1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3408 OF 2010 Gangaram s/o Bhavaka Kedar ..Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra through Police Station Officer, Police Station, Rahuri, Taluka Rahuri, Dist.Ahmednagar ..Respondent Mr.S.G.Bobade, Advocate (appointed) for the applicant Mr.D.R.Kale, A.P.P. for respondent-State CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 26th October 2010 PER COURT : By this application the applicant/accused, who stands convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Sessions Case No.115 of 2009 seeks the suspension of the substantive sentence of imprisonment and his enlargement on bail pending the decision of the appeal. 2. The case against the applicant rests on circumstantial evidence. The trial Court at paragraph 24 of the judgment has enumerated the various circumstances, which were against the present applicant. One of the strongest circumstance established against the applicant/accused is that his wife was murdered in his house while the applicant was present. Witnesses state about the applicant and his wife returning back to their residence and thereafter the dead body was found with twenty-five injuries. The Medical Officer has opined the cause of death as neurogenic shock following several injuries. The applicant/accused has 2 taken a defence of denial and has made no attempts and explain as to how his wife had sustained twenty-five injuries while residing in the house. 3. Learned Counsel appointed on behalf of the applicant has urged before us that the evidence of the prosecution is full of infirmities in respect of the authorship of the injuries. It is also urged before us that none of the circumstance so established by the prosecution form a complete chain, which unquestionably points to the guilt of the accused. It is urged before us that the applicant is, therefore, entitled to be released on bail. We find in the judgment of the trial Court that the applicant was not on bail during trial. In these circumstances, therefore, we are not inclined to suspend the substantive sentence of imprisonment and enlarge the applicant on bail, as the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel on behalf of the applicant pertain to reappreciation of evidence, which cannot be done at this stage. Application is accordingly rejected. ( A.V. POTDAR, J.) ( P.V. HARDAS, J.) (vvr3408.10criappln)