1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3460 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.208 OF 2010 Santosh S/o Arun Gaikwad and anr. ..Applicants (Orig.Accused Nos.3 & 4) Versus The State of Maharahstra ..Respondent Mr.R.N.Dhorde, Advocate holding for Mr.V.R.Dhorde, Advocate for applicants Mr.K.B.Choudhari, A.P.P. for respondent-State CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 13th September 2010 PER COURT : 1. By this application the applicants/original accused Nos.3 and 4 seek suspension of their substantive sentence of imprisonment and their enlargement on bail pending the decision of the appeal. The applicants along with the other stand convicted for offences punishable under Section 147, 148, 302 read with Sec.149 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 37 (1) read with 135 of the Bombay Police Act and under Section 27 of the Arms Act. It appears that on 16.10.2008 deceased Sandipan was assaulted by the accused and two injuries were caused to him by knife and Kukari on the person of deceased Sandipan. The applicants/original accused Nos.3 and 4 are alleged to have caught the deceased by waist and hands, respectively. 2 2. Mr.R.N.Dhorde, learned Counsel for the applicants has urged before us that since there was load shedding at the time of incident, the possibility of paucity of light cannot be ruled out. According to the learned Counsel for the applicants on account of darkness, it was not possible for the eye witnesses to have identified the assailants. Since the applicants were known to the eye witnesses the test identification parade conducted after arrest of the applicants looses all its importance. It is also urged that independent witnesses have not been examined. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor states that this is not a fit case for suspending the substantive sentence of imprisonment and releasing the applicants on bail during the pendency of the appeal as there is sufficient evidence against the present applicants. 3. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties, we have perused the findings recorded by the trial Court. The arguments advanced before us pertain to re-appreciation of evidence, which cannot be done at this stage. Suffice it to say that overt act is attributed to the present applicants and in that light of the matter, therefore, we are not inclined to allow this application. Consequently, the application being sans merit is dismissed. ( A.V. POTDAR, J.) ( P.V. HARDAS, J.) (vvr/3460.10criappln)