1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2692 OF 2009 Hanuman Tulshiram Jadhav & another ... Applicants. Versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent. -------- Shri. Swapnil Rathi, Advocate for the applicants. Shri. B.J. Sonwane, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondent. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & SHRIHARI P DAVARE,JJ. DATE: 8th OCTOBER 2009 PER COURT : 1) Heard. 2) The accused were convicted for an offence punishable under Sections 302,201 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. The incident according to prosecution had taken place on 08-01-2008. It is alleged that, applicants 2 assaulted deceased. Sticks were used during the course of assault, and the assault went on for about twenty to twenty five minutes. The dead body was recovered on 10-01-2008 which was burried near bank of river. According to the prosecution at the instance of the applicants recovery of sticks were made. Statements, of witnesses were recorded. According to the prosecution, three eye witnesses deposed against the applicants and there is strong circumstantial evidence. 3) Learned counsel Shri Rathi submitted that, if the evidence of eye witnesses is considered the disparity would be noticed in the evidence. According to the counsel no incised injury could be inflicted by use of sticks. In this case, according to the medical evidence, incised injuries were noticed. There was no motive to commit murder. There was no immediate report filed to police by the relatives. The learned counsel further submitted that even their is disparity regarding place of incident 3 where the alleged assault took place. 4) Learned Addi tonal Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that, after examining and screening the entire evidence the trial court reached appropriate conclusions and held that the applicants are guilty for commission of serious offence. Eye witnesses, statements are trust- worthy, circumstantial evidence is strong against the applicants. In the light of motive and the attending facts and circumstances of the case, the application deserves to be rejected. 5) We have perused the original record, impugned judgment and order of the trial Court, and considered the submissions of learned counsels. 6) Prima-faice we do not find that the testimony of eye witnesses who deposed before the Court is to be discarded totally. The prosecution has examined eye witnesses. It is seen that there was land dispute between the parties. 7) It was submitted that, during trial 4 applicants were not on bail. After considering the record, reasoning given by the learned Judge, and attending facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find that the applicants deserve to be released on bail. They committed a serious crime under /Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. 8) There is no merit in the application it is rejected. 9) Record and proceedings be sent back. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) sdm/ 2692.09 5