1 I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1291 OF 2008 (In Crim. Appeal No. 114/08) Amol & ors. v. St. of Mah. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders Mr.A.P. Tathod Advocate for the Applicant. Mr.Doifode, A.P.P., for Res. .... CORAM: K.J. ROHEE & A.B.CHAUDHARI, JJ. DATED : 17 th APRIL, 2008. Heard counsel for the parties. This is an application moved by appellant No.5/original accused no.6 Umesh Vishnu Ingole for suspension of sentence and for grant of bail. 2. Nine persons including the present applicant were tried for various offences. During the pendency of trial, accused no.4 died and the prosecution against him abated. All 2 the remaining eight accused came to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. 3. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, the judgment of the trial Court nowhere shows the role played by accused no.6 in the episode. The case of the prosecution is that on 19.6.2006 at about 9-30 a.m. all the accused persons had come to the field which was in possession of Prabhakar Shalikram Chambhare and his son Pramod Prabhakar Chambhare and Yogiraj Tulshiram Donode tried to prevent the accused persons from forcible cultivating the field. All the accused persons assaulted Pramod and Yogiraj with the weapons, as a result of which both of them sustained serious injuries and succumbed to those injuries. 4. Prabhakar (P.W. 1)- father of 3 deceased Pramod lodged F.I.R. (Ex.65). Satish (P.W. 2) is the brother of deceased Pramod. Both these witnesses witnessed the incident. The F.I.R. as well as the testimony of Prabhakar (P.W.1) and Satish (P.W. 2) refers to the presence of accused no.6 Umesh Vishnu Ingole at the time of incident. It may be noted that the accused persons were convicted for the offence under Section 302 with the aid of Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and, as such, it cannot be said that no role was attributed to accused no.6/present applicant. We find that there is sufficient evidence in support of conviction of accused no.6. We, therefore, proceed to pass the following order. 5. Cri. Appln. No. 1291/08 is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE /TA/