1 cri-appln-5784-10 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5784 OF 2010 (Leave to Appeal) The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant Vs. 1. Yunus Sayyad Ayyub Sayyad and ors. .. Respondents (Org.Accd.Nos.2, 3 & 7) Mrs. A. S. Pai, APP for applicant – State. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U. D. SALVI, JJ. FEBRUARY 03, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard Mrs. Pai, the learned APP for the applicant-State. 2. This is an application filed by the State of Maharashtra for seeking leave to appeal under Section 378 (3) of Cr.P.C. against the order 2 cri-appln-5784-10 of acquittal of accused nos.2, 3 and 7, passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge at Solapur in Sessions Case No. 15 of 2008. 3. In the said Sessions Case in all seven accused came to be tried for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 364(A) read with Section 109, 366 read with Section 109, 342, 452, 323, 385 and 504 each read with Section 34 of IPC. The trial court on considering the evidence of all the 14 witnesses examined by the prosecution has convicted accused no1. for the offences punishable under Section 376, 366, 385, 342, 452, 506 of IPC. Accused No. 4 has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 344 and 452 read with Section 34 of IPC. Similarly accused nos.5 and 6 have been convicted for the same offences as accused no.4. Accused nos.2, 3 and 7 have been acquitted of all the offences. 4. Accused No.2 is the father of accused no.1 – Imran and accused no. 3 is his married sister and permanent resident of Solapur. Accused No.7 is the neighbour of the prosecutrix, while she was unmarried. 3 cri-appln-5784-10 5. With the assistance of Mrs. Pai, the learned APP, we have gone through the depositions of the prosecutrix (PW 9), her father (PW 11) – Chandulal Kukreja and a family friend (PW 14) – Chandulal Murajani. Mrs. Pai pressed for leave to appeal for the offence punishable under Sections 385 read with Section 34 of IPC against accused nos.2 and 3. Having given our anxious considerations to the depositions of these three witnesses, we do not find any material, even prima facie, against accused nos. 2 and 3 for the offence punishable under Section 385 read with Section 34 of IPC. We do not see any case against accused no. 7 for any of the offences she was charged for and the reasoning set out by the trial court for the acquittal of accused nos.2, 3 and 7 from all the charges does not suffer from any errors. 6. Hence, leave to appeal is refused and the application is rejected. (U.D. SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)