HVN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 353 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 289 OF 2008 Ganesh Rajaram Deshmukh ... Appellant Versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr. A.P. Mundergi, Sr. Counsel with Mr. Shrikant Yadav for the Appellant. Ms. Poornima H. Kantharia, A.P.P. for State. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO REBELLO REBELLO & K.U.CHANDIWAL,JJ. K.U.CHANDIWAL,JJ. K.U.CHANDIWAL,JJ. DATED: JUNE 09, 2008 DATED: JUNE 09, 2008 DATED: JUNE 09, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. . The appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. During the trial he was not on bail. . According to the learned counsel, for the appellant, there is an improvement in the evidence of witness Suraj Bansode aged 7 years, a child witness who was also one of the victims to the effect that in his statement first recorded and in the deposition before the court that he has not stated in his statement recorded under Section 161 that the accused after he was pushed into the well came and once again pushed him in the well, which he has deposed in the witness box. . The learned trial court after considering the material on record has come to the conclusion that the said witness is believable. Prima facie in our opinion, at this stage, there is nothing before us to arrive at the conclusion as to why the evidence of child witness Suraj Bansode should be discarded, more so after the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. . In the light of the above, this is not a fit case to grant bail. Hence, application for bail rejected. (K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.) (K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.) (K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)