Bombay High Court
The State Of Mah vs Bhausaheb Ramdas Avhad on 20 November, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:31864-DB
(1) cri apeal 676.04
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 676 OF 2004
The State of Maharashtra
through P.S.O. Police Station
Ambhora, Tq. Ashti,
District Beed. .... APPELLANT
V/s.
Bhausaheb s/o Ramdas Avhad,
Age 32 years, Occu. Agril.
R/o Tagadkhed, Tal. Ashti,
District Beed. .... RESPONDENT
.....
APP for Appellant / State : Mr. N.B. Patil
Advocate for the Respondent : Mr. Joydeep Chatterji
.....
CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE &
Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 07.11.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 20.11.2025
JUDGMENT:
- (Per: Y.G. Khobragade, J.)
1. The present appeal under section 378 (1) of the Criminal
Procedure Code is directed by the prosecution against the judgment and
order dated 27.04.2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Beed, in
Sessions Case No.116 of 2003, whereby the present Respondent-Accused is
acquitted for the offence punishable under sections 302 of the Indian Penal
(2) cri apeal 676.04
Code in Crime No. 66 of 2003 registered with the Police Station Ambhora,
Tq. Ashti, Dist. Beed on 11th August, 2003.
2. In nutshell, the prosecution story is that, on 11.08.2003, the
informant Sanjay Raghunath Jadhav lodged a Report Exh. 35 with the
Police Station Ambhora, Tq. Ashti, Dist. Beed, alleging that, on 09.08.2003,
his mother Smt. Sakharabai had been to village Dhavlechiwadi for her
Herpes treatment. His father Raghunath Maruti Jadhav (deceased)
allegedly was having illicit relations with Smt. Sundarabai, the mother of
the Accused since past 15-20 years of the incident. On 10.08.2003, he
carried the agricultural operation in his field for entire day. He tied down
his bullocks at the vasti (house) situated in his agricultural land and
returned to his village. His father Raghunath (deceased) was alone at his
vasti (house in field). He had dinner at his house and at about 8.00 pm., he
(Informant) with his real uncle Jagannath Maruti Jadhav (PW4) carried
the tiffin/meals for his father Raghunath, who was residing at vasti and
when they reached near the vasti they saw the Accused in the light of
electric bulb running from the vasti. The informant further alleged that, the
Accused was having "Gupti" in his hand and after reaching the vasti they
noticed that, Shri Raghunath, the informant's father and brother of
Jagannath was lying in pool of blood and was unconscious. The injured
(3) cri apeal 676.04
had sustained bleeding injuries on his head, both the hands, legs.
Thereafter, the informant offered water to his injured father and a bullock-
cart was brought from Sirsat vasti for carrying the injured to the Hospital.
The injured was taken in bullock-cart at Gangadevi and then they had
taken the injured in the Jeep of Baban Shirsat for Hospitalisation at
Primary Health Centre, Suleman Deola, however, the injured succumbed
to the injuries on the way to Suleman Deola, after crossing
Mhasobachiwadi village. Therefore, they returned to village Tagadkhed in
the same Jeep along with dead body of the deceased at about 5.00 a.m. on
the next day i.e. 11.08.2003 and the Informant PW3-Sanjay Raghunath
Jadhav visited the Police Station Ambhora at about 5.00 to 5.30 a.m. and
lodged the report. Accordingly, Shri Annasaheb Dhondiba Mangude-PW6,
the Police Station Officer/ Head Constable recorded the oral report and
registered the Crime No. 66 of 2003 against the Respondent Accused for
the offence punishable u/s 302 of Indian Penal Code.
3. The Investigating Officer PW7-Shri Namdeo Thombre, the
Assistant Police Inspector carried the investigation in the crime. He visited
the crime scene situated at village Tagadkhed and drawn the Inquest
Panchanama (Exh. 22) on dead body of Raghunath and spot panchanama
(Exh. 23). The dead body of the deceased was sent for autopsy at Rural
(4) cri apeal 676.04
Hospital Ashti. After autopsy was conducted, the I.O. collected the
provisional death certificate and recorded statements of the witnesses. The
Respondent-Accused came to be arrested on 11.08.2003. The Accused was
remanded in Police Custody. During the custody, On 15.08.2003, the
Accused has shown his willingness in presence of panchas to produce the
crime weapon i.e. axe along with wooden handle, which was concealed by
him near the bandh in the agricultural land in front of his house.
