IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.824 OF 2008. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.824 OF 2008. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.824 OF 2008. in in in CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.40 OF 2008. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.40 OF 2008. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.40 OF 2008. Dharmendra Krupashankar Singh ..Applicant versus State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Mr.Niranjan Mundargi for the Applicant Mrs.V.R.Bhonsale, APP for the Respondent-State CORAM : Smt.RANJANA DESAI & CORAM : Smt.RANJANA DESAI & CORAM : Smt.RANJANA DESAI & R.Y.GANOO, JJ. R.Y.GANOO, JJ. R.Y.GANOO, JJ. DATED : 22nd August, 2008. DATED : 22nd August, 2008. DATED : 22nd August, 2008. P.C. 1. The applicant-original accused No.2 in Sessions Case No.911 of 2007 has been convicted by the Judgment & Order dated 16.11.2007 for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w.34 of IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. for life. Appeal filed by him challenging the said judgment has been admitted. This is an application for bail. 2. We have heard Mr. Mundargi, learned Counsel for the applicant. He submitted that there is no credible evidence adduced by the prosecution which can connect the applicant to the crime in -2- question. He submitted that according to the prosecution P.W.3 has witnessed the incident. However, P.W.3 has turned hostile. P.W.2 is Rickshaw driver. It is the case of the prosecution that he had seen accused Nos.2 and 3 carrying a plastic bag. It is the case of the prosecution that the dead body was carried in the said plastic bag. The learned Counsel contended that once the sole eye witness has not supported the prosecution case it is hazardous to convict the accused on the basis of such evidence, particularly when the motive has not been proved. The learned APP, on the other hand strenously opposed the grant of bail. 2. It is true that P.W.3 has turned hostile. However, in our opinion, there is other prima facie evidence to establish the complicity of the applicant. At his instance blood stained pant worn by him was recovered and the blood group of the said blood stains as per the C.A. Report is "B" which is the blood group of the deceased. This is a clinching circumstances, which prima facie indicates that the applicant is involved in the crime. The evidence of P.W.2 Rickshaw Driver lends -3- support to the prosecution case. Learned Counsel Shri Mundargi submitted that since the motive is not established, the offence will not fall under Section 302 of the IPC. He submitted that even if the prosecution case is accepted as it is, the applicant can at the most be convicted for the offence under Section 304 Part II of the I.P.C. It is not possible for us to uphold this contention at this stage. The medical evidence indicates that the deceased was throttled. There is also head injury. Therefore, we are unable to accept the submission that the applicant can at the most be held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of I.P.C. In our prima facie opinion it cannot be said that there is absense of intention to cause death. No case is made out for bail. Hence, Application is rejected. (Smt.Ranjana Desai, J.) (Smt.Ranjana Desai, J.) (Smt.Ranjana Desai, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.)