IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2366/2009 ( Ghanshyam Jagan Inwate vs. State of Mah.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---------------------------------------------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -------------------------------------------------------------- - -- CORAM : S.R.DONGAONKAR, J. DATE : 18 th JULY, 2009 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2367/2009 Heard Shri Karmarkar, Advocate, for the applicant. As the applicant is in jail, filing of affidavit is presently disposed with. The same be filed as and when directed by this Court. Application disposed of. CRIMININAL APPLICATION NO. 2368/2009 Heard Shri Karmarkar, Advocate, for the applicant. Filing of certified copy of the order is presently disposed with. The same be filed within 15 days. Application disposed of. CRIMININAL APPLICATION NO. 2366/2009 Heard Shri Karmarkar, Advocate, for the applicant and Shri Thakare, APP, for respondent State. The applicant is facing prosecution for the offence under Sections 302, 111 r/w Section 34 of the I.P.C. The alleged motive for commission of the murder of the deceased Hemraj Inwate as expressed by his wife is that there was suspicion that deceased was playing black magic and therefore, accused lost his father and son. There is no dispute that the death of the deceased was homicidal. The question is whether this applicant can be considered to be the offender to commit that offence. The evidence that is appearing against the applicant is that of extra-judicial confession made to the witness Sukhram Valke. On perusal of this statement recorded by the I.O, it appears that the applicant immediately after the incident had made that confessional statement. Thereafter the report was lodged, in which also this fact is mentioned. The prosecution further relies on the discovery of the instrument of the offence, made on the statement of the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant has tried to point out that the arrest of the applicant was latter than the discovery statement made by him and subsequent discovery to that effect. The sanctity of the alleged extra-judicial confession made by the applicant for basing conviction has to be decided at the time of trial. In this connection, the observations of the trial Court in AIR 2003 SC 3601 (State of Rajasthan vs. Rajaram) can be considered. In this view of the matter, at this stage, the application cannot be granted. The same is rejected. However, liberty to the applicant to move for bail if the trial does not commence with the period of three months from today. Learned trial Judge is directed to expedite the trial. Application disposed of. The above observations are in prima facie view of the matter and the same shall not influence the trial Judge in any way while deciding the matter on merits. JUDGE Rvjalit.