drp {1} Cri. Application No.92/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.92 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.5 OF 2011 Khawaksh @ Khawachya Gopinath Kale APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mrs.S.G.Chincholkar, Advocate for the applicant Mr. N.H.Borade, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 22nd February 2011 PER COURT: 1. By this application, the applicant / appellant seeks suspension of substantive sentence of imprisonment and his enlargement on bail, pending the decision of the appeal. 2. The applicant stands convicted for an offence punishable u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 394 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and imprisonment for 10 years, respectively, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shrirampur by judgment dated 22.12.2010, in Sessions Case No.32/2008. The appeal filed by the applicant is admitted. drp {2} Cri. Application No.92/2011 3. It is alleged by the prosecution that during the night intervening 07.04.2008 and 08.04.2008, the applicant had entered the house and had committed murder of Sheelabai and had stolen the ornaments and other valuables. During the investigation the stolen ornaments and other valuables came to be recovered from the appellant. The prosecution has also alleged that the clothes worn by the applicant were stained with blood, which match with the blood group of the deceased. Apart from that, the finger print expert has identified chance palm print on the cupboard in the house of the complainant, that of the applicant. The trial court, accepting the prosecution evidence, has convicted and sentenced him as aforestated. 4. We have heard Mrs.Chincholkar, learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP on behalf of the State. The submissions advanced before us by the learned counsel for the applicant pertain to re-appreciation of the evidence, which cannot be done at this stage. Suffice it to state that the trial court has observed that there was strong material against the applicant for justifying his conviction. In the present set of facts, we are not inclined to suspend the substantive sentence of imprisonment. Consequently, this application fails and is dismissed. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/A11/criapln92-10