1 Cri.Application No.4691 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4691 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.446 OF 2010 Parmeshwar Narsing Pawara ..APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ..RESPONDENT Mr Chaitanya Dharurkar, Advocate (appointed) for the applicant; Mr N.H. Borade, A.P.P. for the respondent. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 18th January, 2011 PER COURT : By this application the applicant seeks suspension of the substantive sentence of imprisonment and his enlargement on bail pending the decision of the appeal. The applicant is alleged to have committed murder of his wife Surmibai on 12.10.2009. Prosecution examined P.W.3 Prakash and P.W.4 Dilip, sons of the appellant and the deceased Surmibai. The evidence of these two witnesses in no uncertain terms establishes that the appellant and his wife Surmibai were alone in the hut and when these two witnesses had entered the hut they had 2 Cri.Application No.4691 of 2010 noticed that Surmibai had sustained a stab wound on left side of her chest. Similar is the evidence of P.W.11 Narsing, father of the appellant. The knife came to be seized on being produced by Narsing on the scene of the offence. The clothes of the appellant were found to be blood stained. The defence of the appellant that he was not present at the scene of the offence has been falsified by the evidence of the witnesses. The Trial Court, therefore, convicted and sentenced the appellant. 2. Shri C.V. Dharurkar, learned Counsel appointed on behalf of the appellant/applicant has urged before us that since only a single blow by knife is alleged to have been inflicted by the appellant, the case would be one punishable either under section 304 part I or part II of the Indian Penal Code and not under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned A.P.P. has opposed the release of the applicant on bail pending the decision of the appeal by pointing out to us that there is strong circumstantial evidence which establishes the link and connects the appellant with the commission of the offence. 3. The submission of the learned Counsel for the applicant is one pertaining to re-appreciation of evidence, which cannot be done at this stage. Suffice it to state that in the light of the evidence of the witnesses, we find that a strong prima facie case appears to have been made out against the applicant. Additionally we find that the applicant was not on bail during trial. In the light of the aforesaid circumstances, therefore, 3 Cri.Application No.4691 of 2010 according to us, the applicant is not entitled to seek suspension of his sentence and his release on bail pending the decision of the appeal. The application which is, therefore, devoid of any merit, is dismissed. We, however, quantity the fees payable to the learned Counsel appointed on behalf of the applicant at Rs.1,000/-. (A.V. POTDAR, J.) ( P.V. HARDAS, J.) amj/criap4691.10