1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 951 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 281 OF 2010 RAM MANIKRAO TALEKAR AND OTHERS VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ... Smt. Sadhana S.Jadhav, Advocate for the applicants Shri N.R.Shaikh, APP for the respondent Shri R.M.Deshmukh, Advocate to assist the APP. ... CORAM : S.B.DESHMUKH & S.S.SHINDE,JJ. Dated : 3.5.2010 PER COURT :- 1. Heard respective counsel. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. The applicants, along with eight others were charged and tried for the offenses punishable under Sections 302 read with section 149, 120-B read with section 149, 147, 148, 427 read with section 149, 341 read with section 149, section 115, 201 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, under Section 25(1)(d) of the Indian Arms Act in 2 Sessions Case No.19 of 208. The date of the incident in the present case is 4.2.2007. Name of deceased person is Panjabrao Deshmukh. The learned trial Court, after recording the evidence and hearing the parties convicted and sentenced some of the accused and acquitted some of the accused. 4. There are two appeals filed before this Court by the convicted accused persons. First one is the Criminal Appeal No.281 of 2009 and another is Criminal Appeal No.489 of 2009 filed by three and two accused respectively. 5. Smt. Sadhana Jadhav, learned Advocate appearing for the applicants submitted that though there were five eye witnesses, as claimed by the prosecution, four witnesses have turned hostile. PW 18 Baban, according to her is the sole eye witness, who has supported the case of the prosecution. Status of this witness, according to learned counsel for the applicant also cannot be accepted to be of the eye witness. She further submitted that this witness had accompanied another alleged eye witness Prabhakar, who had ultimately turned hostile. She also points out the earlier proceeding and filing of the affidavit on behalf of the said witness. According to her, discovery in the case on hand of the alleged weapons is from the well, containing water at the relevant time. Since the well was containing water, according to her, there is no question of determination of the blood stains, if at all, found on the incriminating weapons. The material brought on record by the prosecution, according 3 to her, is absolutely insufficient for conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court. She submits that the applicants are languishing in the jail for more than three years i.e. from the date of arrest. She fairly admitted that application for bail, filed by another set of accused in Criminal Appeal No.489 of 2009 has been considered and rejected by this Court on 2.12.2009. 6. Learned APP Shri Shaikh took us through paragraph Nos.46 and 64 of the judgment of the trial Court. According to him, no case for suspension of sentence and/or release of the applicants on bail can be made out. 7. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, we have seen the record and proceedings. We have also taken into account evidence of PW 18 Baban. Our attention has also been invited by the learned counsel for the applicants to the post mortem report / notes, which are on record. According to learned counsel for the applicants, there is material contradiction in medical and ocular evidence. We have given due consideration to the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant as regards the status of PW 18 Baban to be a chance witness and not an eye witness as claimed by the prosecution. This is a matter of appreciation of evidence, which can be conveniently done at the time of final hearing of the appeal. The material brought on record is virtually the same in relation to two other accused persons, whose application for 4 releasing them on bail has already been rejected and to that of the present applicants. We see no reason for releasing the present applicants on bail. 8. In the result, Criminal Application stands rejected. Rule discharged. (S.S.SHINDE,J.) (S.B.DESHMUKH,J.) ... akl