Cri.Appln.No.3853 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3853 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.289 OF 2010 Rahul s/o Chandu Surwade .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr Sachin J.Salgare, Advocate for applicant Mr K.S.Patil, A.P.P. for respondent-State CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 3rd December 2010 PER COURT 1. By this application the applicant seeks suspension of substantive sentence of imprisonment and his enlargement on bail pending the decision of the appeal. 2. The applicant/accused is alleged to have killed his wife Sangeeta by hitting pestle on her head. Prosecution has examined P.W.1 Kausalyabai as an eye witness. Trial Court accepted the evidence of eye witness and has found that the prosecution has been able to establish offence against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Mr Salgare, learned Counsel for the applicant has urged before us that in the light of the variance in the evidence of P.W.1 Kausalyabai vis-a-vis her first information report, the trial Court ought not to have relied on the evidence of this witness. The submission advanced before us pertains to Cri.Appln.No.3853 of 2010 2 reappreciation of evidence which cannot be done at this stage. Suffice it to state that despite the variance, the trial Court has relied on the testimony of P.W.1 Kausalyabai. In that light of the matter we are not inclined to suspend the substantive sentence of imprisonment and enlarge the applicant/accused on bail pending the decision of the appeal. 3. However, we direct that the preparation of the paper-book be expedited and this appeal be listed for hearing as soon as the paper-book is ready. We accordingly dismiss this application with the aforesaid directions. We quantify the fees payable to the learned Counsel appointed on behalf of the applicant at Rs.1,000/- (Rs.One thousand). ( A.V. POTDAR, J. ) ( P.V. HARDAS, J.) (vvr/3853.10criappln)