- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2538/2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.206/2010 Bhimrao Kadaji Taude. ...Applicant.. Appellant Versus The State of Maharashtra. ...Respondent... ..... Smt.R.R. Mane, Advocate for applicant - appellant. Shri K.B. Choudhary, APP for respondent. ..... CORAM: P.V. HARDAS & A.V. POTDAR , JJ. DATE: 02.09.2010 PER COURT : 1] This is an application filed by the applicant seeking suspension of the substantive sentence of imprisonment for life for an offence punishable u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and his enlargement on bail pending the decision of the present appeal. The applicant – accused stands convicted for an offence - 2 - punishable u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegations that the applicant had committed murder of one Chhaburao on 17.12.2008 at about 8-30 p.m. The prosecution relied upon the testimony of PW 1 Baburao, PW 5 Sanjay and PW 7 Pandurang as eye witnesses. The prosecution also relied upon the discovery of knife at the best of the applicant / accused. The trial Court, upon appreciation of evidence of the prosecution, found that PW 1 Baburao, PW 5 Sanjay and PW 7 Pandurang were reliable witnesses, whose testimony could be implicitly accepted and accordingly accepted the said testimony. The trial Court also came to the conclusion that the prosecution had been successful in establishing the discovery of knife at the behest of the applicant – accused, which knife was found stained with the blood matching with the blood group of the deceased Chhaburao. 2] Smt.R.R. Mane, learned counsel for the applicant, has urged before us that the evidence of PW 1 Baburao, PW 5 Sanjay and PW 7 Pandurang is not reliable and the trial Court ought to have discarded their evidence. It is urged before us that the evidence of these witnesses indicates that they had arrived at the scene of the offence after the incident was over. It is also urged before us that the discovery of knife is from an open place, which was accessible to all and, therefore, it can not be termed as a recovery u/s 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The learned counsel for the applicant also urged before us that the prosecution has utterly failed to establish motive of the applicant to have committed the crime and the prosecution has not examined the best evidence, which was available to the prosecution. - 3 - 3] The learned APP has opposed the grant of bail and the suspension of sentence on the ground that the evidence of three witnesses is reliable and the circumstantial evidence clinches the issue regarding the culpability of the present applicant. 4] The submissions advanced before us by the learned counsel appointed on behalf of the applicant pertain to re-appreciation of the evidence, which can not be done at this stage. Suffice it to state that the trial Court has found the evidence of the three eye witnesses to be reliable. The submissions, therefore, do not merit consideration at this stage. We accordingly dismiss this application. We quantify the fees payable to the learned counsel appointed on behalf of the applicant for arguing the present bail application at Rs.1500/- (rupees one thousand five hundred only). (A.V. Potdar , J.) (P.V. Hardas, J.) ndk/cr29104