1 appa156510 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1565 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 936 OF 2009 Vilas Hanumant Gujar ...Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr. A.G. Toraskar (appointed) for the Applicant Mr. H.J. Dedhia, A.P.P., for the State. CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATE: 3RD FEBRUARY, 2011 P.C.:- Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. 2. The argument canvassed before us on behalf of the accused is that the trial Court has not addressed itself to the crucial aspect that it was a case of suicide, and not homicidal death of Neeta. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on the observations made by the trial Court with reference to the admitted evidence that deceased Neeta was 2 appa156510 unwell and was under medication. She was taking sleeping pills due to mental tension. Further, suicide notes were found on the scene of offence, coupled with the fact that P.W. 9 has stated that he had never seen the deceased and accused quarrelling. According to the applicant, the Court below has proceeded to record finding of guilt against the applicant merely on the basis that the applicant and deceased were found in the same room in injured condition. 3. The argument so canvassed, though seems to be attractive at first blush, will have to be rejected. The trial Court has analyzed the evidence in its proper perspective. The view taken by the trial Court appears to be a possible view. The trial Court has referred to the evidence of P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5, which indicates that there was serious dispute between the deceased and the applicant, and, in fact, the applicant was staying with the in-laws. What is significant to note is the contention canvassed before us is belied by the evidence of P.W. 12, Dr. Mahendru, who has spoken about the extra-judicial confession given by the applicant that he himself was responsible to cut both wrists of Neeta. The trial Court has accepted the said evidence of Dr. Mahendru, the independent person. 3 appa156510 4. Taking over all view of the matter, therefore, this is not a fit case for grant of bail. The application for bail is, therefore, rejected. 5. The office shall process the appeal, as per its turn, under caption "Convicts in Jail". as soon as the same becomes ready for hearing. A.R. JOSHI, J. A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.