{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3080 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.237 OF 2010 Babasaheb s/o Pandhari Hatangale & Anr. APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mr. B.S.Kudale, Advocate for the applicants Mr. N.R.Shaikh, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 7th September 2010 PER COURT: 1. This is an application by which the applicants / appellants seek suspension of their substantive sentence of imprisonment and their enlargement on bail pending the decision of the appeal. The applicants stand convicted for an offence punishable u/s 302 r/w 34 and 436 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and are sentenced to imprisonment for life and imprisonment for 3 years, respectively. The appeal filed by the applicants has been admitted by this Court and is directed to be listed for hearing {2} along with Criminal Appeal No.301/2010. 2. Mr.Kudale, learned counsel appointed on behalf of the applicants, has urged before us that the version of PW-1 Bankat and PW-3 Savita, that the accused had caused injuries to deceased Sangita on 19.06.2008 by an iron rod, has been brought in the cross-examination as omissions and, therefore, no reliance could have been placed by the trial court upon the testimony of the eye witnesses. It is also urged before us that the Medical Officers had conducted two Postmortems and in the second Postmortem they had admitted that certain errors had crept up in the first Postmortem report and in such situation the trial court was in error in placing reliance upon the Postmortem reports. Learned APP supported the findings of the trial court and has urged before us for dismissal of this application. Learned APP has urged that in both the Postmortem reports, opinion as to the cause of death is consistent i.e. on account of haematoma associated with the head injuries. 3. Submissions advanced before us by the learned counsel for the applicants pertain to re-appreciation of evidence, which cannot be done at this stage. The question as to whether the testimony of two eye witnesses deserves to be rejected on the ground of omission is a matter of re-appreciation of evidence. Similarly, the question as to whether the errors in the two Postmortem reports entail rejection of the testimony of the Medical {3} Officers or not, is also a matter of re-appreciation. Similarly, the question whether the other circumstantial evidence corroborates the case of the prosecution is also a matter relating to re- appreciation of the evidence. 4. For the aforesaid reasons, therefore, according to us, no case for enlargement of the applicants on bail, by suspending the substantive sentence of imprisonment, is made out. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that the paper book of this appeal be prepared within 8 weeks and appeal be listed for hearing after two weeks of the receipt of the paper book. Application dismissed with the aforesaid directions. We quantify the fees payable to the learned counsel appointed for the applicants for arguing the bail application at Rs.1000/-. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/B10/criapln3080-10