1 Criminal Appl.No.558 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NOP.558 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.57 OF 2011 Sachin Macchindra Bodare APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mr.G.J.Kore, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr.S.D.Kaldate, learned A.P.P. for respondent State. (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 16/06/2011 PER COURT : 1. By this application, the applicant seeks suspension of the substantive sentence of imprisonment and his enlargement on bail pending the decision of the appeal. 2. The applicant/accused stands convicted for an offences punishable u/s. 302 and 201 of The IPC on the allegations that the applicant/accused had committed murder of Dhananjay Dhumal. The prosecution principally relied upon the circumstance relating to the discovery of the weapon of the assault and the clothes of the 2 Criminal Appl.No.558 of 2011 accused. Accordingly, memorandum at Exh.32 came to be recorded and the weapon and clothes came to be seized vide seizure panchnama at Exh.33. The weapon i.e. tommy and clothes of the accused were recovered for chemical examination and the report of the Chemical Analyser at Exh.9 and 10 reveals that weapon and the clothes of the applicant were stained with blood of ‘B’ group which matched with the blood group of deceased. Further prosecution relied upon the testimony of P.W.No.2 and P.W.No.3 in respect of the theory of deceased being last seen alive in the company of accused. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has alleged before us that no reliance whatsoever can be placed upon the discovery of the weapon and the clothes as the time which is stated in the memorandum and the panchnama are fictitious timings as the applicant had been produced before the Magistrate on the time stated in the panchnama. It is therefore the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that the aforesaid circumstance can not be relied upon. Further it is urged before us that no reliance can be placed on the testimony of P.W.No.3 as the statement of P.W.No.3 had came to be recorded after 15 days of the incident and the P.W.No.3 had been detained by the police. It is therefore urged before us that P.W.No.3 is a obliged witness and therefore no reliance could have been placed on his testimony. 4. The aforesaid submissions pertains to re-appreciation of 3 Criminal Appl.No.558 of 2011 evidence, which can not be done at this stage. Suffice it to state that despite the aforesaid infirmities, the Trial Court has found the evidence to be reliable and has accordingly convicted and sentenced the applicant. Additionally, we find that the applicant/accused was not on bail. In such circumstances, therefore, we are not inclined to accept the plea of the accused for suspension of the sentence and his enlargement on bail. Application is accordingly rejected. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/JUNE 2011/cri.appl.558-11