Accordingly, memorandum panchanama was recorded and recovery of axe
with wooden handle was effected under Section 27 of the Evidence Act
from the Agricultural field where the Bajra Crop was standing. The seizure
panchanama of weapon was drawn and weapon Axe with its broken
wooden handle was seized. The I.O./PW7 sent the seized axe with broken
wooden handle of axe as well as clothes of the accused and deceased to the
Chemical Analyser. On completion of investigation, the PW7-I.O. filed the
charge-sheet against the Accused for the offence punishable under Section
302 of IPC. The learned trial Court framed the charge Exh. 13 against the
Respondent/Accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the
IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.
(5) cri apeal 676.04
4. In order bring home guilty to the Accused for the offence
punishable under Section 302 of IPC., the Prosecution has examined the
following witnesses and proved documentary evidence.
5. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution has examined
following witnesses:
Name of Witnesses Exh. No.
PW-1 Dr. Balaji Pandurang Gutte Exh. 28
PW-2 Chagan Bhausaheb Kale Exh. 31
PW-3 Sanjay Raghunath Jadhav Exh . 34
PW-4 Jagannath Maruti Jadhav Exh. 36
PW-5 Tukaram Bhaurao Ramgude Exh. 37
PW-6 Annasaheb Dhondiba Mangude Exh. 38
PW-7 Namdev Manohar Thombre Exh. 40
6. Besides oral evidence, the prosecution proved documentary
evidence including Post Mortem Report Exh.30, Inquest Panchanama Exh.
22, Spot Panchanama Exh. 23, Sketch Map Exh.24, Memorandum
Panchnama Exh.33, Seizure panchanama Exh.25, Death Certificate Exh.20,
Oral Report /Complaint Exh.35, Report form PSI Ambhore Exh.32, letter
dted 1.9.2003 Exh.43, Station diary Letter to C.A. Exh.44, CA Report Exh.
45 etc.
(6) cri apeal 676.04
7. After conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court recorded
statement of Accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C. at Exh. 47. The defence
of the accused was of total denial and his false implication in crime on the
ground that, Shri Tukaram Rangude (PW5) and Shri Thakaji Dhavle had
formed their panel in Gram Panchayat Election of village Tagadkhed and he
had canvassed in the said election against said panel of both and the
candidate of said panel was defeated in the election. Therefore, they are
having grudge against him and the PW3-Informant joined hands with the
PW5-Shri Tukaram Rangude and Shri Thakaji Dhavle and falsely implicated
him.
8. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial Court passed the
impugned judgment and order on 27.04.2004 and acquitted the
Respondent/Accused for the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC.
holding that, death of deceased-Raghunath Maruti Jadhav is homicidal but
the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the
Respondent/Accused-Bhausaheb s/o Ramdas Avhad is the author of
injuries sustained to the deceased because there are material omissions and
contradictions in oral as well documentary evidence.
(7) cri apeal 676.04
9. Heard at length Mr. N. B. Patil, the learned APP for the State
and Mr. Chatterjee, the learned counsel appearing for the
Respondent/Accused.
10. The learned APP canvassed in vehemence that the learned trial
Court ought to have considered the evidence of PW3-Sanjay Raghunath
Jadhav who categorically stated that he identified the Respondent/Accused
in the electric bulb light from vasti (house in the field) while running away
with one wooden danda in his hand. The P. W. 3 having ample chance to
see the Respondent/Accused. The PW4-Jagannath Maruti Jadhav
specifically stated that when he and PW3-Sanjay Raghunath Jadhav were
carrying tiffin to the vasti for deceased-Raghunath at about 8.00 pm and
when they reached in front of vasti situated in the agricultural field he saw
the Respondent/Accused in light of electric bulb having an axe in his hand
and the Respondent/Accused on watching him and PW3-Sanjay Raghunath
Jadhav started running from the vasti. The Accused was having an axe in
his hand and ran away towards the southern side.
