1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 684 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 71 OF 2010 UTTAM GOVIND CHAVAN VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ... Shri S.J.Salgare h/f Smt.Sadhana Jadhav, Advocates for applicant and Shri V.D.Godbharale, APP for respondent - State. ... CORAM : S.B.DESHMUKH & S.S.SHINDE,JJ. Dated : 5.7.2010 PER COURT :- 1. The applicant, along with his wife Parubai, was tried for the offence under sections 302 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. The trial Court, on 30.12.2009, considering the material brought on record acquitted Parubai but convicted applicant for the said offence and directed him to suffer life imprisonment with fine. Appeal filed against the said judgment and order of the trial Court has been admitted by this Court. 2. By the present application, the applicant seeks his 2 enlargement on bail. Admittedly, the applicant was not on bail during trial of the Sessions Court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant took us through the judgment of the trial Court. According to him, prosecution story, if considered, along with the defence raised by the applicant, it cannot be said that case for offence of murder, under section 300 of IPC, has been established against the applicant. He commented upon the evidence of complainant - PW 1 Mohan and PW 7 Rahul, alleged eye witnesses. Indisputably, PW 7 Rahul is son of PW 1 Mohan and deceased Sumanbai. He was eight year's old at the time of occurrence. According to learned counsel for the applicant,the contradictions brought on record in the evidence of this witness makes his evidence difficult to be accepted as that of an eye witness. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the incident took place at the spur of moment and that there was no intention or preparation on the part of the applicant for commission of the offence under section 300 of IPC. Further, according to him, this is a fit case, wherein bail can be granted in favour of the applicant. 4. Shri Godbharale, learned APP submits that appreciation of evidence, alleged contradictions etc. are the matters to be considered by this Court while deciding the appeal itself and prima facie, at this stage, it cannot be taken into account. 3 5. PW 1 Mohan and PW 7 Rahul, according to the prosecution, are the eye witnesses. The learned trial Judge, while considering the evidence of these two witnesses, has taken into account, the alleged contradictions in the evidence of PW 7 Rahul and injuries sustained by Rahul. According to prosecution, PW 1 Mohan, husband of deceased, was addicted to illicit liquor and applicant was dealing in sell of illicit liquor. PW 1 Mohan was his regular customer. On the date of occurrence, as per prosecution, PW 1 Mohan had gone to answer the nature's call, he did not return home, deceased Sumanbai thought that he might have gone to applicant for consuming liquor and she therefore, went to the house of applicant to fetch her husband back. When both of them were returning to home, they were followed by applicant and his wife - Parubai, another accused. Parubai assaulted / snatched heirs of deceased. Applicant asked his son Ashok to bring the knife. Knife was brought. The applicant gave two forcible blows on the chest of deceased. She fell down. Matter was immediately reported to the Police Station concerned. Spot panchanama was carried out around 1.30 p.m. Prosecution claims seizure of the knife from the spot itself. According to learned counsel for the applicant, PW 1 Mohan, after consuming liquor, asked for more liquor, which was refused by the applicant. Therefore, there was a scuffle between PW 1 Mohan and applicant. Applicant also sustained injury on his head, which has not been explained by the prosecution 4 6. We have given due consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the parties. We have also considered the material brought on record. At this stage, the alleged contradictions do not weight with us. It is a case based on eye witness account of two eye witnesses. Apart from this state of things, we have seen that the trial court has scanned evidence of seizure of knife and banyan of the applicant. We have also perused the report of Chemical Analyser. In our view, it is not a fit case for grant of bail in favour of the applicant. 7. The application stands rejected. (S.S.SHINDE,J.) (S.B.DESHMUKH,J.) ... akl