1 appa929.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.929 OF 2010 In CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.621 OF 2010 Aliullah @ Alikhan Einullah Khan : Applicant (Orig.Accused) V/s. The State of Maharashtra. : Respondent .... Ms Nasreen S.K. Ayubi for the applicant. Ms M.H. Mhatre, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. .... CORAM : D.D. SINHA & A.R.JOSHI,JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 14, 2010. P.C.: Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This is an application for bail. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in the instant case, though the prosecution has exmined two eye-witnesses, viz., P.W. 2 Mohd. Akhtar Mohd. Yehiya Khan and P.W.3 Shamim Akhtar Mohd. Amin Khan, their evidence is not 2 appa929.10 consistent with the medical evidence. It is contended that both these eye- witnesses in their respective testimony have given inconsistent version about the number of blows given by the accused. It is, therefore, contended that this inconsistency creates serious doubt about the genuineness of the prosecution case and it is not also supported by medical evidence. Hence, the accused is entitled to be released on bail. 3. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has submitted that the evidence of eye-witnesses is cogent, straightforward and corroborated by the medical evidence and, therefore, the trial Court was justified in convicting the accused. 4. Considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel. If the evidence of the eye-witnesses is otherwise cogent and consistent with the material particulars of the prosecution case and is also corroborated by the medical evidence, in such situation, minor inconsistency in respect of the number of blows, in our view, does not affect the credibility of the testimony of these witnesses. Consequently, no case is made out for grant of bail. 3 appa929.10 5. Criminal Application is rejected. (D.D. SINHA, J.) (A.R. JOSHI, J.)