1 appa115010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1150 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1090 OF 2009 Joushad Aalam Ansar Ulla @ Nadan Siddique ...Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr. Prakash Shetty i/by Mr. M.A. Chaudhary for the Appellant Ms. S.V. Gajare, A.P.P., for the State. CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATE: 13TH DECEMBER, 2010 P.C.:- This application is filed by the original accused No. 3 for bail. 2. After hearing the counsel for the applicant, and going through the evidence on record, in our opinion, the view taken by the trial Court to record finding of guilt against the applicant before this Court is a possible view. It is found that P.W.1 and P.W.4 have named 2 appa115010 the applicant as involved in the commission of the offence. The role of the applicant has been spelt out by them. They have also deposed about the fact that the applicant was wielding weapon, which was used in the commission of the crime. The medical evidence of P.W. 17 supports the prosecution case that the deceased was brutally assaulted, which resulted in causing grievous hurt, to which he succumbed. 3. The argument of the applicant is that there are discrepancies between the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.4. In the first place, P.W.1 has not mentioned, while registering F.I.R., about the presence of P.W.4, which fact is stated for the first time while deposing before the Court. Further, P.W.1 has stated that the applicant was wielding chopper, which was used for assaulting the deceased, whereas P.W.4 has stated that the applicant was wielding iron-bar, which was used by him in the commission of the crime. Besides, P.W.17 has spoken about only two grievous injuries caused to the deceased, which resulted in his death, whereas the prosecution witnesses have mentioned that several stabs were given by the different accused to the deceased. Moreover, the conduct of P.W.1 is also doubtful, inasmuch as although, on the one hand, she claims that the deceased was assaulted by the said 8 persons, she did not bother to go to the hospital, nor went to collect the body of 3 appa115010 the deceased. All these aspects have been considered by the trial Court and negatived. 4. In our opinion, the view taken by the trial Court is a possible view. The discrepancies pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant are not material discrepancies so as to doubt the entire evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.4. Suffice it to observe that there is material on record to indicate the complicity of the applicant in the commission of the crime. Hence, this application should fail. The same is rejected. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant requests that the hearing of the appeal be expedited. We have no difficulty in acceding to this request, as we are informed that the applicant is a senior citizen, aged about 62 years, as of now. Besides, his counsel submits that he has already filed compilation of the relevant evidence, for which reason, it is not necessary to file private paper book, and the compilation already filed be treated as private paper book. The respondent is free to file further compilation of documents, which were part of record before the lower Court, if, in the opinion of the A.P.P., the same may be relevant for deciding the controversy in appeal. Criminal Appeal No. 1090 of 2009 shall proceed for hearing, if ready in other respects, as per its turn under 4 appa115010 the caption: "Senior Citizens - Convicts in Jail", which is expedited category as per the present assignment. Preparation of paper book is dispensed with, on the above terms. A.P. BHANGALE, J. A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.