1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3434 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.319 OF 2010 1. Manika S/o.Purbhaji Urade, Age-58 years, Occu-Agriculturist, 2. Ashok S/o.Manika Urade, Age-38 years, Occu-Agriculturist, 3. Nitin S/o.Manika Urade, Age-33 years, Occu-Agriculturist, 4. Raju S/o.Manika Urade, Age-27 years, Occu- Agriculturist, All R/o.Dagadgaon, Tq.Loha, Dist. Nanded APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mr.A.M.Gaikwad, learned counsel for the applicants. Mr.N.R.Shaikh, learned A.P.P. for respondent State. (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 22/11/2010 PER COURT : 1. This is an application seeking suspension of the substantive sentence of imprisonment and the enlargement of the applicants on 2 bail pending the decision of this appeal. 2. The applicants are alleged to have committed murder of deceased on 02/02/2007 in between 7 to 8 am. The prosecution principally relied upon the evidence of P.W.No.1 Sarubai wife of the deceased, P.W.No.9 Baby daughter of deceased and P.W.No.10 son of deceased Balaji. All the three eye witnesses implicate the present applicants. The Trial Court accepted the evidence of these witnesses and convicted and sentenced the applicants for an offence punishable u/s. 302 r/w. 34 of The IPC and other offences. Shri.Gaikwad, learned counsel for the applicants has urged before us that the evidence of the alleged eye witnesses is not confidence inspiring evidence in the light of variations in their testimony. It is also urged before us that the witnesses are related witnesses and as such the Trial Court ought to have scrutinize their evidence more carefully. It is also urged before us that prima-facie the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused. The learned APP has urged before us for dismissal of this application. 3. With the assistance of learned counsels for the parties, we have perused the record and proceeding of the court below. Upon such perusal, it appears that the reliance placed by the Trial Court on the testimony of P.W.No.1, 9 and 10, can not be prima facie said to be misplaced. The three eye witnesses have implicated the applicants and as such the Trial Court has found them guilty. Additionally we find that only accused applicant no.1 and 4 were on bail while 3 applicants no.2 and 3 were in jail. 4. For the aforesaid reasons, therefore, we are not inclined to suspend the substantive sentence of imprisonment and direct their release on bail pending the decision of this appeal. Accordingly this application is failed and is dismissed. However, looking to the age of the applicants, we expedite the hearing of the appeal. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/NOV. 2010/cri.appl.3434-10