1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 301 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 29 OF 2010 1 Pandurang s/o Premnath Fukate 2 Bhimabai w/o Pandurang Fukate ...Applicants Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents ..... Smt. S.S. Jadhav, advocate for the applicants Mr. V.D. Godbharle, A.P.P. for respondent ..... CORAM: S.B. DESHMUKH & S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATED: 6TH APRIL, 2010 PER COURT:- 1 We heard Smt. Jadhav, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Godbharle, learned A.P.P. for the respondent-State. 2 The appeal filed by the present applicants has been admitted by this Court. The applicants have been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302 r.w. 34 of I.P.C./307 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. 2 Premnath is the name of the deceased person. Injured is P.W.3 Mr. Vishwanath. It is not in dispute that the present applicant No. 1Pandurang and P.W.3 Vishwanath are real brothers. According to the prosecution, the incident took place during the intervening night of 14.9.2005 and 15.9.2005. The time of the alleged incident is about 11.30 p.m. at the residential house of deceased Premnath. 3 Counsel for the applicants took us through the judgment of the trial Court. According to him, there is no role attributed to the applicant No.2 Bhimabai, wife of applicant No.1. Counsel for the applicants also argued about the contradictions, omissions amounting to contradictions. He has also invited our attention to the circumstance that the date of incident is intervening night of 14.9.2005 and 15.9.2005 and the statement of eye witness P.W.5 Madhav was recorded on 22.9.2005. 4 Learned A.P.P. points out observations of the trial Judge while appreciating the evidence of P.W.5 Madhav, who claims to be an eye witness on behalf of the prosecution. 5 We have seen the judgment of the trial court carefully. Counsel for the applicants also invited our attention to the statement of P.W.3 Vishwanth, which is at Exh.16 of the compilation. Indisputedly, the case is based on direct evidence of two witnesses i.e. P.W.5 Madhav 3 and P.W.3 Vishwanath. Out of these two witnesses, P.W.3 Vishwanth is injured witness. 6 We have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties. In our view, no case is established even for considering the bail plea raised on behalf of applicant No.2 Bhimabai. Counsel for the applicants fairly concedes that the applicants were not on bail during trial. 7 This application filed on behalf of the both the applicants, stands rejected. ( S. S. SHINDE. J.) (S.B. DESHMUKH, J.) rlj/