1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4483 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.500 OF 2009 Pankaj @ Pawan Sureshrao Solanke (Deshmukh) .. Applicant (Orig.Accused) Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent (Original complainant) Mrs.M.D.Thube Advocate (appointed) for the applicant Shri K.S.Patil, Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-State CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ DATE : 9th February 2010 COURT’S ORDER (Per Shrihari P.Davare, J.) 1. This is an application preferred by the applicant-accused seeking suspension of substantive sentence and for his enlargement on bail during the pendency of the appeal. The applicant was convicted by learned 3rd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, by judgment and order rendered on 25.4.2005, in Sessions Case No.74 of 2004, for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- with a default condition to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- with a default condition to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2 2. Briefly, the prosecution case is that accused and deceased Vijay Pande together used to commit theft and robbery and due to some dispute between them the accused killed deceased Vijay Pande by giving the blows of tomy on his head and other parts of the body on 14.12.2003. 3. The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that there is no direct evidence to connect the applicant with the alleged crime and the prosecution case is wholly relied upon the circumstantial evidence but failed to prove and establish the circumstances and the motive against the Applicant. The learned Counsel for the applicant further submitted that although P.W.1 Mangala, i.e. wife of victim Vijay Pande is the witness for last seen together the accused and victim alive but she made the disclosure about the same after about five days and, therefore, her statement comes under the suspicion. Learned Counsel for the applicant further urged that the accused allegedly made extra-judicial confession before P.W.1 Mangala about the crime but her statement was recorded after the delay of five days and, therefore, it cannot be construed as an incriminating evidence against the applicant herein. Accordingly, the learned Counsel for the applicant canvased that applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of appeal. 4. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the present application vehemently and submitted that there is strong circumstantial evidence against the applicant herein and P.W.1 Mangala, i.e. wife of 3 deceased Vijay Pande has categorically deposed against the applicant, who saw the accused and victim alive lastly together on 12.12.2003 at about 3.45 p.m. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submitted that the blood stained wrist watch belt was discovered at the instance of the applicant-accused and Chemical Analyzer’s report Exh.56 showed blood group “B” of the victim Vijay Pande and further, Chemical Analyzer’s report Exh.55 showed wrist watch belt bore blood of group “B” i.e. of victim and, therefore, the said evidence is incriminating against the applicant. Besides, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the accused made extra-judicial confession before P.W.1 Mangala and said evidence also connects the Applicant with the crime. Accordingly, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor supported the judgment and order rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicting and sentencing the applicant and canvased that the reasoning given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be faulted with and, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the appeal. 5. We have perused the record and proceedings as well as perused the impugned judgment and order and considered the submissions advanced by both the learned Counsel for the parties anxiously and after scrutinizing the ocular and medical evidence on record, we are of the considered view that the submissions advanced by learned Counsel pertain to re-appreciation of the evidence which cannot be done at this 4 stage. Moreover, having the comprehensive view of the matter, we are of the prima facie view that there is incriminating evidence against the applicant herein and, therefore, he is not entitled for enlargement on bail during pendency of the appeal. In the result, present application which is sans of any merit deserves to be dismissed and the same stands dismissed accordingly. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances, we direct that the hearing of Appeal be expedited. Moreover, we quantify the fees of learned Counsel appointed for the applicant at Rs.1,000/-. (Rs.One thousand). ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) ( P.V. HARDAS, J.) (vvr/4483.09criappln)