1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4196 OF 2009 Narayan s/o Gangadhar Deshmukh ..APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ..RESPONDENT Smt. S.S. Jadhav, Advocate for the applicant; Mr K.J. Ghute Patil, A.P.P. for the respondent. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ. DATE : 20th January, 2010 ORAL ORDER (PER DAVARE, J.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant/accused requesting for suspension of substantive sentence awarded to him in Sessions Case No.150 of 2008 by learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna by way of judgment and order rendered on 30.11.2009 and also requesting for enlargement on bail during the pendency of the appeal. 2 3. It is the case of prosecution that the applicant married with deceased Sangeeta about four years back prior to the date of incident. It is alleged that she was subjected to cruelty for demand of money. Out of the said wedlock, they had no issue, hence there was grudge in the mind of the applicant. It is also alleged that on 8.8.2008 the victim Sangeeta along with her mother and sister-in-law was working in the field. The applicant/accused went there on motorcycle and took her on his motorcycle towards Chikhali. It is alleged that in the meanwhile he went to the house of one of the relatives of victim and thereafter he took meals at Dhaba. It is further alleged that the applicant carried the deceased in a jungle and committed her murder by hitting stone against her head and the other parts of the body. It is also alleged that the applicant concealed dead body in a ditch and covered it with stones. It is also the case of the prosecution that on the next day when the brother of the victim met him on the way of temple, the applicant pretended that his wife was abducted by some Gundas. It is further stated that victim's brother informed the parents of the deceased by going to their house about her missing. 4. It is further alleged that meanwhile on 10.8.2008 the accused himself went to the police station and gave confessional statement that he killed his wife and he was ready to point out the place where he had kept the dead body. It is further alleged that almost at the same time the mother, brother and other relatives of deceased went to concerned police 3 station to lodge the complaint where the applicant/accused allegedly gave extra-judicial confession before them about he commission of murder and keeping the dead body in the jungle. Accordingly, complaint came to be registered as well as memorandum statement made by the applicant/accused was recorded and applicant/accused led the police personnel and panchas to the spot where the dead body of victim was concealed under the stones and the same was recovered. Accordingly the brother of the deceased identified the dead body. Further, the applicant/accused also made the statement which was recorded as a memorandum and motorcycle was also recovered at the instance of the applicant. 5. The applicant/accused faced the trial for the offences punishable under section 302, 364 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and came to be convicted for the offence punishable under section 364 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for five years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, with default condition to undergo R.I. for six months and was also convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- with default condition to undergo R.I. for one year as well as he was convicted for the offence punishable under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for six months with default condition to undergo further R.I. for three months. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said judgment and order the 4 applicant/accused has preferred appeal which is pending and during the pendency of the appeal the applicant has preferred the present application for his enlargement on bail. 6. The learned Counsel for the applicant has urged that there is no direct evidence produced by the prosecution and the prosecution case rests on the circumstantial evidence and the chain of circumstantial evidence is not complete and the prosecution has failed to prove each and every circumstance against the applicant conclusively to establish nexus between the applicant and the guilt. It is further canvassed by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the evidence of last seen together i.e. the deposition of P.W.1 Godavari and P.W.2 Laxmibai as well as P.W. 6 Ankush i.e. the hotel keeper and P.W.4 Bhanudas does not corroborate with each other and it is a weak type of evidence and consequently the said testimonies do not connect the applicant with the crime. The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the evidence of last seen together is that the aforesaid witnesses saw the applicant and the victim on 8.8.2008 whereas the dead body was allegedly found on 10.8.2008 and the medical evidence in that respect allegedly produced by the prosecution is not in consonance with the same. 7. Learned A.P.P. opposed the present application vehemently and submitted that the prosecution has examined inasmuch as 13 witnesses to substantiate the charges levelled against the applicant herein and it is further submitted that the evidence of the witnesses of last seen together 5 is reliable and truthful and same has been accepted by the Trial Judge and it cannot be faulted with. It is further submitted that the dead body of victim was recovered at the instance of the applicant herein. It is further submitted by learned A.P.P. that although there is no direct evidence, the prosecution has produced circumstantial evidence and prosecution has proved each and every circumstance as well as chain of the said circumstances connects the applicant with the crime. 8. We have perused the record and proceedings which was made available to us for perusal purpose as well as we have heard the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties anxiously and considering the rival submissions it is apparently clear that submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the applicant requires the appreciation of evidence, which cannot be done at this stage. Having the comprehensive view of the matter, we are of the considered view that apparently there is prima facie case against the applicant and, therefore, we feel that this is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail during the pendency of the appeal and, therefore, present application deserves to be rejected and hence it is rejected accordingly. However, the hearing of the appeal is expedited. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) amj/criap4196.09