1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4471 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.616 OF 2009 Pandurang s/o Manikrao Birajdar ... APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ... RESPONDENT ----- Shri C.V. Dharurkar, Advocate for the applicant (appointed) Shri K.J. Ghute Patil, A.P.P. for respondent ----- CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ. DATED : 29th January, 2010. ORAL ORDER: 1. This application at the instance of the applicant/ appellant seeks suspension of the substantive sentence of the imprisonment and his enlargement on the bail pending the decision of the appeal. The applicant stands convicted for an offence punishable under Sections 302, 498-A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code by the Additional Sessions Judge, Latur, by judgment dated 8.10.2009 in Sessions Case No.10/2008. 2 2. The prosecution principally relied upon the testimony of P.W.3 Parvati, daughter of the present applicant for sustaining the charge that the applicant had committed murder of his wife Sangita on 8.11.2007. The trial Court also relied upon the discovery of the weapon of assault namely screw driver, at the behest of the applicant, pursuant to the disclosure memorandum of the seizure panchanama. The said screw driver was found stained with blood group matching that of deceased Sangita. 3. Mr. Dharurkar, learned counsel for the applicant has urged before us that P.W.3 Parvati was a child witness and since she was susceptible to being tutored, no conviction could have based upon the uncorroborated testimony of the child witness. It is further stated before us that evidence in respect of discovery and the consequent seizure of the screw driver at the behest of the applicant is extremely weak and, therefore, that, as a circumstance, could not have been relied upon by the prosecution. The learned A.P.P. has urged before us for dismissal of the application on the ground that the submissions advanced before us by the learned counsel for the applicant pertain to reappreciation of evidence which cannot be done at this preliminary stage of considering the bail application. 4. Prima facie, we find that the trial Court has found evidence of P.W.3 Parvati reliable and has also found the 3 evidence in respect of the discovery of screw driver at the behest of the applicant reliable. Thus, this is not a case where the conviction is based on no evidence at all. Prima facie, there appears to be evidence and the submissions urged before us by the learned counsel for the applicant pertain to appreciation of evidence which cannot be done at this stage. Additionally, we find that the applicant was not on bail during trial. 5. In that light of the matter, therefore, the application which is sans merits is, therefore, dismissed. We, however, expedite the hearing of the appeal. We quantify the fees payable to the learned counsel appointed on behalf of the applicant for arguing this bail application, at Rs.1000/-. [ SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.] [ P.V. HARDAS, J.] fmp/cri4471.09