1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3052 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.284 OF 2010 Prashant Appasaheb @ Apparao Kate, Age-23 years, Occu-Cleaner, R/o.Vairaj, Tq.Barshi, Dist. Solapur APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mr.M.B.Kolpe, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr.K.B.Chaudhary, learned A.P.P. for respondent State. (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 21/09/2010 ORAL ORDER : (Per P.V.Hardas, J.) 1. By this application, the applicant seeks suspension of the substantive sentence of imprisonment for life for offence punishable u/s. 376(f), 302 of The IPC, during the pendancy of the appeal. 2. The applicant stands convicted for having committed rape of Pranita, a girl of 6 years and thereafter having committed her murder. The prosecution relied upon the evidence of P.W.No.5 Taramati and P.W.No.8 Balasaheb in respect of the deceased girl being last seen in 2 the company of appellant accused. The dead body of Pranita was discovered on the next day in the morning. The prosecution evidence further discloses that the applicant was under influence of liquor and was mis-behaving with the ladies who are present there. The prosecution also relied upon the evidence of post mortem which indicated that rape had been committed on the minor girl and the probable cause of her death was due to head injury and injury to the genitals. The Lower Court accordingly convicted and sentenced the applicant as afore stated. 3. We have heard Shri.Kolpe, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP on behalf of the State. It is urged on behalf of the applicant that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses namely P.W.No.5 Taramati and P.W.No.8 Balasaheb does not un-erringly establish that deceased was last seen in the company of applicant accused. It is also urged before us that there is no evidence that rape had been committed on the deceased victim. According to us, the aforesaid submissions pertain to re-appreciation of evidence, which can not be done at this stage. Suffice it to state that, prima facie there is material against the applicant accused. Additionally, we find that the applicant accused was not on bail during trial. Accordingly, there is no merit in the application and the application is dismissed. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/SEPT. 2010/cri.appl.3052-10