1 Cri. Appln. No.1583 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Criminal Application No.1593 OF 2011 In Criminal Appeal No.143 Of 2011 Babu Quareshi s/o Abdul Quareshi. ... Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent. -------- Shri. R.M. Deshmukh, Advocate, appointed for applicant. Shri. D.V. Tele, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondent – State. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & T.V. NALAWADE, JJ. DATE: 26th APRIL 2011 PER COURT : 1) Heard. 2) The applicant is convicted for an offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by judgment and order dated learned Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani in Sessions Trial No.87 of 2010 and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five months. 2 Cri. Appln. No.1583 of 2011 3) The present application is filed for releasing the applicant on bail pending hearing and final disposal of the appeal. 4) The prosecution case is that on 2-2-2010 the applicant came to his house at about 4.00 p.m. The applicant was seen in angry mood by the family members. He asked the family members to go out of the house. The applicant then locked the door from inside. PW 3 - Amer, son of the applicant, watched the incident from the slit of door by standing outside. He saw that his father was assaulting his mother with a stone grinder ("Varvanta") on her head due to which his mother shouted and collapsed by saying Allaha !. 5) The PW 6 - Abdul Mujaheed, a neighbour, after hearing the shouts reached the house of the applicant and saw that the elder son of the applicant jumped in the house and opened the door. He saw the deceased in injured condition. He clearly deposed before Court that persons from his locality took the applicant - Babu to police station and the injured was shifted to hospital at 3 Cri. Appln. No.1583 of 2011 Parbhani by this witness and the elder son of the applicant. 6) The defence of the applicant was that as the deceased fell on stone grinder she suffered injuries and succumbed to the same. The counsel submits that the evidence of the PW 3 and PW 6 is not reliable. 7) The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that, there is strong prima facie case against the applicant. Even son has deposed against the applicant. The evidence of PW 6, a neighbour, shows that the applicant was seen in the house and he was immediately taken to the police station. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor prayed for rejection of the application. 8) We have perused the original record and proceedings and considered the submissions advanced by the counsel for the parties. The son of the applicant, PW 3, has deposed against him. The evidence of PW 6 who is the neightour indicates involvement of the applicant in the commission of the crime. The opinion of the doctor, 4 Cri. Appln. No.1583 of 2011 who conduced atopsy, is that the death was caused "due to head injury". It seems that the deceased was badly assaulted on vital portion of her body. The applicant should have been aware about the consequence of the assault on the head of the deceased. The applicant was not on bail during trial. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case we are not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 9) The criminal application is rejected. Record and proceeding be sent back. The High Court Legal Services Sub Committee Aurangabad is directed to pay the professional fees to the counsel appointed for the applicant. Sd/- Sd/- (T.V. NALAWADE, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl