drp {1} Cri. Appln No.3756/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3756 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.355 OF 2010 Babasaheb Navnath Andhale APPLICNAT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mr. V.D.Salunke, Advocate for the applicant Mr. R.V.Deshmukh, Advocate for original complainant Mr. K.S.Patil, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 15th December 2010 PER COURT: 1. By this application, the applicant seeks suspension of the substantive sentence of imprisonment and his enlargement on bail, pending the decision of the criminal appeal. The appellant / applicant, stands convicted for an offence punishable u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegations that the applicant has committed murder of Atmaram. The trial court, in the judgment, has found that the prosecution has proved the circumstance of motive against the accused and had also placed reliance on the drp {2} Cri. Appln No.3756/2010 testimony of PW-5 Navnath Mundhe, who had seen the accused entering the shop and thereafter closing the shutter and going away. The trial court has also placed reliance on the fact that human blood was found on the clothes and motorcycle of the accused, which the accused could not explain. The trial court, therefore, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has established the offence against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 2. Mr.V.D.Salunke, learned counsel for the applicant / accused, has urged before us that none of the circumstance, on which the trial court has placed reliance, has been established and proved and as such the chain of circumstantial evidence is incomplete and, therefore, no irresistible inference can be drawn that it is the accused and the accused alone, who has committed the offence. Learned APP has supported the findings recorded by the trial court and has urged before us for dismissal of the application. 3. The trial court has elaborately dealt with the circumstances, as alleged against the accused at paragraph No.25 of the judgment. The trial court has concluded the judgment by holding that the offence has been proved against the accused, though the case rests on circumstantial evidence. Submissions advanced before us, by the learned counsel for the applicant, pertain to re-appreciation of the evidence, which cannot be done at drp {3} Cri. Appln No.3756/2010 this stage. We are, therefore, not inclined to suspend the substantive sentence and release the applicant on bail. Additionally, we find that the applicant was not on bail during the trial. 4. However, according to us, in the light of the fact that the case rests on circumstantial evidence and the fact that the accused was an under trial prisoner during the trial, the hearing of the appeal needs to be expedited. We accordingly permit the applicant to file a private paper book within 4 weeks from today and direct the registry to list the appeal for final hearing as soon as the private paper book is filed. This appeal, therefore, be set down for hearing in the week commencing from 24th January 2011, if the private book, as per our directions, is filed by the applicant. 5. This application, therefore, is dismissed with liberty to the applicant to file a private paper book and direction for listing of the appeal for final hearing. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/B10/criapln3756-10