11. The learned APP further canvassed that, the PW3 and PW4
categorically deposed that the deceased-Raghunath was lying on the
ground in the open space in front of vasti in pool of blood with injuries.
(8) cri apeal 676.04
The injured-Raghunath had sustained incised wound inflicted with an axe
on his head, left hand and left leg. Thereafter, the PW4-Jagannath Maruti
Jadhav inquired with the injured-Raghunath as to who assaulted him and
the injured-Raghunath disclosed that the Respondent/Accused inflicted
said injuries by giving axe blow. Thereafter PW4 and PW3 offered a glass
of water to the injured and a bullock cart was brought from Shirsath Vasti
to carry the injured-Raghunath to village Gangadevi. Thereafter, the
injured was taken in the jeep of Baban Shirsath towards the Primary Health
Center, Suleman Deola, however, the injured succumbed to the injuries on
the way to Suleman Deola. Therefore, the injured was brought from
Masobachiwadi to the village Tagadkhed at about 5.00 am. Thereafter, the
PW3-Sanjay Raghunath Jadhav visited Police Station Ambhora at about
6.00 am on the next day and lodged the report Exh.35.
12. The learned APP further canvassed that the PW7-I.O. visited
the spot of incident immediately and drawn Inquest panchanama Exh.22
on the dead body of Raghunath and spot panchanama Exh.23 in presence
of panchas, the dead body of the deceased was sent for autopsy to Primary
Health Centre, Ashti. Further the clothes of deceased were seized in
presence of panchas under panchanama Exh.25. The PW7-I.O. arrested the
Respondent/Accused on 11.08.2003 and interrogated him in the presence
(9) cri apeal 676.04
of panchas and the Accused made interrogatory statement. Accordingly,
memorandum panchanama Exh.32A was drawn in pursuance of same and
recovered wooden handle (Article A) and Axe (Article B) under seizure
panchanama Exh.32B. So also, during the course of trial the seized Article
A - wooden handle and axe - Article B identified by the PW 2 and the PW7-
I.O. Therefore, the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the
Respondent/Accused is the author of injuries sustained to the deceased as
described in post mortem report Exh.30.
13. The learned APP further canvassed that, the Respondent/Accused
disclosed the fact about producing clothes which were worn by him at the
time of incident in presence of panchas and the memorandum panchanama
Exh.33 was drawn and accordingly the Accused produced his clothes i.e.
white shirt (Article C), trouser (Article D) from hovel and seizure
panchanama Exh.33-B was drawn. Therefore, all the circumstantial
evidence proves that the Accused committed homicidal death of deceased-
Raghunath. However, the learned trial Court discarded material evidence
and recorded perverse findings, therefore, prayed for quash and set aside
the impugned order.
( 10 ) cri apeal 676.04
14. The learned APP further canvassed that the learned trial Court
wrongly recorded findings about deceased was having any discussion with
the PW3-Sanjay Raghunath Jadhav and PW4-Jagannath Maruti Jadhav
about inflicting injuries at the hands of the Respondent/Accused because if
the injuries described in post-mortem report Exh.30 are considered no
contused CLW was found on frontal and parietal area of the scalp. The
other injuries on thigh, leg, left arm, left humorous, the fracture of tibia
and fibula and injuries on head are only vital. So also, in case of head
injury, no instantaneous death is ensured. Time is required to form
haematoma and then there would be stopping of heart affecting the
respiratory system. The learned trial Court could not have drawn the
conclusion about instantaneous death of the deceased. However, the
learned trial Court has wrongly given much more importance to the minor,
omissions and contradictions which are not at all fatal to the prosecution's
case. The Prosecution proved motive of the Respondent/Accused to commit
homicidal death of the deceased due to illicit relations between the
deceased and mother of the Accused. However, the learned trial Court
failed to consider the said motive and wrongly recorded findings.
