:1: :1: :1: HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 8 OF 2008. IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1204 OF 2007. Sadhu @ Brijmohan Yadav. ..Applicant. Versus. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents. --- Mr. K. S. Patil for the applicant. Mr. A. R. Patil APP for the State. CORAM: S. B. MHASE & CORAM: S. B. MHASE & CORAM: S. B. MHASE & SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. DATE: February 28, 2008. DATE: February 28, 2008. DATE: February 28, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard. This is application for bail. The applicant has been convicted for an offence punishable under section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer R.I. for six months. Even the applicant was charged with the offences punishable under sections 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC, he was acquitted for the same. In fact the charge sheet has been filed as against the present applicant only and three other accused persons have been shown absconding and till date there is no trial of the absconding accused. 2. In all there are three eye-witnesses, namely, Pw.1, Pw.2 and Pw.3. Their evidence is one and the same. The incident has taken place on account of throwing of water on the road by Sadhu. The witness has deposed that the deceased Guddu was saying to accused Sadhu not to drop water on the road. When there was shouts of quarrel :2: :2: :2: between Guddu and accused this witness came out of the house and they saw Sadhu armed with the iron pipe while accused Chabilal was armed with iron rod. Guddu was assaulted over his head and when these witnesses started intervening in the quarrel accused ran away. Guddu sustained bleeding injuries over his head and ultimately he succumbed to the death. The medical evidence of Dr. Ashok shows that there are several injuries on the person of the deceased Gudu, however injury no.1, i.e., CLW over left parietal region oblique in direction from upward to downward on posterior direction area 8cm.x 1cm. x bony deep, is responsible for the death. The other injuries are not that serious and not possible for causing the death of deceased. The evidence led by the prosecution prima facie fails to establish as to who has caused injury no.1 to the deceased. It is equally possible that the absconding accused may have caused the fatal injury. There is no positive evidence on record to show that the present applicant has caused the injury no.1. Therefore, we find that this is a case for grant of bail. Moreover it is an admitted fact that during the trial the applicant was on bail. Therefore the application is allowed. Sentence imposed on the applicant is suspended. Applicant be released on a bail of Rs.10,000/- with a like surety till the final disposal of the appeal. (SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) :3: :3: :3: /2008/VKT/..