IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 605 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 239 OF 2010 BISTAPPA YALLAPPA BANDARGALI .. APPLICANT Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA .. RESPONDENT Mrs. Nasreen S.K. Ayubi for the applicant Ms. P. H. Kantharia, APP CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI & SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATED : 17/8/2010 P.C. This application is filed by original accused 2. He was tried along with seven others in Sessions Case No. 1 of 2008 for offences punishable under Sections 302,396, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”). He was convicted inter alia for offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. The case of the prosecution was that on 14/4/2007 around 6-30 to 7 a.m. at the construction site in Mystri Villa area of Ratnagiri the accused caused death of Anjali Khedekar (referred to as “Anjali or the deceased”) by throttling her as well as hitting her with a stone. The prosecution case further was that the accused took away her ornaments and threw the dead body into septic tank in order to conceal the evidence of murder. 2. The deceased was wife of Anant Khedekar (PW 21). She was working as a primary teacher. She used to leave her house for school at about 6-30 a.m. She used to pass through Mystri Villa. She used to go to bus stop at Mystri Villa and catch city bus to go to her school. The construction site was known as ‘Naglekar Construction’. According to the prosecution while the deceased was passing from the pathway of Mystri Villa accused 1 dragged her into the building by gagging her mouth, took her to the first floor and with the help of other accused throttled her with binding wire. A stone was thrown on her skull. After she succumbed to the injuries her ornaments and valuable articles were removed by the accused. Her body was then covered in a ‘chaddar’ and thrown in the water tank situate at the top of the building. However, thereafter the dead body was removed from the water tank and then thrown into the septic tank which was behind Naglekar Construction near the dilapidated structure. 3. The prosecution case further was that on 14/4/07 Anant Khedekar, husband of the deceased returned from duty and found that the deceased had not returned from the school. He searched for her but he could not find her. In the night of 14/4/07 he approached the police. The police advised him to take further search, however, he was not successful in finding the deceased. Ultimately on 15/4/07 he lodged missing complaint which is at Exhibit-39. 4. According to the prosecution on 6/6/07 an anonymous phone call was received by the Ratnagiri police station, Ratnagiri that the accused had caused death of Anjali Khedekar and her dead body was thrown in the septic tank in the Mystri Villa area. The police recovered the dead body from the septic tank. Investigation was started on the basis of complaint lodged by HC Shivalkar. The applicant was traced at village Kittur, Karnataka and was put under formal arrest on 9/6/07. After completion of the investigation the accused came to be charged and convicted as aforesaid. 5. We have heard Mrs. Ayubi, learned counsel for the applicant at some length. She submitted that there is no credible evidence to connect the applicant with the offence in question. Learned counsel pointed out that the prosecution examined only one eye- witness who is PW 16 Arjun Vadar. Counsel pointed out that statement of Arjun Vadar came to be recorded after one month and twenty three days from the date of incident. Counsel submitted that no reliance can be placed on the testimony of a witness whose statement is recorded after inordinate delay. Counsel submitted that assuming that certain gold ornaments were recovered at the instance of the applicant, that cannot connect him with the offence in question. He can at the most be a receiver of stolen property. Counsel submitted that there are no criminal antecedents of the applicant and, therefore, he should be released on bail. 6. It is not possible for us to accept any of the submissions of learned counsel. Prima facie, we feel that PW 16 Arjun Vadar’s evidence cannot be discarded merely because his statement was recorded after one month and twenty three days. PW 16 has given explanation that he had gone to his village because of the threat given by accused 1. It is pertinent to note that the accused are construction workers and PW 16 is also a construction worker. According to PW 16 he knew all the accused. PW 16 has given graphic description of the incident in question. The accused had threatened him and he had to leave Ratnagiri and, therefore, in our prima facie opinion, the delay in recording his statement cannot adversely affect his evidence. 7. PW 16 has stated that on the date of incident he was on duty and had gone for taking bath at the water tank which was behind the building. He found the applicant and accused 3 and 5 present there. He heard shouts of a female from upper floor of the building. He saw the applicant and accused 3 and 5 running up-stairs. He followed them. He found that accused 1 was pressing the neck of one woman in the bathroom. He has further deposed that the applicant came to the shed, collected binding wire and again ran upwards. The applicant asked him as to why he was sitting there. Thereafter all the accused came to the shed. Accused 1 gave him threats. Accused 1 collected ladder which was at the shed and he went to water tank. The applicant and others followed him. They had wrapped a chaddar around the dead body of a woman. The evidence of PW 16 clearly indicates that the applicant has played a major role in the incident in question. Besides it is pertinent to note that at the instance of the applicant wrist watch of Sonata Company, one piece of jodvi, pair of ladies chappal and one key were recovered. It is also pertinent to note that PW 7 Madhav Gumphi, a friend of the applicant produced a pair of gold bangles which the applicant had asked him to keep with him. Anant Khedekar, the husband of the deceased has identified the said articles as the articles belonging to the deceased. Therefore, in our prima facie opinion, there is sufficient evidence to indicate the complicity of the applicant in the incident in question. The fact that he was absconding also corroborates the case of the prosecution. Hence applicant cannot be granted bail. His application is rejected. (SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.) (SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)