1 Criminal Appl.No.3687 of 2011 with Criminal Appl.No.3800 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3687 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.191 OF 2011 Suresh S/o.Manikrao Pawar, Age-60 years, Occu-Agriculture/Labour, R/o.Pawarwada, Bhadgaon, Tq.Bhadgaon, Dist. Jalgaon APPLICANT VERSUS State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mr.N.B.Suryawanshi, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr.S.G.Nandedkar, learned A.P.P. for respondent State WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3800 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.201 OF 2011 Raju S/o.Babulal Mahajan, Age-48 years, Occu-Agriculturist, R/o.Krishnapuri, Pachora, Tq.Pachora, Dist.Jalgaon APPLICANT VERSUS State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mr.S.J.Salgare h/f. Mrs.S.S.Jadhav, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr.S.G.Nandedkar, learned A.P.P. for respondent State 2 Criminal Appl.No.3687 of 2011 with Criminal Appl.No.3800 of 2011 (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 04/10/2011 PER COURT : 1. By these applications, the applicants in both these applications have approached this Court for suspension of their conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in Criminal Appeal No.32/2002 and 34/2002, which were dismissed on 11/08/2011, by which the learned Sessions Judge had confirmed the conviction and sentence recorded by the 3rd Assistant Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in Sessions Case No.147/1999, in which these applicants were convicted for an offence punishable u/s. 307 r/w. 34 of the IPC and were sentenced to suffer RI for 5 years and to pay fine in the sum of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to suffer SI for one month. It is informed that the respective applicants/accused have deposited the fine amount before the Lower Court at the time of admission of Criminal Appeals. 2. Heard learned counsel Shri.N.B.Suryawanshi and Shri.Salgare, appearing for the applicants in respective applications. 3. It is brought to my notice that the offence came to be registered in Bhadgaon Police Station vide CR No.35/1999, on the complaint of one Bapu Patil, who is the victim of the incident dated 24/04/1999. 3 Criminal Appl.No.3687 of 2011 with Criminal Appl.No.3800 of 2011 In the complaint, the complainant has stated that after he closed his hotel, he was returning to his house. On his way, when he went near one stream to attend nature’s call, one person, whose face was covered his face with black cloth, came from dark and throw some liquid substance at him. After feeling burning sensation, immediately he returned to the hotel and informed the persons present near his hotel. According to him, the person who had thrown the liquid substance at him, his height was 5’4” and was of slim personality. Thereafter he was shifted to the hospital by one Nana Mahajan, who was present near his hotel. In the hospital, he was examined by the Medical Officer, Bhadgaon. Then the offence came to be registered against unknown persons. During the investigation, after about a month, applicant no.1 came to be arrested. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. Thereafter, the trial was committed to the Court of Sessions at Jalgaon. It appears that other than the present complainant, 6 more witnesses were examined including the Medical Officer and Investigation Officer. On perusal of the record, particularly the judgments referred by both the courts below, one fact is clear that the case against these applicants is not based on direct evidence, but on circumstancial evidence. It is brought to my notice that to convict these applicants for an offence punishable u/s. 307, 34 of the IPC, the Appellate Court has taken help of section 10 and 30 of The Indian Evidence Act. According to the complainant, the act of 4 Criminal Appl.No.3687 of 2011 with Criminal Appl.No.3800 of 2011 throwing liquid substance was done by a single person and not by the 2 persons. Conviction of applicant Raju is based on his confessional statement recorded by the learned J.M.F.C. On 25/05/1999. So far as the recovery is concerned, is also after the considerable period at the instance of accused Raju/applicant in Cri.Appl.No.3800/2011. What was recovered was the bottle and not the tin sheet, which is allegedly used to throw the liquid substance. It is urged that the judgments rendered by both the Courts below are with full of omissions, lacunas and unproved contradictions. It is urged that these applicants were on bail during the trial, so also during the pendancy of first appeal and were taken in custody after the judgment was rendered by the First Appellate Court on 11/08/2011 and the applicants have not taken any dis-advantage of the liberty granted to them. 4. I have also heard learned A.P.P., who has vehemently opposed these bail applications, as according to him, there is con-current finding about the acts committed by these applicants by both the Courts below. 5. It is not permissible to re-appreciate the evidence recorded before the Courts below at this stage, but it is permissible only at the time of final hearing of the revision applications. Considering the facts, which are brought on record, these revisions are to be 5 Criminal Appl.No.3687 of 2011 with Criminal Appl.No.3800 of 2011 admitted. 6. There are no complaints on the part of prosecution of misuse of the liberty granted at the hands of these applicants during the pendancy of the trial before the Courts below. Considering the pendancy of the criminal revisions, there is no possibility that these criminal revisions will be taken up for final hearing in near future. As there are no allegations about misuse of the liberty granted in favour of these applicants, case is made out to release the applicants on bail, but on putting certain conditions on them. 7. In view of this, both these applications are allowed. Applicants be released on bail, on same terms and conditions, on which they were released by the Trial Court, but on executing fresh surety and fresh PR bond. After released on bail, the applicants to give attendance in Bhadgaon Police Station, on 10th day of alternate month, till final disposal of both the revision applications. Both the applications stand disposed of accordingly. R & P be sent back to the Trial Court. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/OCT.2011/cri.appl.3687-11