1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.: 1388 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.: 153 OF 2010 Mohan Vishwanath Kamble Versus The State of Maharashtra *** 1. We have heard learned counsel Mr. Gaikwad for the applicant, learned A.P.P. Mr. Godbharle for the Respondent/ State. 2. By this application, applicant seeks suspension of sentence and his release on bail. Indisputedly, applicant is convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai in Sessions Case No. 81 of 2008 for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R. I. for life. Fine of Rs.2,000/- is also imposed, with default sentence. 3. According to the prosecution, Applicant and Asmita (since deceased) married on 29th May, 2008. Indisputedly, it was second marriage of both of them. Applicant does have a daughter studying in 9th standard, from his first wife. After marriage, deceased 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. Asmita resumed cohabitation. Marital life of the couple was a bliss for a period of two months approximately. Date of incident is 24th July, 2008. According to the case of the prosecution, complainant received a phone call on 25th July, 2008 around 08.30 p.m. from the accused. Information received by the complainant was that, Asmita, wife of the present applicant, sustained injuries because of fall. Complainant rushed to lodge report to the police station concerned. It is at Exhibit-13. According to the prosecution, applicant was suspicious of alleged infidelity of deceased Asmita. That was the motive for commission of crime of murder by the present applicant. On lodging the complaint, the criminal law was set in motion, investigation was initiated. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed, case was committed to the Court of Sessions being triable by the Court of 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. Session. 4. Case of the prosecution principally rests on circumstantial evidence. Main circumstance alleged by the prosecution against the Applicant is that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the present applicant. Appellant does not dispute that deceased Asmita was residing with him. 5. According to the Applicant, on 24th July, 2008 he left along with his mother to his sister's place i.e. village Jintur, district Parbhani. Asmita was not well. According to the present Applicant, that was the reason why Asmita was kept at house alone. Thus, applicant and his mother had left for village Jintur. On return from village Jintur applicant found that Asmita was no more. He had been to the police station for lodging report. According to him, his report was not accepted. He was 4 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. abused by the police personnel, confined, father of the deceased Asmita was called and report was sought for. 6. The judgment of the trial Court shows that the circumstance of deceased last seen alive in the company of the applicant was accepted. Trial Court has also considered discovery of weapon - stick at the instance of the applicant when he was arrested and was in police custody. Homicidal death is recorded by the trial Court. 7. We have seen the evide3nce of P.W.2, Ankush Deshmukh P.W.7 Dr. Sashikant Salunke. Dr. Salunke did postmortem on the dead body of Asmita. He has listed around elevent injuries found on the person of deceased Asmita. We have carefully considered the nature of the injuries. oral evidence of P.W. 7 Dr. Salunke and the postmortem report. 8. Applicant has raised manifold defence. One of them is alibi, as mentioned earlier, 5 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. that he had gone to village Jintur and was not present at the time of death of Asmita at Ghatnandur. The learned Judge has considered the defence raised on behalf of the applicant, found that onus has beenn shifted to the applicant in view of the defence of alibi, not discharged by the applicant. He has considered the material on record and convicted the applicant. 9. Indisputedly, present Applicant was not on bail during the trial. Marital life of applicant and Asmita was not more than two months. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view, it is not a fit case for suspension of the sentence, as requested for by the present Applicant. We have also carefully considered the answer given by the Applicant to the questions put under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the written reply Exhibit-61 along with other material placed on record, on behalf of the 6 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. prosecution. 10. Criminal Application stands rejected. No costs. [S. S. SHINDE, J.] [S.B.DESHMUKH, J.] Dated:21/06/2010. ans/1388