1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3689 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.346 OF 2010 Sursing Juga Pawara, Age-53 years, Occu-Labourer, R/o.Chilare, Tq.Shirpur, Dist. Dhule APPLICANT VERSUS State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mr.Joydeep Chatterji, learned A.P.P. for the applicant. Mr.N.R.Shaikh, learned counsel for respondent (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 27/10/2010 PER COURT : 1. By this application, the applicant, who stands convicted for an offence punishable u/s. 302 of The IPC, by the Additional Sessions Judge-1, Dhule, in Sessions Case No.153/2009, seeks his enlargement on bail pending the decision of the appeal. 2. The conviction of the applicant rests principally upon the testimony of the sole eye witness i.e. P.W.No.5 Dhedgya. The Trial Court has accepted the testimony of P.W.No.5 Dhedgya and has come 2 to the conclusion that the offence against the applicant has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The Trial Court further found that the evidence of P.W.No.5 Dhedgya was of a nature, which would inspire the inference of the Court of its acceptance and accordingly convicted and sentenced the applicant. Shri.Joydeep Chatterji, learned counsel for the applicant has urged before us that the evidence of P.W.No.1 Medical Officer, who had conducted the post mortem, clearly reveals that the death of deceased Munna must have occurred prior to 5.30 p.m., on the basis of development of rigor mortis. It is therefore urged before us that the medical evidence, in turn, falsifies the ocular testimony of P.W.No.5 Dhedgya. By referring to the testimony of P.W.No.5, learned counsel for the applicant has urged before us that the conduct of P.W.No.5 Dhedgya completely relies his claim as being of eye witness to the incident. It is urged before us that this witness had not disclosed the incident to anyone though he is alleged to have witnessed the ghastly incident. The learned A.P.P. by referring to the findings recorded by the Trial Court and the evidence of the witnesses, has urged before us that the testimony of P.W.No.5 Dhedgya has been accepted by the Trial Court, and therefore no case for bail is made out though the applicant is said to have been on bail during the trial. 3. The submissions advanced before us by the learned counsel for the applicant pertains to re-appreciation of evidence, which can not be done at this stage. Suffice it to state that the Trial Court has found the evidence of P.W.No.5 Dhedgya to be that of a reliable 3 witness, and accordingly convicted and sentenced the applicant. In such circumstances, therefore, we are not inclined to accede to the request of the applicant for suspending the substantive sentence and ordering his enlargement on bail, pending the decision of the appeal. We, however, expedite the hearing of the appeal. 4. Accordingly, this application is rejected. Hearing of the appeal is expedited. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/OCT. 2010/cri.appl.3689-10