{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2772 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.183 OF 2010 Sardarkhan s/o Imamkhan Pathan APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mrs.U.T.Pathan h/f Mr.T.W.Pathan, Advocate for the applicant Mr. N.R.Shaikh, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 14th September 2010 PER COURT: 1. The applicant stands convicted for an offence punishable u/s 302, 201 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code on the allegations that the applicant had committed murder of his wife- Shabanabegum on 15.01.2006. Evidence of PW-1, father of deceased Shabanabegum discloses that on the day of the incident the applicant had gone to the house of PW-1 and had demanded money for purchase of auto rickshaw. On failure of the father of the {2} deceased Shabanabegum to pay the aforesaid amount, the applicant, in frustration, proceeded in a auto rickshaw along with deceased and his two minor children. The applicant put forward a case that the auto rickshaw had met with an accident as a result of which Shabanabegum had sustained injuries and died. Curiously, neither the applicant nor the minor children had sustained any injury. The trial court found that the auto rickshaw had not sustain any damage whatsoever. The prosecution alleged that a stone was found near the scene of the alleged incident and the said stone was found stained with blood matching the group of deceased Shabanabegum. The trial court further observed that deceased Shabanabegum had sustained 7 external and 6 internal injuries and cause of death was due to head injury. The trial court, therefore, concluded that the applicant-accused was guilty of an offence punishable u/s 302, 498A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant has urged before us that there is no evidence, whatsoever, that the applicant had committed murder of deceased Shabanabegum. According to learned counsel for the applicant, it was a case of vehicular accident and, therefore, the applicant ought to have been acquitted by the trial court. Learned APP urged for dismissal of the application on the ground that there is sufficient evidence to connect the applicant-accused with the commission of the offence. {3} 3. Submissions advanced before us by the learned counsel for the applicant pertain to re-appreciation of evidence, which cannot be done at this stage. Suffice it to state that on the basis of the evidence lead by the prosecution, the trial court has convicted and sentenced the applicant, as afore stated. The applicant was also not on bail during the trial. In the light of the aforesaid facts, we are not inclined to suspend the substantive sentence and to release the applicant on bail pending the decision of the appeal. However, since the paper book is ready, we expedite hearing of the appeal. Application dismissed accordingly. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/B10/criapln2772-10