1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1610 :OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.: 200 OF 2010 *** Vilas S/o Balbhim Kawale Versus The State of Maharashtra *** Mrs. A. S. Mantri, Advocate for the Applicant (appointed). Mr. V. D. Godbharle, A.P.P. for the Respondent. *** 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. By this application, the applicant seeks suspension of sentence and release on bail. 2. Applicant Vilas, along with four other accused persons, was charged and tried for the offence punishable under section 498­A, 302 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code in Sessions Case No.7 of 2008. The learned Sessions Judge, Osmanabad, on trial, convicted the present Applicant for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and directed him to suffer imprisonment for life. Applicant is also convicted for the offence punishable under 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. section 498­A of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 3 years. Both these sentences are directed to run concurrently. Other accused persons, who were tried along with the present applicant, have been acquitted for the offence punishable under section 498­A and 302 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. Their bail bonds have been cancelled. Present applicant was in custody from 27th September, 2007. Set of is permitted to him. This judgment is delivered by the trial Court on 27th December, 2009. 3. Applicant has challenged the judgment of conviction in Sessions Case No.7 of 2008. We have admitted appeal, after hearing counsel for the parties. 4. Today, counsel appearing for the Applicant submitted that even though the applicant was not on bail during the trial, he is entitled for release on bail by 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. suspending the sentence imposed against him by the trial Court. It is submitted on behalf of the Applicant that there is no direct evidence brought on record by the prosecution for commission of offence under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. Material brought on record even falls short for punishment under section 498­A of Indian Penal Code. According to learned counsel for the Applicant it is a fit case wherein bail can be granted by this Court to the Applicant. 5. Learned A.P.P. Mr. Godbharle, points out judgment of the trial Court and material brought on record on behalf of the prosecution. He points out paragraph Nos.42, 43, 44 and 45 of the judgment of trial Court. According to him, circumstances brought on record have been properly appreciated by the trial Court and conviction is recorded against the applicant. It is a case of 4 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. double murder. 6. The prosecution came with the case that applicant Vilas was married with one Jyoti. Jyoti was not cohabiting with Vilas. Similar was the case with Manisha (deceased). Manisha earlier was married with one Shankar. Shankar died of heart attack. Manisha had returned to her parents place at Dharur. It was the proposal on behalf of one of the original accused Rajendra for marriage of Manisha with present applicant Vilas. Proposal had been materialised. Applicant Vilas and Manisha were married. Applicant Vilas at the relevant time was working with Terna cooperative sugar factory. Applicant Vilas was required to make payment of maintenance to his estranged wife Jyoti in view of the judicial order passed by the competent Court. He was thus reeling under the monetary pressure. It was difficult for him to meet household expenses, payment of 5 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. maintenance with his meager salary and that was the reason he was demanding Rs.20,000/­ ­ 25,000/­ from Manisha. He insisted for bringing that money from her parents. Manisha could not fetch money from her parents. Applicant Vilas and Manisha were blessed with daughter Sheetal. Since demand of money could not be fulfilled by deceased Manisha from her parents, she was being cruelly treated by the Applicant. Thus, cruelty was alleged by the prosecution on account of non­fulfillment of monetary demand made by the applicant. According to the prosecution, Manisha delivered a female child viz. Sheetal. The applicant Vilas was not happy with married life on account of non­ fulfillment of monetary demand made by him. His cruel treatment to Manisha, ended in commission of murder of both of them i.e. Manisha and their daughter Sheetal, who was around 3 years old on the date of incident. 6 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. On behalf of prosecution oral evidence is adduced to prove this circumstance. Learned Judge has considered the material brought on record and observed that there is no explanation tendered by the Applicant Vilas under section 106 of Indian Evidence Act. He concluded in para 45 that Vilas has committed two murders, one of his wife Manisha and another of his small daughter Sheetal. Learned Judge observed in para 45 of the judgment that apart from commission of crime of murder under section 300 I.P.C. applicant Vilas made a show of electrocution. Material brought on record do show that black wire was found on the person of deceased Manisha and Sheetal. Postmortem report, evidence of medical officer also has been considered by the trial Court. 7. Trial Court has opined that it is not simplicitor murder but brutal murder of two hapless persons i.e. deceased Manisha and 7 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. Sheetal while they were then asleep. After giving due consideration to the submissions on behalf of all the parties and considering the material brought on record, prima facie, in our view, applicant does not deserve enlargement on bail by suspending sentence. We are not inclined to consider the application favourably since the material brought on record may end in dismissal of the appeal filed on behalf of the Applicant. 8. Criminal application stands rejected. No costs. 9. We quantify Rs.1,000/­ towards professional fees to the amicus curia to be paid forthwith, apart from payment of fees towards hearing of appeal, if this Court choose to pass such order at appropriate time. [S. S. SHINDE, J.] [S.B.DESHMUKH, J.] Dated:20/07/2010. ans/1610