1 cr-appa-1241-10 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI. APPLICATION NO. 1241 OF 2010 IN CRI.APPEAL NO. 745 OF 2004 Jai John Peter ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent .... Mr. D.G.Khamkar Advocate for Applicant Mr. D.P.Adsule A.P.P. for the State .... CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND N.D.DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED : MARCH 15, 2011 PER COURT: 1 This is an application filed by the appellant/original accused no.4 seeking suspension of his substantive sentence and enlargement on bail pending decision of the appeal. The appellant along with other appellants is alleged to have committed murder of deceased Shivshankar on 29.7.2002. The prosecution case revolves around the evidence of two eye witnesses viz., P.W. 1 Kiran wife of deceased Shivshankar and the first informant and P.W.2 Rajpati Gujar father of deceased Shivshankar. 2 cr-appa-1241-10 The first information report came to be lodged by P.W.1 in which the applicant and other accused are named. 2 The trial Court upon appreciating the evidence found that the prosecution has established the offence against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted and sentenced the appellants. 3 Learned Counsel for the applicant has urged before us that the evidence of the defence witness has not been considered by the trial Court which unequivocally points to the fact that there was shut down of the electricity and consequently there was darkness. It is also urged before us that the two eye witnesses were not knowing the appellant and therefore, in the absence of adequate evidence regarding the identification of the accused, the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 ought not to have been accepted by the trial Court. The learned A.P.P. has urged before us for dismissal of this application. 4 Upon perusal of the evidence of eye witnesses viz., P.W.1 and P.W.2, it is apparent that the witnesses were knowing the accused. They were however not knowing the place of residence nor occupation of the accused at the time of the incident. The accused have been named in the 3 cr-appa-1241-10 first information report and there is nothing at this stage to indicate that these witnesses were not knowing the assailants. The submissions advanced before us by the learned Counsel for the applicant pertains to re-appreciation of evidence which cannot be done at this stage. Suffice to say that the trial Court upon appreciating the evidence has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has established the offence against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The present application therefore, in our opinion deserves to be dismissed. 5 The application is accordingly dismissed. However, looking to the fact that the present applicant was not on bail during the trial and the offence is alleged to have been committed on 29.7.2002, we are inclined to expedite the hearing of the appeal and accordingly we direct that the appeal be listed for hearing on 13.6.2011. Application is accordingly dismissed with the above directions. [N.D.DESHPANDE, J.] [ P.V.HARDAS, J. ]