Appa 689.11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.689/2011 IN APPEAL NO.497/2007 Parvez Gulam Rasul Ansari APPELLANT VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA RESPONDENT Mr.A.G.Toraskar for applicant Mr.P.S.Hingorani,APP for State CORAM: NARESH H.PATIL & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ. DATE- 21st JUNE,2011. P.C. . Heard. 2 The applicant was convicted in Sessions Case No. 380/2004 and was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal filed by the applicant was admitted by the Court on 26/7/2007. 3 Learned counsel for the applicant Mr.Toraskar Appa 689.11 2 submits that there is no evidence against the applicant for holding him guilty for the charge levelled against him. Evidence of the eye witnesses is not reliable. There was darkness when the eye witnesses claim to have seen the applicant assaulting the deceased with dangerous weapon like knife. 4 Learned A.P.P. submits that prima facie assessment of evidence of the eye witnesses exhibits that the applicant has committed serious crime of committing murder for a trivial cause. Evidence of the eye witnesses is reliable and at this stage detailed assessment and scanning of the evidence need not be done. 5 We have perused the record. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased and the applicant were sharing a room and there was dispute between both of them on account of applicant not paying his share of the rent. The eye witnesses P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 claim to have seen the applicant assaulting the deceased. There is recovery of knife from the applicant, at his instance under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Blood was found on the clothes of the applicant. It is human blood of ‘A’ Appa 689.11 3 group which was the blood group of the deceased. It is stated that the applicant was in jail during the trial. 6 There is strong prima facie case against the applicant. Therefore, we are not inclined to release the applicant on bail. The application stands rejected. We direct the Legal Services Authority to disburse part payment towards the legal services rendered by the advocate. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.) (NARESH H.PATIL,J.)