(1) Criminal Application No. 3583 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Criminal Application No. 3583 of 2011 Rahul Uttam Kharat, Age : 21 years, Occupation : Education, R/o. Nandapur, Taluka & District : Jalna. .. Applicant. versus The State of Maharashtra. .. Respondent. ....................... Mr. Joydeep Chatterji, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. B.V. Wagh, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondent. ........................ CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE : 30TH AUGUST 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Perused the investigation papers which were made (2) Criminal Application No. 3583 of 2011 available for inspection purpose, as well as, heard learned respective Counsel for the parties, finally. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No. 114/2011, registered at Taluka Police Station, Jalna, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 323, 504, 447, read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 3. It appears that the offence has been registered on the basis of the complaint lodged by one Rekha wd/o. Babasaheb Kharat, on 16-4-2011, in respect of occurrence of the incident at 16.00 hours on the same day. It is alleged that the victim, namely, Babasaheb i.e. husband of the complainant was a deaf and dumb person since birth. It is alleged that there used to be some petty quarrels between complainant party and applicant party on the count of using the field of deceased Babasaheb for going towards the land of the applicant party. It is further alleged that at the time of incident, the applicant and co-accused started proceeding from the land of deceased Babasaheb and he refused the applicant to proceed from his field by raising his hand. Thereupon, the applicant assaulted deceased Babasaheb by stick. Hence, when the complainant, one Anita and Mukinda seen the assault, the complainant herself, her parents in law and sister-in- (3) Criminal Application No. 3583 of 2011 law intervened in the said assault, but the applicant herein assaulted the victim by stick on his head, whereas co-accused Sukhdeo assaulted the victim by fist blows and kick blows on his chest and stomach, and thereby victim fell on the ground and expired. 4. Learned Counsel for the applicant has canvassed that the applicant gave a solitary single blow to the victim and the incident occurred suddenly, and there was no intention of the applicant to kill the victim. It is also canvassed that the applicant is a student and he is in jail since 17th April 2011, and if he is not enlarged on bail, his career would be ruined. It is further submitted that the co-accused Sukhdeo has been granted bail. Moreover, investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed, and hence, it is canvassed that there is no propriety in keeping the applicant in custody furthermore, and therefore, urged that he be released on bail. 5. Learned APP for the respondent has opposed the present application vehemently and submitted that the applicant assaulted the victim by stick and gave blow thereof on his head i.e. vital part of the body, and accordingly, the victim succumbed to the said injuries. It is also canvassed that there are four eye witnesses to the occurrence of the incident and the weapon i.e. (4) Criminal Application No. 3583 of 2011 stick has been recovered at the instance of the applicant under discovery panchanama under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It is further submitted that the post mortem report discloses that the victim sustained severe injuries on the vital part of the body and his death occurred due to the head injuries. It is further submitted that the victim Babasaheb was a deaf and dumb person who was murdered by the applicant intentionally, and the present case is under Section 302 of IPC, and therefore, submitted that the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail, and urged that the present application be rejected. 6. On perusal of the investigation papers and after considering rival submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the victim Babasaheb was a dead and dumb person who was assaulted by the applicant and co-accused Sukhdeo severally and name of the applicant has been reflected in the FIR, and specific role has been attributed to him, that during occurrence of the incident, the applicant herein assaulted victim Babasaheb by stick and more particularly, gave blow thereof on the head of victim Babasaheb. The post mortem note discloses that on internal examination, it is found that scalp hematoma was present over left parietal temporal region and there was fracture of frontal bone, left side with depressed fracture, and there was subdural hematoma present, and the cause (5) Criminal Application No. 3583 of 2011 of death of the victim is given as death due to head injury. Accordingly, it is apparent that the applicant inflicted blow of stick on the vital part of the body of victim, which apparently reflects intention of the applicant to commit murder of the victim Babasaheb. Moreover, it is also material to note that the death of the victim was instantaneous death, who expired on the spot and the said aspect also speaks volumes for itself, and apparently, reflects intention and knowledge of the applicant herein. 7. Besides, there are four eye witnesses to the occurrence of the incident, namely, Samadhan Kharat i.e. neighbourer; Baburao i.e. father of the victim; Mukinda, brother of the victim; and Ahilyabai, mother of the victim, who witnessed occurrence of the incident. Hence, there is strong prima facie evidence against the applicant, and therefore, although investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed, it is not desirable to enlarge the applicant on bail, and hence, I am not inclined to accept the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the applicant, since the punishment attracted to the offence is capital punishment or life imprisonment. 8. In the result, present Criminal Application bears no substance and same is devoid of any merits, and therefore, same stands dismissed, and present Application stands disposed of (6) Criminal Application No. 3583 of 2011 finally. 9. However, it is made clear that the above observations are prima facie in nature, and same shall be restricted to this order only and shall not be used in any other matter while deciding it on merits. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/ka3583