pay money to the deceased and the present respondent had no concern with the same. 7] The present case is based only on circumstantial 4 evidence. It is the case of the prosecution that the body of Sardarsingh was found in the field of the accused. However, there is no material to show that the field indeed belonged to any of the accused persons as the record shows that the field belonged to one Sulochana. There is no recovery of weapon or blood stained clothes or any other incriminating article at the instance of the respondent. The respondent is the brother of original accused no.1, who had purchased the cattle. There is no material on record to show that the respondent was in any way connected with the transaction of sale of cattle. Moreover, the body of Sardarsingh was found in the field at Mhasala where the original accused nos. 1 & 3 were residing. There is also no material on record to show that the respondent was residing in the same village as the original accused nos. 1 & 3. 8] Looking to the evidence on record, we find that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is a reasonable and possible view. We may make useful reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh ..vs.. Dinesh , reported at (2009) 3 Scale 345 wherein, in a case of appeal against acquittal, it was held that if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate Court should 5 not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. The Supreme Court in C. Anthony .. vs. K.G. Raghavan Nair , reported in (2003) 1 SCC 1 has observed that when two views are possible and when the view taken by the trial Court is a reasonable and possible view, the High Court cannot in an appeal substitute its findings merely because another contrary opinion was possible on the basis of the material on record. It is further observed that if two reasonable conclusions can be reached on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the findings of the trial Court. Looking to the evidence on record, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this application. 9] The Criminal Application is, therefore, rejected. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. Judge Judge J.