1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1724 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.276 OF 2009 Raghoji s/o Dattaram Shinde ... APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ... RESPONDENT ..... Shri U.S. Malte, Advocate for the applicant Shri S.D. Kaldate, A.P.P. for respondent ..... CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ. DATED : 7TH AUGUST, 2009. ORAL ORDER (PER SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.): 1. Perused. Herad learned respective counsel for the parties. 2. The applicant/appellant Raghoji Dattaram Shinde prays for enlargement on bail by suspending the operation of the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to him by learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Nanded in Sessions Case No.81/2008, by judgment and order passed on 31.3.2009, during the pendency of the appeal. The applicant/ appellant was charged for the offence punishable under Section 302 2 and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegations that he committed murder of his son namely Anil, i.e. son of his first wife Anusayabai and buried his dead body in the bed of Godavari river to disappear the evidence and to screen himself from the legal punishment. The trial in Sessions Case No.81/2008 was conducted and the learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Nanded convicted the applicant/ appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer R.I. for three months, and also convicted the applicant/ appellant for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for five years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer R.I. for one month, and both the substantive sentences were to run concurrently. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant/ appellant made submission that, there are no eye witnesses and the prosecution case is rested upon the circumstantial evidence and evidence of last seen together and also upon alleged discovery/ recovery of the dead body at the instance of the applicant/ appellant. In the said context, the learned counsel for the applicant/ appellant submitted that the dead body of victim was recovered with the assistance of sniffer dog and not at the instance of applicant. Moreover, it is submitted that the alleged motive attributed to appellant is the transfer of piece of land in the name of victim namely Anil i.e. son of first wife which does not connect the appellant with the crime. The learned counsel for the applicant/ 3 appellant also submitted that the prosecution failed to link the circumstances to establish nexus between the applicant/ appellant with the alleged crime and medical evidence is not clinching to connect the applicant/ appellant with the alleged guilt. It is further submitted that, there are no eye witnesses, and there is no direct evidence in the present case to establish the charges levelled against the applicant/ appellant herein. 4. The learned A.P.P. countered the said arguments and submitted that the prosecution case is based upon the circumstantial evidence, which are linked unerringly to connect the applicant/ appellant with the guilt. He further submitted that, prosecution has examined in all 23 witnesses to substantiate the charges levelled against the applicant herein. He further submitted that on the point of last seen together, the testimony of P.W.11 Govind reflects that the applicant Raghoji accompanied with his son i.e. victim Anil to Mudkhed Bazar on Sunday i.e. on 10.2.2008 by S.T. bus. It is also submitted by learned A.P.P. that the medical evidence of P.W.16 Dr. Ajay Lokde who performed the post mortem on the dead body, stated that the death of the deceased Anil occurred about 36 hours prior to the post mortem examination, which was performed on 12.2.2008 at about 3.15 p.m. to 4.20 p.m. and as such, the death of victim Anil might have occurred in the midnight between 10.2.2008 and 11.2.2008. It is further submitted that, considering the time of last seen together i.e. deceased Anil in the company of applicant and probable time of his death, there is hardly small time gap and both the timings almost tally 4 with each other. Moreover, it is pointed out that, the dead body of deceased Anil was discovered from the bed of Godavari river at the instance of the applicant/ appellant on 12.2.2008 at about 11.30 p.m. Hence, it is submitted that, all these circumstances connect the applicant/ appellant with the crime. 5. We have perused the oral and documentary evidence adduced and produced by the prosecution. We also heard learned respective counsel. Considering the rival submissions, the evidence of last seen together i.e. the victim seen in the company of appellant prior to death of victim Anil and discovery/ recovery of dead body at the instance of appellant and medical evidence, apparently we are of the view that there is evidence against the applicant. 6. Besides, the offence for which the appellant has been convicted is of serious nature. Moreover, sight can not be lost of the very aspect that the appellant was not on bail during the pendency of trial. Hence, we are of the considered view that this is not a fit case to enlarge the appellant/ applicant on bail. 7. In the result, present application for bail fails since it bears no substance and same is devoid of any merits, and, therefore, it stands dismissed. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.) fmp/cri1724.09