15. It is further canvassed on behalf of the prosecution that the
learned trial Court wrongly discarded the evidence of Panch witnesses for
( 11 ) cri apeal 676.04
recovery of weapon, axe and wooden handle under Section 27 of the
Evidence Act. Further, the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the
evidence of PW3-Informant that he lodged a report Exh.35 at about 6.00
am on 11.08.2003 with Police Station Ambhora, which is situated in
interior part of Tq. Ashti and the incident occurred at about 8.00 pm on
10.08.2003 and as such the PW3, PW4 and others had taken the deceased
in bullock cart and then in jeep for hospitalization. However, the deceased
died on the way to Primary Health Centre, Suleman Deola. Therefore, dead
body of deceased was brought at village Tagadkhed, hence, there is no
delay in lodging the report. However, the learned trial Court failed to
consider and appreciate evidence in prospective manner and recorded
perverse findings, hence, prayed for quashing and setting aside the
impugned judgment and order.
16. Per contra, Advocate Mr. Chatterji, the learned counsel
appearing for the Respondent/Accused supported findings recorded by the
learned trial Court. The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent-
Accused canvassed that, the prosecution failed to establish identification of
the Accused due to darkness. So also, there are inconsistent evidence in
respect of recovery of weapon wooden handle (Article A) and Axe with
( 12 ) cri apeal 676.04
broken handle (Article B) effected under Section 27 of the Evidence Act
under memorandum panchanama Exh.33 and seizure panchanama Exh.25.
17. It is further canvassed on behalf of the Respondent that, the
PW3-Sanjay Raghunath Jadhav deposed at Exh.34 that when he visited
near vasti with his uncle PW4-Jagannath Maruti Jadhav at that time he had
allegedly seen the Respondent/Accused in bulb light while running with
wooden danda in his hand. However, the PW4-Jagannath Maruti Jadhav
deposed at Exh.34 that at about 8.00 pm he along with PW3-Sanjay
Raghunath Jadhav reached near vasti i.e. spot of incident and seen the
Respondent/Accused in electric bulb light while running with Axe.
Therefore, there are material contradictions about the weapon and medical
evidence is not consistent. Therefore, the learned trial Court extended
benefit of doubt that whether the deceased assaulted the deceased with
axe having broken wooden handle, hence, findings recorded by the learned
trial Court are based on evidence and no interference is called to disturb
the findings. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
18. It is further canvassed on behalf of the Respondent that, the
PW1-Medical Officer opined that cause of death of deceased was cardio
respiratory arrest due to hemorrhagic shock due to multiple injuries. The
( 13 ) cri apeal 676.04
injury nos.1, 3, 4, 6 and 7 described in the post mortem report Exh.30 are
sufficient to cause death to the deceased. Injury nos.1 to 7 can be caused
by sharp edge weapon. However, the prosecution failed to prove that the
Accused is the author of the injuries. So also, defence of the Accused and
spot panchanama Exh.23 does not disclose about existence of electric bulb
at the vasti. PW7-I.O. admitted in his cross-examination that " वस्ती जवळ
लाईट घे तली आहे " (Light is fetched near field house) words are inserted
subsequently but spot panchanama Exh.23 does not disclose about fixation
of electric bulbs at 2-3 places at vasti or one electric bulb is in existence
under the tin shed and other bulb fixed on Neem tree. So also, there were
no other bulbs fixed in the vasti of deceased except those two bulbs. The
testimony of PW3 and PW4 are totally silent on the point of existence of
electric bulbs at the vasti. Therefore, findings recorded by the learned trial
Court are just and proper and no substantial grounds are set out to
interfere with the findings of the learned trial Court. Hence, prayed for
dismissal of the appeal.
19. Indeed, on 11.08.2003 the PW1-Medical Officer Dr. Balaji
Pandurang Gutte carried out the post-mortem on the dead body of
Raghunath and found the following injuries:
( 14 ) cri apeal 676.04
1. C.L.W. frontal area of scalp (left) vertically placed 2 cm x 1 1/2
cm x 1 cm, in size, e/o. fracture of frontal bone present.
2. Abrasion (right) frontal area of scalp. vertically placed, 2 x 1/2
cm x 1/4 on in size.
3. Contused lacerated wound, parietal area of scalp, central part,
transversly placed. 1 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm x 1/2cm in size,
4. Incised wound (left) arm dorsolateral aspect middle part, 1/2 cm
x 1/2 cm (length) x 1 cm (depth) in size.
5. e/o. fracture of middle part left numerus (+)
6. Incised wound (right) thigh, middle part dorsolateral aspect. ½
cm (length) x 1/2cm (breadth) x 1 cm (depth) in size.
