1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1800 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.282 OF 2009 1. Santosh s/o Baburao Bagal 2. Baburao s/o Ambadas Bagal 3. Kamalbai w/o Baburao Bagal 4. Ankush s/o Baburao Bagal All r/o Peth Wadgaon, Tq.Kalamnuri, District Hingoli .. Applicants Versus State of Maharashtra through Police Station, Akhada Balapur .. Respondents Shri R.N.Dhorde, Advocate holding for Shri Sachin Deshmukh, Advocate for applicants Shri B.J.Sonawane, APP for respondent-State CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND R.K.DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 13h July 2009 PER COURT : 1. The applicants/appellants-original accused Nos.1 to 4 who stand convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 read 34, 498A read with 34 and 201 read with 34 and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment including imprisonment for life, by this application seek the suspension of the substantive sentence of imprisonment and their enlargement on bail during trial. It is urged before us that all the applicants had been released on bail during trial and none of the applicant has misused the liberty exercised by the Court in the favour. 2 2. It appears that the applicants stand convicted for the aforesaid offences on the allegations that the applicants had committed murder of deceased Sushila on 25.8.2005 i.e within merely more than a year of her marriage with the accused. On the date of the incident as per the prosecution case, deceased Sushila was found hanging from the rafter of the room. A nylon rope was found with her neck. The Medical Officer opined that deceased Sushila had sustained injuries and she had died due to asphyxia due to hanging. It was urged by the Medical Officer during cross-examination that it would be a case of suicide rather than homicide. Our attention is invited to an admission elicited from the cross- examination of the Medical Officer i.e P.W.8 Dr.Ayesha Sayed Tabassum Hussain Pasha at paragraph 6 that the injuries were not caused due to hanging by a third person. 3. Prosecution has placed reliance on the testimony of P.W.3 Shripati and the trial Court has given reasons as to why trial Court has accepted the said testimony. Evidence of P.W.3 Shripati disclosed about some quarrels on the day previous to the discovery of the dead body and about deceased shouting for saving her and P.W.3 Shripati rushing to the scene of the offence and noticing all the accused surrounding the body of Sushila which was hanging from the rafter. 4. It is urged by Shri Dhorde, learned Counsel for the applicants that the evidence clearly points out that it was a case of suicide and not 3 homicide. It is further urged before us that since the husband of the deceased Sushila had not permitted her to go at her parents house for festival, Sushila was frustrated and, therefore, she committed suicide. It is urged that the position of the dead body at the time of drawing of the scene of the offence panchnama clearly indicates that it is a case of suicide and not of homicide. 5. The trial Court has appreciated the evidence and has recorded the findings. The trial Court has also recorded a finding in respect of Section 498A that deceased Sushila was ill-treated and ill-treatment was enough to have driven any person to commit suicide. Apart from that the trial Court has placed reliance on the testimony of PW-3 Shripati and has come to the conclusion that it was a case of homicide and not of suicide. The submissions advanced before us by the learned Counsel for the applicants pertain to re-appreciation of evidence which cannot be done at this stage. Suffice it to say that there is sufficient evidence on record indicating the involvement of the applicants in the said crime. As to whether deceased Sushila had committed suicide or she had been killed by the accused are the questions which can be answered by this Court at the time of final hearing and not at this stage. 6. In the light of that, therefore, we do not see any merit in the application insofar as it relates to applicant No.1 Santosh, applicant No.2 Baburao and applicant No.4 Ankush. It is advanced before us by the 4 learned Counsel for the applicants that applicant No.3 i.e original accused No.3 Kamalbai is a lady aged 45 years and had been released on bail during the trial. In the light of the fact that Kamalbai is a lady aged 45 years, we suspend the substantive sentence of imprisonment insofar as it relates to applicant No.3 Kamalbai and direct that she be released forthwith on her furnishing a P.R bond of Rs.15,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court on the condition that accused No.3 Kamalbai shall report her attendance at Police Station, Akhada Balapur once in three months on first Saturday of the quarter. 7. Application is thus partly allowed as indicated above. Hamdust allowed. ( R.K.DESHPANDE, J. ) ( P.V.HARDAS, J. ) vvr/1800.09criappln