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. 495 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 495 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 495 OF 2008 IN IN IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1078 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1078 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1078 OF 2007 Shankar Pandurang Pawar ...Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr.Sandesh D. Patil for the Applicant. Mr.Rajesh More, APP for the State. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 21, 2008 DATED : NOVEMBER 21, 2008 DATED : NOVEMBER 21, 2008 P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. Heard Counsel for the applicant and APP for the State. 2. The applicant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 326, 323 read with 34 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to suffer RI for one year. 3. The applicant had earlier filed an application for bail, however, the said application was not pressed and liberty was granted to the applicant to file a fresh - 2 - application for bail after expiry of six months from the date of the order. The applicant, pursuant to the said liberty which was granted, has filed the second application for bail. 4. Prosecution case is that the applicant and two others went to the house of the complainant PW 2 Hariba and assaulted him with axe and the others assaulted PW1, PW2 and PW3 with the sticks and stones. As a result of the said assault, the complainant PW 2 suffered grievous injury and his one eye was permanently damaged. 5. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the Doctor who had examined PW2 had relied on the certificate given by PW10. It was submitted that the trial court had not relied on the evidence of PW10 because PW2 had not stated in his evidence that he had taken treatment in the private clinic. It was further submitted that from the evidence of PW2 and the evidence of PW7 Dr.Joshi, it was apparent that no injury was caused to PW2 by axe. It was submitted that therefore, under these circumstances, the applicant was entitled to - 3 - be released on bail. It was further submitted that the applicant had already undergone one year’s sentence out of the five years which are imposed by the learned trial court. 6. It is not possible to accept the said submission. Looking to the injuries which are caused to PW2 and other witnesses, it is obvious that the grievous hurt was caused to PW2 and as a result of the said injury, one of his eye has been permanently damaged. The motive for the commission of the crime is that PW2 who was the eldest brother had on the death of their mother had entered the names of all the heirs in the 7/12th extract. The applicant wanted that his name alone should be entered into the 7/12th extract. After having learnt that PW2 had filed an application to Tahsildar and had given the names of all the heirs, he alongwith other accused went to the house of the PW2 and assaulted him and others. Taking into consideration the said motive, which has been established by the prosecution and the actual injury which is caused to PW2 and others, no case is made out for grant of bail. - 4 - 7. Application for bail is rejected. Hearing of the appeal is expedited. The appellant may prepare a private paperbook and thereafter apply for a fixed date of hearing. If the appeal is not heard within a period of six months from today, the appellant is granted liberty to file a fresh application for bail. (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)