- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4248/2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.419/2010 Bhimrao s/o Shamrao Ghodake, age 29 yrs., occu.teacher, r/o Andoor Tq.Tuljapur Dist.Osmanabad. ...Applicant.. (Org.accused no.1) Versus The State of Maharashtra. ...Respondent... ..... Shri S.S. Choudhari, Advocate for applicant. Shri B.V. Wagh, APP for respondent. ..... CORAM: P.V. HARDAS & A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE: 24.11.2010 PER COURT : 1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. - 2 - 2] The applicant / appellant stands convicted for an offence punishable u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for two years for offence punishable u/s 498-A of the Indian Penal Code on the allegations that the applicant had killed his four months old daughter. The applicant is alleged to have slapped head of the small child on a washing stone. The trial Court at para 14 of the judgment has observed the external injuries, which were six. On internal examination, hematoma corresponding to injury no.1, hematoma under the scalp at 2 cms. lateral to hematoma no.1 and hematoma under scalp left parietal region, was found. There was depressed fracture of frontal bone on right side to skull corresponding to injury no.1 admeasuring 4.5 x 2.5 cms. There was also fracture of left parietal bone of skull, linear, 4 cm in length and depressed fracture of occipital bone on left side 3 x 2 cms. in size. The frontal lobe of brain on right side was crushed and the occipital lobe of brain on left side was also crushed. 3] Shri S.S. Choudhary, learned counsel for the applicant, has urged before us that it is quite possible that the child may have slipped out of the hand of the applicant and may have fallen on the ground. The prosecution has examined the wife of the present applicant i.e. mother of the deceased, as an eye witness, who claims that the applicant had thrown the child on the ground. In any event, the question whether the defence of the applicant – accused has been probabalised by the applicant – accused is a matter of appreciation of evidence, which can not be done at this stage. The trial Court has placed implicit reliance on the testimony - 3 - of the eye witness and has accordingly convicted and sentenced the applicant. 4] In that light of the matter, therefore, we do not find any grounds whatsoever for releasing the applicant on bail by suspending the substantive sentence. The application is accordingly dismissed. (A.V. Potdar, J.) (P.V. Hardas, J.) ndk/cr241110