[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION APPLICATION NO.4056 OF 2007 IN APPEAL NO. OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant Vs. Anil Gajmal Patil and Ors. ..Respondents .... Mr.P.S.Hingorani APP for the Applicant Mr.N.R.Bubna Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 .... CORAM: F.I.REBELLO AND CORAM: F.I.REBELLO AND CORAM: F.I.REBELLO AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. DATE DATE DATE : APRIL 09, 2008 : APRIL 09, 2008 : APRIL 09, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. The Applicant-State of Maharashtra has filed this application for leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 28th February, 2007 passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-1, Malegaon in Sessions Case No. 6 of 2004. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the Respondents-original accused nos.1 to 5 of the offence under Section 395 read with Section 397 of IPC, hence, for the [-2-] offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 read with Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act. 2. It is the prosecution case that all the accused persons entered into the house of the complainant P.W.1 Madhavrao and his wife P.W.2 Madhavi and committed dacoity of valuables including gold ornaments and cash at the point of deadly weapons. 3. We have heard the learned APP for the Applicant-State and the learned Advocate for the Respondents-accused. We have perused the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge as well as the evidence produced in the present case. 4. It is an admitted fact that accused Nos.2 to 5 are unknown to the witnesses. Hence, identification parade came to be held. However, there is delay of five months in holding the identification parade and no plausible explanation has been brought on record by the prosecution to explain the said delay. Besides that there are many lacunae in holding the identification parade. In such case, the identification of the accused persons by the witnesses was not relied upon by the [-3-] learned Sessions Judge. 5. It is the prosecution case that there is recovery of ornaments. Besides this there is recovery of pistol at the instance of the Respondent-accused no.2. As far as recovery is concerned, all panch witnesses have turned hostile. 6. The complainant has also tried to say that accused no.1 was known to them on account of grass contract. However, it is pertinent to note that in the FIR complainant has stated that unknown persons had entered the house and committed the offence. Looking to the evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is a reasonable and possible view. Hence, no case is made out for interference. Hence, application for leave to appeal is rejected. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [F.I.REBELLO, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [F.I.REBELLO, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [F.I.REBELLO, J.]