1 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 55 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 270 OF 2010 Vijay Kumar Ramprasad Choudhari ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondents .... Mr. Moin Khan Adv. for Applicant Mr.Rajesh More APP for State .... CORAM : SMT.RANJANA DESAI AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATE : JULY 1, 2010 P.C.: 1 The applicant was tried with one Raees Islam Qureshi in Sessions Case No. 796 of 2002 for offences under Sections 397, 392, 494, 460, 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. By the impugned judgment and order, the applicant has been convicted under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. Appeal preferred by the 2 applicant is admitted. This is his bail application. 2 The case of the prosecution is that on 22.3.2002 the applicant entered the house of deceased Hanif and his wife Zarina at 1.30 a.m. along with co-accused. They assaulted the deceased with a spade, removed ornaments and valuables of the deceased and decamped. Original accused no.1 Raees Islam Qureshi has been released on bail by this Court. 3 We have heard, at some length, learned counsel for the applicant. He stated that the only evidence against the applicant is that of child witness PW 1 Ibrahim. Counsel submitted that it is true that in the identification parade, the applicant was identified by the child witness, however, there is evidence to show that during the identification parade, the police officer was present. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on the identification of the applicant in the identification parade. Counsel submitted that since the co-accused has been released on bail, this is a fit case where the applicant should also be released on bail. 4 It is not possible for us to accept submissions of the learned counsel. PW 1 Ibrahim is the son of the deceased. He has witnessed 3 the incident. The identification parade was held on 26.4.2002 and in that identification parade, PW 1 Ibrahim has identified the applicant. It is pertinent to note that PW 1 did not identify Raees, accused no.1. Identification parade inspires confidence. Prima facie, we find no difficulty in placing reliance on the evidence of PW 1 Ibrahim. 5 PW 18 Madhukar Sankhe the pancha witness has stated that on 30.2.2002 the applicant made a disclosure statement while in custody and at his instance hacksaw blade and broken small pipe were recovered. PW 8 Sanjay Jadhav, the pancha has supported this version. PW 18 has stated that on 1.4.2002 the applicant again made a disclosure statement. He led the police to a hut where PW 11 Sahu was present. He produced two ladies wrist watches. On 8.4.2002 at the instance of the applicant, clothes worn by him at the time of commission of offence were recovered from Regal Laundry where he had given them for washing. This is stated by PW 21 Kisan Shengal the investigating officer. This version is also supported by pancha witness PW 4 Akbar Khan and PW 5 Santosh the laundry owner. Chemical Analyser ’s report shows that the trouser of the applicant was stained with human blood. On 10.4.2002 the applicant made a statement and led the police to one Hira. Hira accepted that a pair of earrings were given to him by 4 the applicant which were kept by him with PW 9 Manju Gupta. The earrings were recovered from PW 9. The wrist watches and the earrings were identified by PW 13 Ayesha, the sister of deceased Hanif as articles belonging to the deceased. With this state of evidence, prima facie, we are of the opinion that the applicant is involved in the offence in question. The applicant cannot claim parity with Raees, original accused no.1 because Raees was not identified in the identification parade. 6 Application is rejected. [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]