1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal APPA No.45/2009 in Criminal Appeal No.394/2009 Bishambar s/o Janakram Gangboir Vs. State of Maharashtra. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. Badar, Adv. for the applicant. Mr. Deshpande, APP for the respondent. CORAM : A.P. LAVANDE & PRASANNA B.VARALE, JJ. DATE : 08th December 2009. Heard Mr. Badar, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel for the respondent. The applicant, who has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302, 498-A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code by Additional Sessions Judge-1, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No. 75/2008 seeks suspension of sentence and bail. The applicant has been convicted for causing death of his wife Chandrikabai on 2.10.2007 at about 8.00 p. m. The defence of the accused is that she died natural death on account of sickness. Prima facie, we find that the following circumstances are sufficient to connect the applicant with the crime:- (i) Post-mortem report conducted by Dr. Maroti Dake (PW 12) disclosed the presence of ligature marks on the neck of the deceased; 2 (ii) The deceased was taken to Dr. Charde (PW 3) at about 8.00 p. m. to 8.15 p. m. on 2.10.2007 and the doctor found that she was already dead; (iii) The accused disclosed to the father of the deceased that deceased had died by heart attack. Prima facie, we find that death of deceased was homicidal. The presence of the accused in the house at the relevant time has not been disputed. This being the position, the burden was on the applicant to explain as to under what circumstances the deceased died. The evidence led by doctor, who conducted post-mortem discloses that the death of deceased was homicidal. The mere fact that there was some delay on the part of father of the deceased to lodge report by itself is not sufficient to discard prosecution case having regard to the fact that deceased died in the matrimonial house. The fact that recovery of ribbon with which the applicant is alleged to have committed murder of the deceased has not been proved by itself is not sufficient to release the applicant on bail. We do not find any merit in the submission of the applicant that he has to look after three minor children and as such he is entitled to be released on bail. No case is made out to suspend the 3 substantive sentence imposed on the accused/applicant. For the reasons aforesaid, the application is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE Ambulkar.