AJN 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.412 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.266 OF 2009 Shankar Sandipan Awatade ... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr. S.P. Nikam with Mr. A.B. Kadam for the applicant. Mr. V.B. Konde-Deshmukh, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM: MRS. RANJANA DESAI & MRS. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATED : 30TH MARCH, 2010. P.C.:- 1. The applicant was tried along with two others by the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Malshiras for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”). By judgment and order dated 27/2/2009, the applicant was convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer AJN 2 imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. The applicant was also convicted for offence punishable under Section 201 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. He was also convicted for offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. The appeal filed by the applicant has been admitted. This is his second bail application. The applicant's first bail application was disposed of by the Division Bench of this court on 28/7/2009 after observing that there was no ground at this stage to grant the bail application. 2. Since the applicant was denied bail once, unless there is a change in the circumstances, his application for bail cannot be considered. In our opinion, there is no change in the circumstances and on that ground alone, the bail AJN 3 application deserves to be dismissed. In any case, since learned counsel has advanced arguments, we deem it necessary to dispose of the application on merits. 3. Learned counsel submitted that the prosecution has not examined the first informant who is the paternal uncle of the applicant. He submitted that the prosecution has also not examined Hanumant Namdev Aatade, resident of Phalwani, who had given information to the uncle of the applicant that the deceased jumped in the well. He submitted that therefore, the prosecution story has become suspect. It is not possible for us to accept this submission. Prima facie, we are of the opinion that the uncle of the applicant, who was not examined would not have supported the prosecution case and, hence, decision might have taken by the police not to examine him. Since, there is other clinching evidence on record, non-examination of the uncle of the applicant would not have any adverse impact on the prosecution case. Similarly, merely because, Hanumant Aatade was not examined that will not make any dent in the AJN 4 prosecution story. This argument is, therefore, rejected. 4. Learned counsel submitted that the prosecution has only examined the father of the deceased. No independent witness has been examined. The father has not given the details of the alleged dowry harassment and, therefore, the case of the prosecution is not substantiated. We reject this argument also. It is not the rule that the testimony of the interested witnesses must be rejected. Prima facie, in our opinion, the evidence of the father of the deceased inspires confidence. It is not possible for us to discard the prosecution story on the ground that no independent witness is examined. 5. Learned counsel then urged that there is an erasure in the postmortem note and the word “edematous” has been erased by the doctor and word “emphysematous” has been added. We are not inclined to give much importance to this. The doctor is an independent witness. He has no reason to falsely implicate the accused. Prima facie, the AJN 5 erasure does not appear to be suspicious and it does not have any adverse impact on the substratum of the prosecution story. In our opinion, no case is made out for bail. Application is rejected. [MRS. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [MRS. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.]