1 cr­appa­105­11 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI. APPLN. NO. 105 OF 2011 IN CRI. APPEAL NO. 909 OF 2010 Arvind Narayan Kale ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent .... Mr. Raju Yamgar along with Mr. Prabhakar Jadhav Adv. for Applicant Mrs. M.M.Deshmukh APP for the State. .... CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE AND U.D.SALVI, JJ. DATE : FEBRUARY 08, 2011 P.C.: 1 We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant who prays for being released on bail during the pendency of Criminal Appeal No. 909 of 2010. In Sessions Case No. 5 of 2006, the applicant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 302 and 201 of I.P.C. and has been sentenced to suffer R.I. for life and other 2 cr­appa­105­11 sentences by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Malshiras, as per his order dated 16.10.2010. Cri. Appeal No. 909 of 2010 challenging the said order of conviction and sentence, has been admitted by us. 2 As per the prosecution, the deceased Shalan alias Kusum was married to the accused before 21 years and begot two sons Sukumar and Kameshwar. Shalan ’s brother Dnyandeo Kharat (P.W.5) approached Akluj Police Station at about 3 p.m. on 3.10.2005 and lodged complaint on the basis of which, A.D. No. 43 of 2005 came to be recorded. It was claimed that Shalan was found dead at about 11.30 p.m. on 2.10.2005 by hanging herself with her sari to a mango tree infront of her house, and her dead body was removed by her husband and two sons and it was kept on the Verandah of her house. Her dead body was sent for post mortem and the Investigating Officer P.W. 8 Dharmaraj Ombase suspected that Shalan died a homicidal death and it was not a case of suicide. The accused came to be arrested on 3.10.2005. The prosecution examined in all eight witnesses. 3 We have gone through the depositions of P.W.3, P.W.5, P.W. 7 Dr. Hemant Dixit, P.W. 6 Bandopant Kurudkar and P.W. 8 Dharmaraj Ombase the Investigating Officer. The trial Court has accepted the prosecution case that Shalan did not die a suicidal death and she was 3 cr­appa­105­11 killed by throttling (by suffocation) by using a soft pillow article no. 7. As per the prosecution case, while the accused was in custody, he made a statement to show the place and as to how Shalan was killed. P.W. 6 was the Pancha witness. The recovery of article 7 was made from the house of the accused in the presence of P.W. 6, by the Investigating Officer P.W. 8. The defence tried to support its case of hanging by examining D.W.1 and we have gone through his depositions. D.W.1 Kameshwar is the younger son of the accused and he stated in his cross- examination that for the first time, he was deposing that his mother died by hanging herself. 4 We are satisfied that the defence has not made out a case to suspend the order of sentence under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. and release the accused on bail. Hence, the application is rejected. 5 Hearing of the appeal is expedited and the applicant is at liberty to apply for fixing early date of hearing after the paper-book is ready. [ U.D.SALVI, J.] [ B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.]