1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1760 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 185 OF 2010 Vikram Babasaheb Jadhav .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Shri N. L. Jadhav, Advocate for the Applicant Shri K. G. Ghute Patil, A.P.P. for the Respondent/State. CORAM : P. V. HARDAS AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 23RD JULY, 2010. PER COURT : . By this application the applicant seeks suspension of substantive sentence and imprisonment and enlargement of the applicant on bail, pending the decision of the appeal. 2. The applicant stand convicted for the offence punishable U/Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegations that the applicant had committed murder of his wife Pushpa on 2 17.04.2007 at about mid night. 3. The prosecution relied heavily on the testimony of the child witness i. e. P.W. 10 Saurabh. The Trial Court accepted the evidence of the child witness and found that the evidence of the child witness inspired confidence and accordingly convicted and sentenced the applicant. Mr. Jadhav, learned counsel for the applicant has urged before us that the evidence of P.W. 10 Saurabha cannot be relied upon as (1) he is a child witness (2) Saurabha was in the custody of his maternal relative and there is every possibility of this witness tutored. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has supported the order of the Trial Court convicting and sentencing the applicant. 4. As to whether P.W. 10 Saurabh can be said to be reliable witness or not is a matter of appreciation of evidence. Prima facie the Trial Court has found that this witness is reliable witness and convicted and sentenced the applicant, despite the fact that the P.W. 10 is a child witness. It is also urged before us by the learned counsel for the applicant that the statement of Saurabh was recorded by the investigating officer after a period of 10 days. According to us, the aforesaid submission pertains to re-appreciation of evidence which cannot be done at this stage. 3 5. In that light of the matter, therefore, we are not inclined to allow this application. Accordingly this application is dismissed. The request for suspension of substantive sentence and imprisonment and enlargement of the applicant on bail is refused, despite the fact that the applicant was on bail during the trial. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ P. V. HARDAS, J.] bsb/July 10