( 1 ) cria678.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 678 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 75 OF 2011 Suma Hira Pawara .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr. A.S. Salve, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. K.G. Patil, A.P.P. for respondent/State. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & T.V. NALAWADE, JJ. DATED : 15.04.2011 P.C. :- 1. Heard. 2. The applicant was convicted and sentenced by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shahada in Sessions Case No.2 of 2009 for offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and other three accused persons for different offences. Initially four accused persons filed application bearing Criminal Application No. 845 of 2011 for bail. Applicant ( 2 ) cria678.11 No.1 therein, namely, Suma Hira Pawara, prayed for deletion of his name from the bail application. Accordingly, this Court granted leave to delete the applicant. The said application was considered for remaining three accused persons and considering the fact that they were awarded short sentence, their sentence was suspended and they were released on bail. 3. Present application is filed by applicant Suma Hira Pawara. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the prosecution examined four eye witnesses, out of which two were disbelieved by the Trial Court. Remaining two eye witnesses i.e. P.W.2 Rama, who is real brother of deceased Anil and P.W.10 Kalya, who happens to be related to the deceased, have exaggerated the incident and their version is not corroborated by the medical evidence. The prosecution alleges that the deceased died due to an axe blow which was given by the applicant on the head of the deceased. The incident happened on 29.08.2008 at 4.00 p.m. and the deceased died on 30.08.2008 at 12.00 p.m. The learned Counsel submitted that there is neither motive, nor ( 3 ) cria678.11 the applicant intended to commit the crime. It is further submitted that no such incident happened. Alternatively, it was submitted that the applicant would be at the most guilty of offence punishable under Section 304, Part II of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Learned A.P.P. submitted that there are eye witnesses in the case. They have deposed against the applicant. They have seen the incident, wherein the applicant assaulted with an axe on the head of the deceased. Due to said assault, deceased Rama succumbed to the injury. The medical evidence supports the version of the prosecution witnesses. The applicant was in jail during the Trial. A.P.P. prayed that the application be rejected. 5. For the purpose of consideration of bail application, we have perused the original record and proceedings. A strong prima facie case is made out by the prosecution. At this stage re-appreciation of evidence is not necessary. Two eye witnesses i.e. P.W.2 and P.W.10 have deposed against the applicant. According to them, applicant ( 4 ) cria678.11 Suma assaulted the deceased with an axe on his head, due to which the deceased died. The prosecution has come out with motive behind the crime. The applicant was in jail during Trial. Considering all these aspects of the matter, we are not inclined to release the applicant on bail. Hence, the application is rejected. 6. The record and proceedings be sent back to the Trial Court. 7. The Registrar (Judicial) to verify as to whether the English translation of depositions of P.W. 10 to P.W.13 are available on record and if they are not traced out, report be called from the Trial Court. [T.V. NALAWADE, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] snk/2011/MAR11/cria678.11