{1} Cri. Application No.2030/2011 drp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2030 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.241 OF 2011 Rohini Krushna Jadhav APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mr.N.S.Ghanekar, Advocate for applicant Mrs.S.D.Shelke, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 26 th July 2011 PER COURT: 1. Applicant, original accused No.2, by this application, seeks suspension of the substantive sentence of imprisonment and her enlargement on bail, pending the decision of the appeal. 2. The applicant, along with her husband-original accused No.1, stands convicted for having committed murder of their son Kunal and Sharda niece of the present applicant, who were aged 4 and 9 years respectively, on 15.04.2009. Case against {2} Cri. Application No.2030/2011 the present applicant rests on circumstantial evidence and the trial court, upon appreciating the evidence of about 15 prosecution witnesses, has found that the prosecution has proved the offence against the applicant and original accused No.1, beyond reasonable doubt. Trial court has accordingly convicted and sentenced the applicant and original accused No.1 on the twin charges of murder of their son and niece. 3. We have heard Shri.Ghanekar, learned counsel for the applicant, who urges before us that the circumstances, allegedly proved by the prosecution, do not form a complete chain, which excludes every hypothesis of the innocence of the accused. It is further urged before us that none of the circumstance, either singly or cumulatively, prove the offence against the applicant. It is, therefore, urged before us that since the applicant has a son, who is aged about 4 years and who is presently with the applicant in jail, the applicant be released on bail, pending the decision of the appeal. We find that the applicant was not on bail during the trial. In fact, this was a circumstances urged by the applicant seeking her bail during the pendency of the appeal. 4. Submissions advanced before us by the learned counsel for the applicant pertain to re-appreciation of the evidence, which cannot be done at this stage. Suffice it to state that the trial court has convicted and sentenced the applicant by accepting the circumstances proved by the prosecution and holding that the {3} Cri. Application No.2030/2011 offence against the applicant has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. However, looking to the nature of the evidence against the applicant and the fact that the applicant is a lady, who is presently undergoing her sentence in jail and has a minor son to support, we expedite the hearing of the appeal. We permit the applicant to file private paper book within two weeks from today. We also permit the applicant to enclose photo copies of the depositions of the witnesses as well as photo copies of the documents. We permit the applicant to apply for certified copies of the depositions of PW-14 and 15 so also certified copies of documents, in this Court, since the Record and Proceedings has been received. We direct the Registry to expeditiously grant the request of the applicant for grant of certified copies of the depositions of PW-14 and 15 and documents. The private paper book be filed within two weeks from today. We direct the Registry to list the appeal for hearing as soon as the paper book, complete in all respects, is received. 5. Application is accordingly rejected with the directions stated above. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/B11/criapln2030-11