1 (Cr.appln.1232/09) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1232 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.996 OF 2009 Bapu @ Samadhan Suryabhan Nikam .... Applicant. V/s State of Maharashtra .... Respondent. Mr. A.P. Mundargi, Senior Counsel i/b Ms. Vishranti Navale for the applicant. Mrs. R.V. Newton, APP for the State. CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 19th July, 2010 P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State. 2. Applicant has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 363 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs 300/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. He is also convicted for the offence punishable under sections 364 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment 2 (Cr.appln.1232/09) for seven years and to pay fine of Rs 500/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for six months respectively. 3. It is alleged that the applicant had kidnapped a minor child of 8 years of age and took him to temple situated on the mountain and, thereafter on the pretext of showing him monkeys on the said mountain, removed his clothes and pushed him from the said hill. According to P.W.3 – Abhinay, he fell into the trees and, therefore, did not receive any major injuries and the fall was averted as a result of the said child P.W. 3 – Abhinay being entangled with the branches of the trees. 4. Prosecution has examined the abducted child - P.W.3 and also the person who met him on the next day and who provided him food. Prosecution also examined the other witnesses who corroborated the statement of P.W. 3 – Abhinay. 5. It is sought to be argued by Mr. Mundargi, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant that the story given by P.W.3 cannot be accepted taking into consideration the injuries which were found on his person. He invited my attention to the statement of three doctors who have given an opinion about the injuries which were found on his person. He further submitted that there is also discrepancy in the injuries which are mentioned by each of 3 (Cr.appln.1232/09) these doctors. Secondly, it is submitted that the motive has been given by the complainant and by his brother. 6. The said submissions cannot be accepted. The child – P.W.3 has shown the trees in which he was entangled and taking into consideration the age of the child, it is possible that after being thrown from the hill he might have landed on the bushes and, therefore, was saved from the fall from the hill. In such circumstances, the injuries which could be found on the person match the description mentioned by doctors in their report. 7. Taking into consideration the material which is on record, in my view, this is not a fit case for grant of bail. Application for bail is rejected. Hearing of the appeal is expedited. (V.M. KANADE, J.) 4 (Cr.appln.1232/09)