1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.118 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.537 OF 2009 Javed Khan s/o Salam Khan Pathan .. Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra through Police Inspector, Police Station, Begumpura .. Respondent Shri A.B.Gaikwad, Advocate (appointed) for applicant Shri S.D.Kaldate, Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-State CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ DATE : 9th February 2010 PER COURT : 1. The appellant who stands convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegations that the applicant had committed murder of his wife, Faujiya Begum, by this application seeks the suspension of the substantive sentence of imprisonment and his enlargement on bail during the pendency of the appeal. 2 2. The pivot of the prosecution case against the applicant, apart from the other circumstantial evidence, consists of the testimony of the eye witnesses, i.e. children of the applicant who had been examined as P.W. 3, P.W.4 and P.W.5. The children of the applicant betrayed the cross- examination and had been found to be reliable witnesses and the trial Court based the conviction on the testimony of these witnesses. 3. Learned Counsel for the applicant has urged before us that the children of the applicant are minors and ought not to have been relied upon as they were susceptible to tutoring and their statement during investigation had been recorded belatedly. It is also urged before us that apart from the evidence of eye witnesses there is no other evidence which would corroborate the testimony of the minors. It is also urged that the medical and ocular evidences are contrary to each other and the prosecution has not examined the Police Officer who had recorded the first information report. The learned Counsel for the applicant has also referred to the various panchnamas relating to the seizure of the knife and has urged before us that the knife cannot be said to has been seized at the behest of the applicant. 4. Prima facie the trial Court has accepted the evidence of the eye witnesses and the submissions urged before us by the learned Counsel for the applicant pertain to re-appreciation of evidence which cannot be 3 done at this stage. Consequently, application which is devoid of any merit is dismissed. We quantify the fees payable to the learned Counsel appointed for the appellant at Rs.1,000/- (Rs.One thousand). ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) ( P.V. HARDAS, J.) (vvr/118.10criappln)