1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 302 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 30 OF 2010 Shakunt s/o Annant Giri ...Applicant VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ..... Smt. S.S.Jadhav, advocate for the applicant/appellant Shri S.D.Kaldate, APP for the respondent ..... CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, JJ. DATED : 03.03.2010 ORAL ORDER 1 By this application, the applicant seeks suspension of the substantive sentence of imprisonment and his enlargement on bail pending the decision of this appeal. 2 The applicant stands convicted on the allegations that the applicant had committed murder of his wife Anjana 2 on 28.12.2006 at about 8.00 a.m. The medical evidence of PW5 Dr. Kurne clearly establishes that deceased Anjana had died of asphyxia secondary to strangulation. The Trial Court placed implicit reliance on the evidence of PW6 Shubhangi, the child witness and the daughter of the applicant and deceased Anjana. The Trial Court, therefore, came to the conclusion that the prosecution had been successful in establishing the offence against the applicant/accused beyond reasonable doubt. 3 Smt. Jadhav, learned counsel for the applicant has invited our attention to the evidence of PW5 Dr. Kurne as well as evidence of PW6 Shubhangi. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the evidence of PW6 Dr. Kurne does not completely eliminate partial hanging. The evidence clearly indicates that deceased Anjana had committed suicide and was not strangulated by the accused. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the evidence of PW6 Shubhangi is that of child witness and has admitted to have been tutored before her evidence came to be recorded. Coupled with this, the admissions give by PW6 Shubhangi in the cross-examination completely rule out the possibility of PW6 Shubhangi being an 3 eye witness to the incident. 4 Learned A.P.P. has supported the judgment of the Trial Court by pointing out to us that there is sufficient evidence on record to justify the conviction of the applicant. 5 Suffice it to say that though the Trial Court has not placed reliance on the testimony of PW6 Shubhangi and has found the circumstantial evidence i.e. fact of deceased Anjana having died an unnatural death in the house of the applicant as sufficient to justify the conviction, we are not inclined to interfere at this stage and direct the suspension of the sentence and the enlargement of the applicant on bail pending the decision of the Trial Court. The submissions urged before us by the learned counsel for the applicant pertain to re-appreciation of evidence, which cannot be done at this stage. 6 Admissions in the cross-examination of PW6 Shubhangi or the question as to whether PW6 Shubhangi is a tutored witness, being a child witness, are the questions, which can be addressed to by this court only at the time of final hearing. In that light of the matter, we are not inclined to 4 entertain present application and the present application deserves to be dismissed. 7 However, in the peculiar facts of the case, we permit the applicant/appellant to file private paper book within two weeks from today. In the peculiar facts of the case, we further direct that in the event, the applicant files private paper book within two weeks, the appeal be set down for final hearing two weeks after filing of the private paper book. 8 Application stands dismissed as indicated above with the afore said directions. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) dbm/crap302.10