1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1522 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 239 OF 2009 Kailash Waman Gaikwad ...Applicant VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ..... Smt. Sabahat Kazi, advocate (appointed) for the applicant Shri B.J.Sonwane, A.P.P. for the respondent. ..... CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, JJ. DATED : 24 th JULY, 2009. ORAL ORDER : (Per Shrihari P.Davare, J.) 1 Perused. Heard learned respective counsel for the parties. 2 2 The applicant/accused prays for suspension of the substantive sentence awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in Sessions Case No. 101 of 2007 by way of judgment and order dated 27.2.2009 and enlargement on bail during the pendency of this appeal. The applicant was charged and was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for life and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer R.I. For one month as per the said judgment and order. 3 It is alleged that the applicant committed murder of his wife, namely Rajubai Kailas Gaikwad on suspicion of her illicit relations with one Gaju Onkar, on 30.5.2007. To substantiate the charges levelled against the applicant, the prosecution has examined in all 9 witnesses. 4 The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the prosecution has not examined a single independent witness and the witnesses examined by the prosecution are the interested witnesses. However, the learned A.P.P. Pointed out that out of 9 witnesses, 3 witnesses are eye witnesses viz. PW2-Mangala Soma Bagle, PW3-Soma Khushal Bagle and PW4-Sunanda Kailas 3 Gaikwad i.e. the daughter of the applicant herein. It is also pointed out that even applicant’s daughter has deposed against him and the versions of said eye witnesses are consistent. It appears that they have stated that the applicant gave blows by spade on the head and face of the victim. 5 It is seen that the medical evidence of Dr. Sonwane and postmortem report Exh.29 disclose the following injuries suffered by the deceased victim. 1 Contused lacerated wound on right side behind ear curved size 5 cm x 1 cm bone deep. 2 Right ear pina teared into fragments. 3 Contused lacerated wound on the right parietal scalp 10 cm away and above ear of size 4 and half cm x 1 cm x bone deep. 4 Contused lacerated wound on right side face 3 cm from ear of size ½ cm x ¼ cm x 1 cm, and 5 Contused lacerated wound on right side face on maxilla emenance of size 3 and half cm x ½ cm. X 1 cm. Out of the said injuries, injury nos. 1 to 3 are grievous injuries. The cause of death given by Dr.Sonwane as well as specified in the postmortem notes, is, ‘coma due to head injury’. 4 Apparently the afore said 3 grievous injuries correlate to the cause of death. 6 In the circumstances, it is apparent that the eye witnesses account and medical evidence is incriminating against the applicant herein. Besides that, the other aspect cannot be overlooked that the applicant was not on bail during the pendency of the trial. 7 In the result, we are of the considered view that it is not a fit cast to enlarge the applicant on bail, since apparently there is evidence against the applicant herein and, therefore, the application stands rejected. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.) dbm/crap1522.09