1 appa.519.10 ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 519 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 285 OF 2010 Vishal Subhashsingh Dharadhar. ... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent ----- Mr. Girish Kulkarni for the Applicant. Mr. A.S.Gadkari, APP for the Respondent/ State. ----- CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR and P.D. KODE, JJ. DATE : 29 th September, 2010. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the Applicant and the learned APP. 2 The Applicant has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The lower Court has after evaluating the evidence on record, noticed that there were four strong circumstances, which have been duly established by the prosecution. In that, last seen together, the extra judicial confession of the accused, the recovery of blood stained clothes of the accused and a knife from the spot and the 2 appa.519.10 motive as well as the conduct of the accused. The counsel for the Applicant however, submits that the blood group found on the clothes of the accused is ‘B’ group, which incidently is the blood group of the accused himself. The prosecution therefore, has failed to establish beyond doubt that the blood stains found on the clothes of the applicant in fact pertained to the blood group of the deceased. The argument though attractive, does not commend to us. The accused has failed to explain the circumstances in which the said blood stains were found on his clothes. Assuming that the same was the blood of the accused himself, he should have explained the circumstances in which the same appeared on his clothes. 3 The next argument of the Applicant is that the medical evidence of PW-6 would indicate that the possibility of suicide cannot be completely ruled out. This argument once again deserves to be stated to be rejected. The evidence of PW-6 clearly points out that the deceased suffered as many as seven injuries. The fact that the ligature mark around the neck noticed on the body of the deceased was possible also while attempting to commit suicide, does not by itself explain the other injuries found on the person of the deceased. On the basis of evidence of PW-6, it is not possible to assume that it was a case of suicide as such. 4 It is next argued that there was nothing on record to suggest 3 appa.519.10 that the deceased and the accused were staying in the said room and was not accessible to any other person. Even this argument does not commend to us. The Court below has analyzed the evidence of PW-5 as well as of the Investigating Officer, which clearly suggests that before the incident had happened, the Applicant-accused had told the sister of the deceased – PW-5 that he would kill the deceased. Later on, he told the PW-5 that he had killed the deceased. This extra judicial confession coupled with the fact that the Applicant produced the keys of the room and the lock of the room was opened by the said keys, has also been established by the prosecution. 5 All these circumstances, if considered together, we find no reason to doubt the correctness of the opinion recorded by the trial Court that the link has been established by the prosecution. 6 In the circumstances, it is not a case for grant of bail. Hence rejected. The appeal be proceeded for hearing as per its turn under caption “convicts in jail”. [ P.D. KODE, J ] [ A.M. KHANWILKAR, J ]