APPA. 1517-11 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1517 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1145 OF 2011 Dhanaji Pandurang Farne ... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent *** Mr. Kuldeep S. Patil, for the Applicant. Mr. P. S. Hingorani, APP for the Respondent. *** CORAM : V. M. KANADE, & M. L. TAHALIYANI, JJ. DATE : DECEMBER 15, 2011 PC: 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and the learned APP for the respondent-State. The applicant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the I. P. Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life, along with other co-accused. 2. It is submitted that the applicant assaulted the deceased with wooden log and other accused assaulted with fists and kick blows since it was suspected that the deceased had stolen their tape- recorder. The dead body of the deceased was found in the mid night APPA. 1517-11 - 2 - by the brother. The prosecution has relied on the testimony of the eye witness Shahaji Patil (PW 7) and has convicted the applicant herein. It is submitted that the other co-accused have been released on bail by this Court. It is further submitted that there are several discrepancies and omissions in the statement of this witness and in view of this, it cannot be said that PW 7 had really witnessed the said incident. It is further submitted that though PW 7 has named three other persons. PW 7 has stated that three other persons Sunil Patil, Sanad Patil, Rajendra Apugade were present at the scene of the offence when the incident took place and though the complainant Santaji Patil (PW 1) also in his evidence stated that these persons had informed him about the said incident. The prosecution has not examined any of these three eye witnesses, which also creates doubt regarding their presence at the scene of the offence when the incident had taken place. Lastly, it is submitted that though there is recovery of wooden stick at the instance of the applicant, the doctor opined that the injuries on the person of the deceased could not have been caused by the said stick, which was recovered at his instance. 3. The learned APP opposed the application for bail. It is submitted that there were as many as 14 injuries on the person of the deceased and there was a fracture of the skull and the testimony Shahaji Patil (PW 7) who was eye witness clearly indicate the role of the present applicant. 4. In our view, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant will have to be accepted. No explanation has been APPA. 1517-11 - 3 - given by the prosecution for not examining any one of the three eye witnesses, who were present at the site, though Santaji Patil (PW 1) also has stated that these three persons came and told him about the said incident. In view of this, in our view, the applicant deserves to be released on bail. 5. The applicant be released on bail, on execution of P. R. bond in a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. He shall report to the concerned police station once in two months. [M. L. TAHALIYANI, J.] [ V. M. KANADE, J.]