1 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 178 OF 2009 in CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.484 OF 2005. Sanjay Baburao Bachhav ..Applicant -versus State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Mr P.B. Shah, for the Applicant. CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J) R. G. KETKAR JJ DATED: 13th April, 2009 P.C. 1. The applicant was tried in the Court of Sessions, Nasik at Nasik. He was tried for the offences punishable under section 302 and section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The appeal filed by the applicant is admitted. This is his application for bail. 2. The incident in question is stated to have occurred on 1.7.2004 at Wadala Naka, Nasik in the 2 house of applicant. When the applicant's brother visited the house of the applicant at 9.30 pm on l.7.2004, he found it to be locked from inside. He knocked at the door, but nobody opened it. He found that a window of the house was open. He entered the house through the window. He found the applicant's wife Anita lying dead in the house. Her throat was found cut and a vegetable cutter was found lying under her neck. He reported the incident to the police. Offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. The applicant came to be arrested and tried. He was sentenced as aforesaid. 3. We have heard Mr.Shah, learned counsel for the applicant. He has strenuously urged that there is no cogent evidence against the applicant to connect him with offence of murder. He submitted that the only evidence is evidence of PW-1 Jibhau Bachhav the brother of the applicant, who has stated that on the day previous to the incident, he had seen the applicant and deceased at their house. The prosecution case rests on the circumstance of last scene. Learned counsel submitted that the Trial Court has wrongly relied on the fingerprint expert's evidence. He drew our attention to the 3 fingerprint expert's evidence and submitted that the fingerprint expert has stated that he had scrutinized the photographs of the fingerprint and found that photograph of fingerprint on the board of vegetable cutter was not suitable for comparison. Therefore, his opinion cannot be relied upon. 4. This submission will have to be rejected because the fingerprint expert has stated that the fingerprint on the blade of vegetable cutter was identical to right thumb print of the specimen fingerprint slip of the applicant. 5. The deceased was applicant's wife. She was found dead in his house. In normal course the applicant is expected to be in his house. Alibi of the applicant is not accepted by the Trial Court. PW2 the father of the deceased stated in the evidence that the deceased had complained to him that the applicant had illicit relations with one Sajan Pathan. The applicant's fingerprint has been found on the vegetable cutter which was used in the commission of the offence. Prima facie therefore, involvement of the applicant is established. Hence the applicant cannot be released on bail. 4 6. The applicant is in custody for about five years. The appeal is of the year 2005. In the circumstances, we direct the office to add this appeal to the final hearing board. 7. Application is rejected with the above direction to the office. (SMT RANJANA DESAI,J) (R.G. KETKAR, J)