- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4473 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.655 OF 2009 Shersingh s/o Nanaksingh Gill ... APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ... RESPONDENT ----- Shri V.N. Damle, Advocate for the applicnat Shri K.S. Patil, A.P.P. for respondent ----- CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ. DATED : 10th February, 2010. ORAL ORDER : 1. This application at the behest of the applicant/ appellant seeks suspension of the substantial sentence of imprisonment and his enlargement on bail pending the decision of the appeal. It appears that the conviction of the appellant rests upon the testimony of the solitary witness P.W.1 Hardeo, who is said to be an eye witness. Appellant along with other accused was charged for having committed murder of deceased - 2 - Rajendrasingh. During the pendency of the appeal, original accused No.4 died. The other accused had been acquitted by the trial Court and the appellant alone has been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Mr. Damle, learned counsel for the applicant has invited our attention to paragraph No.44 of the judgment, which deals with the injuries sustained by the accused. The accused is alleged to have sustained five injuries which are all incised wounds, situated on forearm right shoulder and upper arm. The deceased is alleged to have sustained about six injuries, out of which injury No.5, which is a chop wound, can be said to be injury caused by the sword while the other injuries were injuries which were stab injuries. It is the endeavour of the learned counsel for the applicant, therefore, to urge before us that the applicant cannot be said to have caused the other injuries except the injury which is a chop wound. The learned counsel for the applicant has also invited our attention to the findings recorded by the learned trial Court at paragraph no.67 of the judgment, which deals with the exercise of the right of private defence. The contention of the applicant appears to be that if at all the applicant can be held guilty, it would be for an offence punishable under Section 304, either Part I or Part II and not under Section 302 of - 3 - the Indian Penal Code. 3. The submissions urged by the learned counsel for the applicant i.e. that the applicant had exercised a right of private defence and may have at the most exceeded his right of private defence, are matters pertaining to re-appreciation of the evidence. The aforesaid submissions cannot be dealt with at this preliminary stage while considering the bail application. We are, therefore, not inclined to grant the relief prayed for in this application and this application is, therefore, dismissed. 4. However, in the light of the limited nature of challenge involved in the present appeal, we deem it appropriate to direct that this appeal be listed for hearing as soon as the paper book is ready. Registry to ensure that the paper book is promptly prepared. [ SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.] [ P.V. HARDAS, J.] fmp/cri4473.09