{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATINO NO.3726 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.353 OF 2010 Achut Narayanrao Shinde APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mr.M.P.Kale, Advocate for the applicant Mr.D.R.Kale, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 19th October 2010 PER COURT: 1. This application has been filed by the applicant seeking suspension of the substantive sentence of imprisonment and his enlargement on bail, pending the decision of the appeal. 2. The applicant-accused stands convicted for an offence punishable u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code, on the allegations that in the night, intervening 19.10.2009 and 20.10.2009, the {2} applicant-accused has committed murder of his wife, Meena. The trial court found that the case against the appellant-accused rested on circumstantial evidence. Undisputedly, the applicant- accused and his wife Meena, along with their minor son, were sleeping in a room where the incident had occurred. Death of deceased was a homicidal death and presence of the applicant in the said room has been established by the evidence of PW-2 Govind, PW-3 Rukminibai and PW-7 Vithal. Reports of Chemical Analyzer at Exhibit-29 and Exhibit-30 revealed that the clothes of the applicant-accused were stained with the blood group matching that of the deceased. The trial court repealed the defence of the applicant-accused that some intruder might have committed the murder of his wife. 3. Mr.Kale, learned counsel for the applicant-accused has urged before us that the circumstantial evidence, adduced by the prosecution, is wholly insufficient to complete the chain of circumstances for unerringly pointing to the guilt of the applicant- accused. It is also urged before us that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the said crime. 4. Prima facie, we find that there is material for justifying the conviction of the applicant-accused. Additionally, we find that the applicant was not on bail during the trial. The trial court has appreciated the evidence and has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the evidence against the applicant-accused {3} beyond doubt. The submissions urged before us pertain to re- appreciation of the evidence, which cannot be done at this stage. In that light of the matter, therefore, we are not inclined to entertain this application and as such, the application is dismissed. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/B10/criapln3726-10