7. Incised wound (left) leg upper 1/3 part. Dorsoanterior aspect, 1
cm (length) x 1/2 (breadth) x 1 cm (depth).
8. e/o. fracture of (left) tibia and fibula present.
9. e/o. fracture of right tibis upper and present.
20. The PW1-Medical Officer deposed at Exh.28 that he issued
post- mortem report Exh.30 and provisional death certificate Exh.29. He
opined that the cause of death was cardio respiratory arrest due to
hemorrhagic shock due to multiple injuries and the injury nos.1 to 3 are
fracture of frontal bone and injury nos.1, 3, 4, 6 and 7 are sufficient in
ordinary course to cause the death. The Medical Officer opined that the
injury nos.1 to 7 can be caused by sharp edge weapon of iron axe and the
( 15 ) cri apeal 676.04
wooden handle of the axe. In cross-examination, the PW1 stated that the
injury nos.4, 6 and 7 mentioned in column no.17 of post-mortem report
Exh.30 can be caused due to assault inflicted by sharp cutting weapon and
remaining injuries can be caused by hard and blunt object. During post
mortem he found that deceased-Raghunath had intracerebral hemorrhage
and in such cases a patient becomes unconscious and goes in coma as soon
as the patient is inflicted with assault by sharp cutting weapon and hard
blunt weapon on head. However, the defence has not brought any
material on record to discard the testimony of PW1-Medical Officer to
prove that the injuries described in post mortem report Exh.30 are caused
due to assault by sharp edge weapon and hard and blunt object. So also,
the evidence of PW1 is sufficient to prove that the death of deceased-
Raghunath is homicidal. Therefore, it is required to re-appreciate the
evidence of the prosecution to see that whether the Respondent/Accused is
the author of injuries described in post mortem report Exh.30.
21. The PW3-Informant/Sanjay Raghunath Jadhav deposed at
Exh.34 that on 09.08.2003 his mother Smt. Sakharabai had been to village
Dhavlechiwadi for her Herpes treatment and his father Raghunath Maruti
Jadhav (deceased) was alone at his vasti (residential house in the field)
and after performing the agricultural operational work for entire day he
( 16 ) cri apeal 676.04
returned to his house at village and his father was alone at vasti.
Therefore, PW3-Sanjay Raghunath Jadhav had dinner and thereafter he
had carried the tiffin for his father (decased-Raghunath) along with PW4-
Jagannath Maruti Jadhav. The evidence of PW3 and PW4 appears that at
about 8.00 pm both of them went near vasti with the tiffin for deceased-
Raghunath and when they reached near the vasti at that time they noticed
the Accused running away having wooden danda in his hand in the light.
The PW3 deposed that he saw the Accused while running and was having
wooden danda in his hand and when he and his uncle (PW4) went near his
father Raghunath at that time they say that the injured Raghunath was
lying in the pool of blood and was unconscious in front of the door of vasti.
The PW4-Jagannath Maruti Jadhav deposed that when he and PW3-Sanjay
Raghunath Jadhav reached in front of vasti situated in the agricultural field
at that time he saw the Accused having an axe in his hand in the light of
burning bulb. Therefore, there is material contradictions that the Accused
was having axe or wooden danda in his hand while running away from the
vasti. So also, the spot panchanama Exh.23 does not disclose that at the
time of the incident electric bulb was switched on. However, the PW7/I.O.
admitted that electrical bulbs were lighted at two to three places at the
vasti but no electrical meter was installed at vasti of deceased-Raghunath.
Therefore, it certainly creates doubt that at about 8.00 pm in the month of
( 17 ) cri apeal 676.04
August-2003 there was sufficient light to identify the Respondent/Accused
while running from the vasti when the electric meter was not installed at
the vasti of deceased. So also, the spot panchanama Exh.23 does not
disclose that the electric bulbs were in existence at the vasti of deceased.
22. Needless to say that the prosecution mostly relied on
circumstantial evidence about seizure of axe along with the broken handle
(Article A and Article B) under Section 27 of the Evidence Act as well as
clothes from the person of deceased and the Accused. In order to prove the
recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act the prosecution examined
PW2-Chagan Bhausaheb Kale at Exh.31. The PW2 deposed that on
15.08.2003 at about 10.00 am he had called the police to stood as a panch
witness. When he was present in the police station the Accused was in the
police custody and the Accused in his presence and another panch stated
about production of one axe along with its wooden handle which was
concealed by him at the agricultural land situated in front of his house.
