1 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPLICATION NO. 261 OF 2010 IN APPEAL NO. 242 OF 2010 Bindu Nanhelal Gupta ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent .... Mr. Aniket Vagal Adv. for applicant Mr. H.J.Dedhia APP for State .... CORAM : SMT.RANJANA DESAI AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATE : 19th APRIL, 2010 P.C.: 1 The applicant-original accused no.3 was tried alongwith two other accused for offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC. The applicant is the wife of deceased Nanehlal. In short the allegation against the applicant is that on 26.10.2006 in the house of deceased Nanhelal, the applicant along with her paramour Lambu accused 1 and their associate Chinnu accused 2 committed murder of Nanhelal and tried to screen themselves from legal punishment by causing disappearance of the evidence. By 2 the impugned judgment and order, the applicant has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. 2 We have heard at some length learned counsel for the applicant. He submitted that the star witness of the prosecution is daughter of the applicant, Pooja P.W.5. Counsel submitted that there are several omissions in her evidence which have been confirmed by the Investigating Officer. It is therefore, risky to rely on the evidence of Pooja and convict the applicant. We are not impressed by this submission. It is possible that Pooja might have to some extent, exaggerated the incident in question but we find that on the basic story of the prosecution there is no inconsistency in her evidence. She is a child witness. Some allowance will have to be made in her favour. A daughter has no reason to falsely implicate her mother. In our opinion, no case is made for bail. Application is rejected. [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] 3