1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1852 OF 2009 Jahangir Mohd. Ismail Shaikh ...Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra through The Inspector of Police,Manickpur Police Station, Dist.Thane ...Respondents Mr.Shailesh Kothari with Mr.Ankit Bhat i/b M/s.Law Polit for the applicant Mr.Rajesh More A.P.P for State CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : JULY 3, 2009 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.P.P for the State. A charge has been framed against the applicant under section 302 and other sections of the Indian Penal Code. The main grievance of the counsel for the applicant is that the charge under section 302 of the said Code could not have been framed against the applicant. His submission is that the statements of the witnesses are stereotype statements which show that the applicant-accused had given a single blow by using a brick. His submission is that the intention which is a necessary ingredient of the offence is totally absent. 2 I have considered the submissions. I have perused the statements and material showing the injuries 2 sustained by the deceased. Considering the statements of the witnesses which are consistent, at this stage, it is not possible to come to the conclusion that no case is made out for framing charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. All this is a matter of evidence. Reliance has been placed on the decision of this court in case of Avinash J. Mahale and others Vs. State of Maharasthra (2006 Cri.L.J. Page 3123). It is obvious that the observations which are made are in the context of the facts of the case where charge was under section 306 of the Penal Code. No case for interference is made out. Application is rejected. However, all contentions of the parties on merits are kept open. JUDGE