1512appa792.10.odt 1/4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 792 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 602 OF 2010 (Gaju @ Gajanan Vishwanath Sonwane & another Vs. The State of Maharashtra) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. Shriniwas Deshpande, Advocate for the applicants. Mrs. B. P. Maldhure, APP for the respondent-State. CORAM : A. H. JOSHI & A. R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 15 DECEMBER, 2010. 1. This is an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. 2. Applicants were permitted to file copies of depositions as may be relied upon by them for the purpose of present application. 3. The learned Advocate for the applicants has placed on record copies of three depositions of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3. 4. Admittedly, the testimony of P.W.-2 has not been given any credit by the Sessions Judge. 5. The conviction is based on the testimonies of P.W.-1 and P.W.-3. 1512appa792.10.odt 2/4 6. The learned Advocate for the applicants has emphasized on the unworthiness of credit of these two witnesses urging that :- (a) These witnesses are; wife and daughter of the deceased, respectively, and being interested, their evidence ought not to have been relied upon by Sessions Court. (b) Testimony of P.W.-1 is unworthy to rely upon since involvement of both the accused together is not distinctly narrated and cannot be believed. (c) P.W.-3 cannot be trusted as an eye witness because she was away from the spot of incident and the same was not visible from her house. (d) One amongst the weapons of assault, i.e. stone has not been recovered. 7. We have read the testimonies of these witnesses, and reasons contained in the order of conviction and sentence. 8. We find that P.W.-1 has in very precise manner narrated the incident. Her testimony could have been rendered unworthy by bringing on record in cross examination any material which would discredit her or create doubt about vital attack which has resulted into death. 1512appa792.10.odt 3/4 9. In so far as worthiness of P.W.-3 is concerned, her testimony has corroborative value to the testimony of P.W.-1 who herself is an injured and an eye witness whose testimony cannot be brought into doubt. The criticism on the testimony of P.W.-3 that she could not have viewed the incident is an argument unsupported by any other statement in her testimony. It is not proved or suggested that P.W.-3 could not or did not see the incident. At this stage, the conviction based on these two eye witnesses is well founded. 10. In so far as the fact of stone as weapon of assault is concerned, it is not shown that the assault by stone, alone, was the cause of death, and other weapons were totally insignificant in said background. In absence of these circumstances being demonstrated, the fact that the stone was brought before the Court to prove it to be the weapon of assault, said failure is rendered totally insignificant. 11. Nothing further useful for defence has been elicited in the cross examination, and therefore, argument that P.W.-1 and P.W.-3 are unworthy witnesses cannot be relied upon and hence applicants have case for bail on this ground is an argument without any basis. 1512appa792.10.odt 4/4 12. In this background, upon perusal of the judgment and evidence and the discussion here-in-above, we are satisfied that the applicants do not have a case for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. Application is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE wwl