cra209.11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.209 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.15 OF 2011 Khawakash @ Khawachya Gopinath Kale, Age-22 years, R/o-Sarangpur, Tq-Gangapur, Dist-Aurangabad. ...APPLICANT. VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, Through A.P.I. Police Station, Sonai, Tq-Newasa, Dist-Ahmednagar. ...RESPONDENT. ... Smt. S.G. Chincholkar Advocate h/f. Shri. G.N. Chincholkar for Applicant. Shri. K.G. Patil, A.P.P. for Respondent. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 17TH MARCH, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for cra209.11 2 respective parties. 2. The Applicant prays for grant of bail pending hearing and final disposal of Appeal, which is admitted by this Court by order dated 20th January, 2011. The Applicant was convicted in Sessions Case No.33 of 2008 for an offence punishable under Section 302 and 394 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life till death and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. 3. In brief, the prosecution case is that deceased Bhaskar, father of complainant PW-1 Jalinder, was sleeping in courtyard of his house and other members were sleeping in the house, in the night between 29th March, 2008 and 30th March, 2008. Electricity was on during mid-night. Mother of complainant found at about 6.00 a.m. in the morning that father of complainant was lying dead cra209.11 3 in pool of blood and house was locked from outside. Complaint was filed in Sonai police station. Crime No.40 of 2008 was registered. 4. Smt. Chincholkar, learned counsel appearing for Applicant submitted that there is no eye witness in the case. Evidence of PW-4 Raghunath cannot be termed as evidence of eye witness as said witness stated in deposition before the Court, that he saw a boy coming from a room of his mother and said boy was slim. The counsel submits that the witness did not recognize the boy, therefore responsibility cannot be fastened on Applicant that he must be the culprit. The counsel further submits that ornaments which were recovered according to police, were identified after near about two months. Said ornaments were newly made and therefore the same could not be ornaments which were robbed from house of the deceased. It is further submitted that report of Chemical Analyser does not support cra209.11 4 prosecution case. The Applicant is resident of Aurangabad District whereas crime was committed in Ahmednagar District. 5. The learned A.P.P. submits that there is strong evidence against Applicant. The Applicant committed serious offence. At the instance of Applicant, recovery was made from goldsmith at Gangapur in Aurangabad District. In identification parade, Applicant and ornaments were identified by the complainant side. Evidence of PW-4 Raghunath is reliable. Therefore, the A.P.P. prayed for rejection of the Application. 6. We have perused original record and proceedings for the purposes of consideration of this bail Application, along with medical evidence. Evidence of PW-4 Raghunath is material. There is recovery of ornaments at the instance of Applicant. The Applicant and ornaments, both, were identified. There are other circumstances which, cra209.11 5 according to prosecution, are adverse to Applicant’s innocence. 7. The Appeal filed by Applicant is already admitted by this Court. Considering the fact that Applicant was in jail during trial and considering entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to release Applicant on bail. The Application is rejected. [A.V. POTDAR,J.] [NARESH H. PATIL,J.] asb/MAR11/cra209.11