Accordingly, memorandum panchanama Exh.32A was drawn. Thereafter,
at the insistence of Accused the police seized weapon axe with broken
handle (Article B) and wooden handle (Article A) and drawn seizure
panchanama Exh.32B. The PW7/I.O. sent all seized articles for chemical
examination under letter Exh.44 and obtained CA report Exh.45. As per
( 18 ) cri apeal 676.04
CA report, axe blade and wooden broken handle were found to be stained
with blood and clothes such as full shirt, pyjama, kopri, dhoti, chaddi are
found with blood stains of 'B' group. However, the result in respect of axe
blade and earth soil remained inconclusive.
23. The learned APP urged that soon after the PW3-Sanjay
Raghunath Jadhav and PW4- Jagannath Maruti Jadhav visited at vasti and
found that the injured-Raghunath was lying in injured condition and had
sustained various injuries, therefore, at that time the PW3 visited the
injured and found that his father-Raghunath had sustained injuries on
head, both the hands and legs and he offered a glass of water to his father.
The PW4-Jagannath Maruti Jadhav deposed that when he attended the
injured after seeing him in the injured condition and inquired as to who
inflicted the injuries at that time his brother Raghunath (injured) disclosed
him that Accused-Bhausaheb Avhad had inflicted the injuries with axe
blows and he PW3 and PW4 offered a glass of water to Raghunath.
However, the PW3-Informant has not disclosed about disclosure statement
being given by the deceased to PW4-Jagannath Maruti Jadhav that injuries
inflicted with axe blow were given by the Respondent/Accused. There is
variance in evidence of the prosecution witnesses about making oral dying
declaration by the deceased to PW4-Jagannath Maruti Jadhav. Therefore,
( 19 ) cri apeal 676.04
the alleged oral dying declaration cannot be accepted and relied because
both the witnesses deposed that the deceased-Raghunath was lying in
unconscious state and was found dead at the spot. Therefore, taking into
consideration all the above evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it does
not inspire confidence that the Accused is the author of the injuries
sustained to the deceased. Not only this but there are various material
contradictions about lighting of electric bulb at the spot of the incident
when the PW3-Sanjay Raghunath Jadhav and PW4-Jagannath Maruti
Jadhav visited at the spot and identification of the Accused by PW3 and
PW4 in the night hours.
24. Further while lodging the report Exh.35, the PW3-Sanjay
Raghunath Jadhav stated that he noticed Accused while running with gupti
in his hand, however, in substantial evidence the PW3 deposed that he had
seen accused while running from vasti having a wooden stick and danda in
his hand, whereas, PW4-Jagannath deposed that he saw the Accused
having an axe in his hand in the light of electric bulb from vasti towards
southern side. The PW3-Sanjay Raghunath Jadhav has not deposed that he
saw the Accused while running in light (electric bulb) and was having axe
in his hand. Needles to say that the PW2-Chagan Bhausaheb Kale who is
witness to the memorandum seizure panchanama under Section 27 of the
( 20 ) cri apeal 676.04
Evidence Act has categorically admitted in his cross-examination that the
police had told him that the axe with weapon handle and the clothes were
attached from the Accused. Therefore, it appears that the PW2-Chagan
Bhausaheb Kale deposed on say of the police. Therefore, all these material
contradictions do not inspire confidence that the Respondent/Accused has
committed the homicidal death of the deceased.
25. On 27.04.2004, the learned trial Court passed the impugned
order and acquitted the Respondent/Accused holding that the death of
deceased-Raghunath is homicidal but the prosecution has failed to prove
that the Respondent/Accused committed murder of the deceased because
of various material contradictions in oral as well as documentary evidence
and extended the benefit of doubt. Therefore, we do not find that the
prosecution has made out substantial grounds to interfere with the findings
recorded by the learned trial Court.
26. In view of above discussion, the Appeal is hereby dismissed.
R and P be remitted back.
[Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J.] [SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.]
mubashir
