IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 742 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 375 OF 2010 ANIL MARUTI JADHAV .. .. APPLICANT VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. .. .. RESPONDENTS Mr. R. B. Deshmukh for the applicant. Mr. H. J. Dedhia, APP CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI & SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI,JJ. DATED: 30th June, 2010 P.C. The applicant is original accused 1 in Sessions Case No. 122 of 09. He was tried along with six others for offences punishable under Section 302, 379 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC"). By the impugned judgment and order the applicant has been convicted inter alia under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment. His appeal is admitted. This is an application for bail. 2. We have heard at considerable length learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP. 3. Learned counsel submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Counsel submitted that in fact the applicant was not in the field where the murder took place at the time of incident and he has been falsely involved. He submitted that photographs which are on record totally disprove the prosecution case that the deceased was run over by the tractor of the applicant. Counsel submitted that there are no tyre marks on the dead body or on the clothes of the deceased. There are no crush injuries on the deceased. Counsel submitted that the blood group of the blood found at the scene of the offence could not be identified. Counsel submitted that there are number of discrepancies in the evidence of witnesses and, therefore, this is a fit case where the applicant should be released on bail. 4. We are not impressed by any of the submissions of the learned counsel. We have been taken through the evidence of the father of the deceased who was at the relevant time in the field. The father has given a prima facie acceptable account of the incident in question. We have no reason at this stage to disbelieve the father because the father is unlikely to involve a stranger in the case of murder of his son. 5. We have seen the postmortem notes of the deceased. We notice that the deceased had suffered several injuries. PW 9 Dr. Martand Jori, who was attached to Medical Officer Primary Health Centre, Lasurne and who had done postmortem has categorically stated that abrasions on both sides of the body are possible, if a person lying on rough side of the road is run over by the wheel of the vehicle coming in contact. Doctor has further stated that “it is not necessary that tyre mark should impress on the body of the person, if run over below the vehicle”. 6. We must also note that PW 1 has stated that on the day of the incident he and the deceased saw one tractor on the east side of his field. Loading of sand was going on. The deceased, therefore, told the applicant not to carry the sand through their land. He obstructed the applicant’s truck and then the incident occurred. This version is supported by the evidence of PW 12 API Jadhav, who has said that prior to the incident in question the applicant was caught while collecting sand without permission. He was directed to pay penalty. PW 12 has produced original receipt of payment of penalty which is at Exh. 55. This lends support to the prosecution case. 7. In the face of the eye-witness account of the father and in the face of the above stated doctor's evidence, it is not possible for us to hold that the applicant is not guilty of the murder of the deceased. Prima facie, we are of the view that he is guilty of murder. Therefore, this is not a case where bail could be granted. Application is dismissed. (SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.) (SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)