1 MSS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 644 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1067 OF 2007 GAJANAN BALASO KHADKE .. APPLICANT Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA .. RESPONDENT Mr. Niranjan Mundargi for applicant Mrs. M.M. Deshmukh, APP CORAM:SMT.RANJANA DESAI & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,JJ. DATE: 24/9/2008 P.C. . The appellant is convicted by Additional Sessions Judge Ichalkaranji in Sessions Case No. 1/07 for offences punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C.and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for one month. The case of the prosecution is that the applicant murdered his wife Aruna on 20/6/02. The appeal filed by the appliant is admitted. This is an application for bail. 2. We have heard Mr. Mundargi learned counsel 2 appearing for the appellant. Mr. Mundargi drew our attention to the evidence of PW 4 Dr. Vinod Agarwal. In his evidence Dr. Agarwal stated that "this case most probably appears to be a case of hanging". He also stated that "in case of hanging mostly it is suicidal". Learned counsel contended that, therefore, Aruna has committed suicide and hence the applicant could not have been convicted for offence punishable under section 302 of the I.P.C. We are unable to agree with learned counsel. Statement made by Dr. Agarwal to which our attention is drawn is a general statement. It cannot be concluded from this statement that all cases of hanging are cases of suicide. The post-mortem note indicate that there were following injuries on Aruna apart from neck injury. . "Contusion left parietal occipital region 6 x 5 cms red. . Contusion left thigh over femoral triangle oblique shaped 2 x 1 cms. reddish". . Prima facie, we feel that from the above injuries it cannot be said that this is a case of suicide. Aruna was assaulted on head. She 3 received injury on thigh. These injuries are not consistent with suicide. It is pertinent to note that dead body of Aruna was found in the applicant’s room. The applicant was present in the room. Besides, we find that prosecution has examined PW 2 the landlord of the applicant. PW 2 stated in his evidence that when he went to the applicant’s house the applicant told him that Aruna had fainted. If the case of suicide was true the applicant ought to have told PW 2 that she had committed suicide. When this fact was brought to the notice of the applicant in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the applicant accepted that he informed PW 2 that Aruna had fainted. This conduct is not the conduct of an innocent man. Chain of circumstances point directly to the guilt of the applicant. 3. In our prima facie opinion, therefore, the applicant is rightly convicted. Bail cannot be granted to him. Bail application is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE