1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRI. APPLICATION NO.191 OF 2011 IN CRI. APPEAL NO.145 OF 2011 (PANKAJ @ PINTU RAJENDRA MARVE..VS.. STATE OF MAH. THR. PSO HINGANGHAT.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. R.M. Patwardhan, Advocate for Appellant. Mrs. K.S.Joshi, APP for Respondent/ State. CORAM : MRS. V.K. TAHILRAMANI AND M.L.TAHALIYANI, JJ. DATE : APRIL 11, 2011. The applicant/appellant has filed an appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 29th January, 2011 passed by Extra Joint Ad-hod Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. One Thousand in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. Pending the said appeal the appellant has moved this Court for grant of bail and suspension of sentence. We have heard the learned Advocate Mr. Patwardhan for the appellant and the learned A.P.P. Mrs. Joshi for the respondent. It is brought to our notice during the course of arguments that the whole case is based on the evidence of P.W. 6, who is the only eye-witness to the incident in question. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the evidence of P.W. 6 is highly doubtful in the nature, inasmuch 2 as the station diary entry No.76 of 2006 is contrary to what is stated by P.W. 6. It was also submitted that it was not possible for the appellant to lift the stone weighing about 37 kgs. and to drop the same on the deceased. The complainant Pankaj Deotare, who is P.W. 6, has stated that on the date of incident i.e. 1st August, 2009 he along with his friend Khushal Patil had gone to meet one Aasik Sweeper, who was supposed to intervene and settle the criminal case pending against the complainant for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that the said case was lodged against P.W. 6 and others at the instance of the accused Pankaj Marve. Father of Aasik Sweeper was available at home and he told the complainant that Aasik was not at home. While the complainant and Khushal Patil were returning on a bike the accused had allegedly pulled Khushal Patil, who was pillion rider, from the bike and had assaulted him. It is alleged that the accused had picked up the stone lying nearby and had dropped the said stone on the deceased. The cause of death is stated to be head injury. The only question which may arise at the time of hearing of the appeal is, whether the evidence of P.W. 6, being a solitary witness, can be believed in the present set of facts. In this regard, it may be noted here that the dispute between the deceased and the accused was reported to the Police first by Triveni Marve and Station Diary Entry No.76 of 2009 was recorded on 1st August, 2009 by PSI Pramod Duratkar. However, the offence was registered on the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant P.W. 6 Pankaj Deotare. The complainant had lodged the complaint after 3 consulting one Kiran Tendulkar. There appears to be substance in the argument that the report lodged by Triveni Marve should have been the first information report. Since the report lodged by P.W. 6 / complainant was latter in time and was lodged after consulting Kiran Tendulkar, the possibility of introduction of some other story than the actual incident could not be ruled out. Moreover, it appears from the record that the prosecution has not examined father of Aasik Sweeper to show that P.W. 6 and deceased Khushal Patil had gone to Aasik to meet him in connection with the amicable settlement of a pending case under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. Since there is possibility that the appellant may be able to demonstrate during the course of hearing of the appeal that the evidence of P.W. 6 might not be believed, we are of the opinion that the appellant can be set at liberty during the pendency of the appeal. The appellant has been able to make out a case for suspension of sentence and for grant of bail. The application is, therefore, allowed. The substantive sentence imposed by the trial Court stands suspended during the pendency of the appeal. The appellant be released on bail on executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.Twenty Five Thousand with one solvent surety in the like amount or two solvent sureties of Rs.Twelve Thousand Five Hundred each. The appellant shall attend Police Station, Hinganghat once in a fortnight. JUDGE JUDGE RR..