IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.587 OF 2010. IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.61 OF 2010. 1. Tukaram Vijay Rathod and othrs. ... APPLICANTS. VERSUS The State of Maharashtra. ... RESPONDENT. ... Shri N.S. Ghanekar, Advocate for applicants. Shri N.R. Shaikh, A.P.P. for Respondent - State. ... CORAM : S.B. DESHMUKH AND S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 24th MARCH, 2010. PER COURT: 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and by consent of the parties, taken up for hearing. 3. The applicants in this criminal application were accused in Sessions Case No.149 of 2009. They were charged for the offence punishable under Section 302, 201 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. On trial, the learned trial Judge convicted the present applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.2000/-. In default of payment of fine, the trial Court directed the applicants to undergo R.I. for further one year so far as offence under Section 302 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. is concerned. For the offence punishable under Section 201 r.w. 34 of I.P.C., they were directed to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine, they were directed to undergo further R.I. for six months. The judgment was delivered and conviction was awarded by the learned trial Judge on January 21, 2010. 4. According to the case of the prosecution, Mr. Vitthal Chavan, father of the victim – deceased Anita was living in the neighbourhood of applicant No.2. The applicants No.1 and 3 are sons of applicant no.2 Vijay Rathod. Deceased Anita was daughter of the complainant Mr. Vitthal Chavan. Deceased Anita was married on May 16, 2009 to one Sandeep Mangilal Rathod. After marriage, deceased Anita went for cohabitation to the place of her husband Sandeep Rathod. Few days after the marriage, it was noticed by Sandeep that deceased Anita was carrying. Sandeep allegedly abandoned the deceased Anita. Therefore, she was staying with her father Vitthal. Since the deceased Anita was abandoned by her husband Sandeep on the ground of her pregnancy at the time of his marriage with her and she was staying with her father Vitthal, a special meeting of the Caste Panchayat was called. In that meeting, according to the prosecution, the deceased Anita disclosed that she was pregnant from applicant No.1. This fact, according to the prosecution, was admitted by applicant No.1. In that meeting of Caste Panchayat, it was resolved that applicant No.1 Tukaram should marry with deceased Anita. Accordingly, Gandharwa form of marriage was there between the applicant No.1 Tukaram and deceased Anita. This Gandharwa marriage was solemnized on May 22, 2009. Prosecution, therefore, alleged that from 22nd May, 2009 the deceased Anita was cohabiting with applicant No.1 as his wife. Applicant No.2, according to the prosecution, is father-in-law of deceased Anita and applicant No.3 is brother-in-law of the deceased. Prosecution claims that deceased Anita was in the custody of the applicants on the date of occurrence i.e. on July 6, 2009. Death of Anita is homicidal. According to the prosecution, murder of deceased Anita was committed by the present applicants else where and her dead body was placed in the vicinity of house of her father Mr. Vitthal, which is few feet away from the house of the present applicants. 5. The entire case of the prosecution rests upon circumstantial evidence. The prosecution, to prove the circumstances alleged against the present applicants, placed on record documentary as well as oral evidence. With the assistance of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, we have considered the material brought on record. We have also seen evidence of PW 5 and PW 7. PW 7 has testified that in the earlier evening of the day on which dead body of Anita was found, she was seen alive in the house of the applicants. The prosecution claims discovery of the rope, alleged ligature. 6. The learned counsel for the applicants took us through the judgment of the trial Court. According to him, since the case rests on circumstantial evidence, prosecution ought to have established motive. After the alleged marriage of deceased Anita with applicant No.1 Tukaram on May 22, 2009, there was no dispute amongst the family of the applicants and father of deceased Anita, namely, Mr. Vitthal. According to him, it is the case for grant of bail and release of the present applicants. He also submits that defence of the accused persons is of total denial including alleged marriage of deceased Anita with applicant No.1 i.e. Gandharwa form of marriage. Applicants have contended that the deceased was married with Sandeep Rathod, a third person and she cannot be said to be married wife of applicant No.1. 7. The learned A.P.P. Points out the material which is brought on record on behalf of the prosecution. According to him, even though the applicants were on bail during trial, no case is made out for their release on bail post conviction by the trial Court. 8. We have given due consideration to the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. The relation interse of the applicants is not in dispute. We have taken into account the nature of evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution against the applicants. At this stage, in our view, it is not possible to agree with the submission of the Counsel for the applicants for suspension of the conviction and release of any of the applicants on bail during pendency of the appeal. 9. Criminal Application, therefore, stands rejected. Rule is discharged. The learned Counsel for the applicants seeks liberty of this Court to furnish adequate number of copies of private paper book enabling early hearing of the appeal. Such liberty is granted. Adequate number of copies of private paper book be placed on record by the appellants within four weeks from today. [ S.S. SHINDE, J ] [ S.B. DESHMUKH, J ] Kadam/*