1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1111 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1040 OF 2008 1. Ananda Shinganappa Honmane 2. Shalan Ananda Honmane .....Applicants. (Orig. Accused ) V/s State of Maharashtra C.R. No.37/2007 Registered at Chinchani Wangi Police Station, Dist. Sangli ...... Respondent. ------ Mr. Umesh Mankapure for the applicants. Mr. D.P. Adsule, APP for the State. ------ CORAM: V.M. KANADE, J. DATE: 6th October, 2008 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants and the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State. 2. Applicant No.1 has been convicted by the Trial Court for an offence punishable under section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years. Applicant No.2 is convicted for an offence punishable under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 six months. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that the applicants, alongwith their son Ashok, assaulted the deceased, as a result of which deceased Bhagwan succumbed to his injuries and died. Prosecution case is that the applicant No.1 inflicted a blow on the head of the deceased Bhagwan with an axe, Ashok assaulted the deceased on his head with a stick and the applicant No.2 assaulted him with a brick. Prosecution has examined two eye witnesses who have corroborated the story of the complainant. The medical evidence also supports the prosecution case. 4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submitted that the doctor who was examined by the prosecution in support of its case has stated that the injury mentioned in column No.17 was not possible with the axe which was produced by the prosecution. The learned Counsel, therefore, submitted that the deceased had not died on account of injury inflicted by applicant No.1. The learned Counsel for the applicants invited my attention to the deposition of P.W. 1 – Swati Bhagwan Vhanmane who has stated that the applicant No.1 went to his house and brought an axe and he inflicted a blow of axe, whereas Ashok inflicted a blow of stick on the head of her husband. It is, therefore, submitted that the injury must have been caused by the blow given by Ashok with his stick and not by the blow given by the applicant No.1 with an axe. The learned Counsel submitted that the applicant No.1 is 65 years of age and that the deceased was taken to the hospital on the next day at 10 O'clock. Had the P. W. 1 taken the deceased immediately to the hospital, he 3 would have been survived. 5. So far as applicant No.2 is concerned, she was on bail during trial. Applicant No.2, therefore, is directed to be released on bail in the sum of Rs 5000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. 6. However, so far as applicant No.1 is concerned, in my view, no case is made out for grant of bail. Two eye witnesses have stated that the applicant No.1 inflicted an axe blow on the head of the deceased. Doctor has also given his opinion that the cause of death was as a result of incised wound No.17 as mentioned in the postmortem notes which was an injury on the back of the head. Under these circumstances, no case is made out for grant of bail so far as applicant No.1 is concerned. His application for bail is rejected. Liberty, however, is granted to applicant No.1 to apply for bail if the appeal is not heard within reasonable period of time. 7. Application is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.)