AJN 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.23 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.10 OF 2009 Santosh Dnyanoba Tarte ... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent Mr. P.K. Waghmare i/b Mr. Harshad Bhadbhade for the applicant. Mr. Rajesh More, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM: MRS. RANJANA DESAI & MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED : 1ST FEBRUARY, 2010. P.C.:- 1. The applicant was tried in Sessions Case No.490 of 2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 302 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”). By judgment and order dated 28/11/2008, the trial court convicted the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and, in default, to suffer further RI for two months. The accused AJN 2 was also convicted under Section 341 of the IPC and is sentenced to suffer RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and, in default, to suffer further RI for one month. The trial court has ordered both the sentences to run concurrently. The applicant has been acquitted for the offence punishable under section 309 of the IPC. The appeal preferred by the applicant is admitted. This is an application for bail. 2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant. He submitted that out of the three eye- witnesses, two eye-witnesses have turned hostile. PW-1, the sole eye-witness who has deposed in favour of the prosecution is the brother of the deceased. Learned counsel submitted that the evidence of the brother of the deceased is not convincing. Learned counsel submitted that according to the prosecution, the deceased received injuries. She fell down. PW-1 did not try to apprehend the applicant. His conduct indicates that he is not a truthful witness. He should have made efforts to apprehend the AJN 3 applicant . Learned counsel further submitted that there are no blood stains on the clothes of the applicant. He submitted that though the incident took place at 8.00 a.m., the FIR was registered at about 7.30 p.m. Thus, there is delay in recording the FIR. Learned counsel submitted that the applicant has examined himself on oath. He has examined two witnesses in his favour. The defence of the applicant has not been properly appreciated. He submitted that in the circumstances, the applicant ought to be released on bail. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Shraddha was killed by the applicant by throwing a stone on her on 17/3/2007 at about 8.00 a.m. when she was going to attend her office. The case of the prosecution further is that the deceased and the applicant were having a love affair and as the deceased did not want to marry the applicant, the applicant killed her. 4. It is not possible for us to accept the submissions of AJN 4 learned counsel for the applicant. PW-1 is the brother of the deceased. He has no reason to falsely implicate the applicant. The presence of the applicant at the scene of the offence is admitted. The incident took place at 8.00 a.m. The FIR is registered at 7.30 p.m. In the circumstances of the case, we are not in a position to hold that there is inordinate delay in filing the FIR. Considering the fact that the deceased was taken to the hospital by PW-1, prima facie, we feel that the time taken to lodge the FIR cannot be termed as delay. PW-1's priority was obviously to attend to the deceased in the hospital. In our, prima facie, opinion, PW-1’s evidence inspires confidence. We also do not find anything unusual in PW-1 not running after the applicant to apprehend him. He did try to nab the applicant. But, he did not succeed and as the deceased had sustained serious injuries, he came back to her. In the circumstances, in our opinion, no case is made out for bail. Application for bail is rejected. [MRS. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.]