drp {1} Cri. Application No.4959/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4959 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.502 OF 2010 Kunjilal Bhuku Rathod APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mrs.Bharti B.Gunjal, Advocate for the applicant (appointed) Mr.D.V.Tele, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 7th January 2011 PER COURT: 1. The applicant stands convicted for an offence punishable u/s 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code by the Sessions Judge, Nanded vide judgment dated 07.12.2002 in Sessions Case No.22/1999. It appears that the applicant has been in jail from 11.11.1998 to 18.02.1999 and from 30.10.2002 to 07.12.2002. Though he was convicted in the year 2002 by the Sessions Judge, Nanded, yet the applicant chose not to file any appeal and the appeal, through jail, came to be presented in drp {2} Cri. Application No.4959/2010 November 2010. We had accordingly appointed advocate Mrs.Bharti Gunjal, learned counsel to represent the appellant in this appeal before us. The appeal has now been admitted and by this application, the applicant seeks suspension of substantive sentence of imprisonment and his enlargement on bail, pending the decision of the appeal. 2. It appears that the conviction of the applicant revolves round the testimony of PW-8, Chandrakalabai, who was declared as an approver. Prosecution had adduced evidence relating to the other circumstances. It is urged by the learned counsel for the applicant that the evidence of an approver is unworthy of credit unless corroborated in material particulars. The trial court has accepted the evidence and has come to the conclusion that the evidence of the approver, to a large extent, stands corroborated by the other circumstantial evidence. According to us, the question as to whether the evidence of the approver has been corroborated and the extent to which there is corroboration from the prosecution evidence, is a matter to be decided at the time of final hearing of the appeal. 3. It further appears that the co-accused of the present applicant has filed criminal Appeal No.4/2003, which came to be admitted and the co-accused therein, came to be enlarged on bail. Learned counsel for the applicant has also urged before us the question of parity. The present applicant has undergone practically drp {3} Cri. Application No.4959/2010 the substantial part of the substantive sentence and in such circumstances, therefore, according to us, it would be appropriate that we decide the appeal on its merit, since the paper book is ready. 4. We accordingly dismiss this application. Registry is directed to list Criminal Appeal No.502/2010 along with Criminal Appeal No.4/2003 for hearing in the week commencing from 24th January 2011. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/B10/criapln4959-10