:1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE, JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE, JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE, JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5810 OF 2004 APPLICATION NO.5810 OF 2004 APPLICATION NO.5810 OF 2004 IN IN IN CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1279 OF 2004 APPEAL NO.1279 OF 2004 APPEAL NO.1279 OF 2004 Annappa Somanna Pujari, convict No.C.2558, at present, undergoing imprisonment at Kolhapur Central Prison, Kalamba, Kolhapur. ....APPLICANT (Orig.Accused ) Versus Versus Versus The State of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT .... Miss.Sarojini Upadhyay, Advocate for the Applicant (appointed). Smt.V.R.Bhosale, APP, for the State. .... CORAM CORAM CORAM : D.G.DESHPANDE & : D.G.DESHPANDE & : D.G.DESHPANDE & SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. JJ. JJ. DATED DATED DATED : MARCH 28, 2006. : MARCH 28, 2006. : MARCH 28, 2006. ORAL ORAL ORAL ORDER (PER TAHILRAMANI, J.) ORDER (PER TAHILRAMANI, J.) ORDER (PER TAHILRAMANI, J.) . Heard Miss.Sarojini Upadhyay, learned Advocate for the applicant and Smt.V.R.Bhosale, learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant-orig.accused has preferred this application for bail. The applicant has been convicted under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to R.I. for life. :2: 3. It is the case of the prosecution that the applicant committed murder of his wife Shashikala. The motive for the murder was that Shashikala was having illicit relations with Shrimant. There were frequent quarrels between the applicant and his wife on account of the illicit relations. On 01.11.2001 at about 9:00 a.m., there was quarrel between Shashikala and the applicant on account of illicit relations with Shrimant. At that time, the applicant gave blows with koyata (Article No.1) on the neck of Shashikala. Shashikala sustained six incised wounds on the neck and one other injury on her person. This incident was witnessed by the son of the applicant and Shashikala i.e. P.W.10 Malakari. 4. The evidence of P.W.10 Malakari shows that he was ten years old at the time of the incident. He has deposed in detail about the incident. He has stated that when he returned from the school for taking lunch, at that time, quarrel was going on in the house between his parents. The reason for the quarrel was that his father (applicant) was saying to his mother (deceased) as to why she was allowing Shrimant to sit in the house. :3: Thereafter, his father (applicant) gave blow on the neck of his mother (deceased) with Koyata. Though, this witness is a child witness, after carefully perusing his evidence, we find that his testimony inspires implicit confidence. Besides the evidence of this eye witness, there is other material on record also which connects the applicant with the crime, including the fact that the applicant had motive to commit the crime. The motive for the crime had also been deposed by P.W.10 Malakari. Hence, we are not inclined to grant the bail. 5. In the result, the application for bail is rejected. (D.G.DESHPANDE,J.) (D.G.DESHPANDE,J.) (D.G.DESHPANDE,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)