1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.: 2312 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.: 227 of 2010 *** Nandu @ Dnyaneshwar S/o Patilba Kolte Versus State of Maharashtra *** 1. We have heard learned counsel Mr. P. B. Patil for the Applicant and learned A.P.P. Mr. Shaikh for the Respondent/ State. 2. The Applicant along with six other accused persons, was charged for the offence punishable under sections 147, 148 and 302 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of Bombay Police Act. The applicant was accused No.1. It was Sessions Case No.40 of 2009. The trial Court, after considering the evidence brought on record on behalf of the prosecution, convicted the present applicant / accused No.1 for the offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default sentence. The applicant is 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. acquitted of the offence punishable under sections 147 and 148 of Indian Penal Code as well as section 135 of Bombay Police Act. We have no concern with conviction of other accused persons. Suffice to note that present Applicant has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code, on trial and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment. 3. With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, we have seen the judgment of the trial Court. According to the prosecution, on 11th of April, 2008 at about 10.00 p.m. present applicant abused deceased Rambhau, husband of P.W.1 Dwarkabai. Next day morning i.e. on 12th April, 2008 P.W.1 Dwarkabai, wife of deceased Rambhau, had gone to the house of accused / applicant to question him regarding his conduct of abusing husband of P.W.1 Dwarkabai earlier night at 10.00 p.m. P.W.1 Dwarkabai was also abused 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. on 12th April, 2008 by accused No.1. At the relevant time, accused/ applicant was standing on platform (Ota) of his house. Dwarkabai was also accompanied by deceased Rambhau. It is alleged by the prosecution that applicant/ accused, who was standing in front of his house, went inside his house, brought an axe and gave some blows on Rambhau. The prosecution has examined two eye witnesses, wife of Deceased Rambhau P>W.1 Dwarkabai and sister of deceased Rambhau P.W. 2 Kadubai (Exhibit-58). Evidence of these two eye-witnesses has been appreciated by the trial Court and accepted. Apart from ocular evidence of these two eye witnesses, the trial Court has considered the circumstance i.e. discovery of axe alleged weapon used by the applicant while committing murder of deceased Rambhau. Such discovery is under section 27 of Indian Evidence Act. Axe was stained with blood. It was forwarded to 4 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. Chemical Analyser. Report is also on record. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, convicted the present applicant for the offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. Counsel for the Applicant took us to relevant paragraph of the judgment of the trial Court. 4. We are considering the request made by the applicant for suspension of sentence and releasing him on bail. Indisputably, during the trial of sessions case, applicant was not on bail. Prima facie, we do not see perversity in the order passed by the trial Court. Learned counsel appearing for the Applicant questions the status of P.W.1 and P.W.2 as eye-witnesses. He also submitted that both these witnesses are closely related to deceased Rambhau and independent witness is not examined on behalf of the prosecution. This is not the stage to appreciate evidence and status of P.W.1 and P.W.2 as eye-witness 5 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. and or doubting their evidence. In our view, it is not a fit case for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the applicant. 5. Criminal Application stands rejected. 6. These observations are restricted to consideration of this criminal application for suspension of sentence and release of applicant on bail. The appeal, we have already admitted, and it shall be considered on its own merits. [S. S. SHINDE, J.] [S.B.DESHMUKH, J.] Dated:26/07/2010. ans/2312