1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application (APPA) No.213/2010 In Criminal Appeal No.36/2010 [Suraj Narendra Darshanal .vrs. State of Maharashtra] ..................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... CORAM : A.P. LAVANDE & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATE : JUNE 08, 2010. 1. Heard Mr. Shrikant Dharaskar, learned counsel for applicant/appellant and Mr. S.J. Jichkar, learned APP for non-applicant/respondent. 2. The applicant, who has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, seeks suspension of sentence and grant of bail. 3. The applicant along with other four accused was tried for the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 302 r/w Sec.149 of the Indian Penal Code. 2 4. The trial court, on appreciation of evidence, convicted the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted accused no.4 Sandip Bharat Rajput for the offence punishable under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and acquitted other three accused of the offences for which they were charged. 5. Mr. Dharaskar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, submitted that the evidence of the eyewitnesses namely Kushal and Ketan does not deserve any credence and the evidence as well as proceeding itself suggests that deceased Anilkumar Ojha was the aggressor. He further submitted that the prosecution evidence itself suggests that only one stab injury was caused to the deceased and, therefore, even if, prosecution case is accepted in toto, at the most, offence under Section 326 of IPC is made out against the applicant. 6. Per contra, Mr. Jichkar, learned APP appearing on behalf of the non-applicant/respondent, submitted that the medical evidence itself suggests that there are more than one blow on vital parts of the deceased and, therefore, this is not a case of single blow. He further submitted that having regard to the 3 parts of the body on which the blows given by the applicant, the offence under Section 302 of IPC is squarely made out against the applicant and, therefore, no case has been made out for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. 7. Having considered the rival submissions and having perused the record, we are of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case in which the substantive sentence imposed on the applicant deserves to be suspended and the applicant deserves to be released on bail. The medical evidence clearly suggests that the applicant gave blow of knife on the vital part of deceased Anilkumar as deposed by Kushal and Ketan, the sons of deceased Anilkumar. Moreover the applicant was not on bail pending trial. Having regard to the nature of the evidence and manner in which the offence was committed, we are of the considered opinion, that this is not a fit case for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. The application is, therefore, rejected. JUDGE JUDGE Gulande