1 Criminal Appl.No.2049 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2049 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.244 OF 2011 Uttam S/o.Nivrutti Gaikwad APPLICANT VERSUS State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mr.V.N.Damle, learned counsel for the applicant. (Appointed) Mrs.S.D.Shelke, learned A.P.P. for respondent State (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 12/07/2011 PER COURT : 1. This is an application by the applicant/appellant who seeks suspension of the substantive sentence of imprisonment and his enlargement on bail pending the decision of the appeal. The applicant stands convicted for an offence punishable u/s. 302 of the IPC and is sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of which to undergo RI for 1 month, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Omerga by judgment dated 12/10/2010 in Sessions Case No.53/2009. Undeniably, the applicant was not on bail during the trial. 2 Criminal Appl.No.2049 of 2011 2. The evidence against the applicant consists of the testimony of eye witness Trisharan and the dying declaration at Exh.18. The Trial Court has placed implicit reliance on the evidence of the eye witness and has also relied upon the dying declaration and has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the offence against the applicant beyond reasonable doubt. 3. Shri.V.N.Damle, learned counsel appointed on behalf of the applicant has urged before us that the eye witness does not explain the injuries sustained by the accused, and therefore absence of explanation in respect of the injuries sustained by the accused would affect the credibility of the eye witness. It is further stated that on the dying declaration, thumb impression of the mother of the deceased is obtained in token of having witnessed the recording of dying declaration of the deceased. Learned counsel Shri.V.N.Damle therefore has urged before us that the conviction is un-sustainable in law. The learned A.P.P. has supported the findings arrived at by the Trial Court. 4. The submissions urged by the learned counsel for the applicant pertains to re-appreciation of the evidence, which can not be done at this stage. In that light of the matter, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere by suspending the substantive sentence and releasing the applicant on bail. However, in the light of the fact that, we are hearing criminal appeals of the year 2010 and 2011, we direct that 3 Criminal Appl.No.2049 of 2011 the hearing of the appeal be expedited. 5. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. We quantified the fees payable to Shri.V.N.Damle at Rs.1,000/- (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/JULY 2011/cri.appl.2049-11