1 APEAL 2427 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.670 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.214 OF 2011 IN SESSION CASE NO.11 OF 2009 Rakesh Rajaram Pawaskar .....Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra ..... Respondent ---- Mr.Avinash Rasal for the applicant. Mr.D.P. Adsule APP for the respondent/State. ---- CORAM : NARESH H.PATIL & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ DATE : 23.6 2011 P.C. 1. Heard. 2 The applicant was convicted by Extra Joint Ad-hoc Sessions Judge, Sewree, Mumbai in Sessions Case No.11 of 2009 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment. 2 APEAL 2427 of 2008 3 It is the prosecution case that one un-known body was noticed by a watchman on 9.8.2010 and report was lodged with the police. The police started investigation and arrested the applicant and other three acquitted persons on 10.10.2008. Investigating officer recovered axe-blade, blood stained clothes from the applicant. The articles were sent to Chemical Analyser. The blood group of the deceased was "AB" which was found on the seized articles from the applicant. The motive, according to the prosecution, is that the cousin of the applicant, PW-9 Shilpa Pawaskar was in love with the deceased. The applicant and other relatives were against the said relationship. Some threats were also given to the deceased in the past, so that he should desist from maintaining relations with PW-9 Shilpa Pawaskar. The relationship between PW-9 Shilpa Pawaskar and the deceased was known to parties by the end of the year 2007. 4 Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the case is based on circumstantial evidence. The sole eye witness PW-10 Suresh Yerim had turned hostile. The case is based on recovery of articles. It is further submitted that the prosecution has failed to 3 APEAL 2427 of 2008 establish any motive. The statements of parents of the girl i.e. PW-9 Shilpa Pawaskar were not recorded. There are discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Most of whom were not supported the prosecution case and in the light of the fact that chain of circumstance is not complete, the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is not reasonable and proper. 5 Learned APP submitted that there is a strong circumstance against the applicant in respect of recoveries of the articles which were seized at his behest. Blood group of the deceased was noticed by Chemical Analyser on these articles. The prosecution established motive behind the crime. Therefore, the learned APP prayed for rejection of the application. 6 For the purpose of consideration of this application, we have perused the evidence of some of the relevant witnesses. The Medical officer has opined that deceased died due to "shock and hemorrhage as a result of multiple traumatic head injuries sustained due to an assault (un-natural)". The dead body was noticed, according to the 4 APEAL 2427 of 2008 prosecution, by a watchman and as the identity of the dead body was not known, information was furnished by the said watchman to the police and therefore, investigation started. Prima facie assessment of the evidence on record shows that now the case is based merely on circumstantial evidence. Therefore, motive would form one of essential ingredients to establish the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The prosecution places reliance on recoveries made from the applicant at his behest which are incriminating, according to them. Prima facie, we find from the prosecution evidence that there are discrepancies and infirmities in the prosecution case to connect the applicant with the crime. Chain of circumstance must be complete to connect a person with the crime. It is true that the applicant was in jail during the trial, but that cannot be a sole circumstance to reject the application. By putting some stringent conditions, we are inclined to grant bail to the present applicant and accordingly, we pass the following order, considering nature of accusation, quality of evidence and desirability to grant bail O R D E R 5 APEAL 2427 of 2008 1 The applicant-Rakesh Rajaram Pawaskar shall be released on bail in the sum of Rs.25,000/- on furnishing one surety in the like amount ; 2 The applicant shall attend the concerned police station every month on first Monday of the first week of the month until further orders ; 3 The applicant should not contact any of the prosecution witnesses or threaten them ; 4 The applicant shall furnish latest residential address and his telephone number if any, to the police ; 5 In case, the applicant violates any of the above conditions, the State is at liberty to move an application for cancellation of the bail. 6 Application is allowed in the above terms and stands disposed of. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J) ( NARESH H.PATIL, J. )