Bombay High Court
Rajkumar @ Bandu S/O Sahadeo ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. The ... on 11 April, 2022
Bench: V.M. Deshpande, Amit B. Borkar
1 4 appa431.21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO.431 OF 2021 IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.317 OF 2021
Rajkumar alias Bandu s/o Sahadeo Selokar Vs. The State of Maharashtra
_______________________________________________________________________
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.
Shri P.H. Khobragade, Advocate for applicant.
Shri T.A.Mirza, APP for respondent/State.
CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE AND
AMIT BORKAR, JJ.
DATE : 11th APRIL, 2022.
This is an application under Section 389 of the
Criminal Procedure Code for suspension of substantive jail
sentence and for grant of bail.
2. The applicant stands convicted for the offence
under Sections 302, 307 and 450 of the Indian Penal Code in
Sessions Trial No.14 of 2017 by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Bhandara on 16.07.2019 and is directed to
suffer imprisonment for life under Section 302,
imprisonment for 10 years under Section 307 and
imprisonment for 2 years under Section 450 of the IPC.
Learned Judge directed that all the sentences shall run
concurrently.
3. This appeal was filed through Advocate,
appointed by the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee,
2 4 appa431.21.odt
Nagpur, Shri P.H. Khobragade. This appeal was admitted on
04.08.2021 and it was directed that this application will be
considered after receipt of the record and proceedings.
4. Today, the application is listed for consideration
of suspension of substantive jail sentence and for grant of
bail along with record.
5. Shri P.H. Khobgragade, learned counsel for the
applicant submitted that evidence of PW5-Sanjana Selokar
needs to be discarded because she did not shout though she
claimed that she is a witness of assault on her grandmother
and grandfather. He also submitted that insofar as PW6-
Dinesh, he is a chance witness being the neighbour.
Therefore, he submitted that appellant be released on bail.
6. Per contra, Shri T.A. Mirza, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the application and
relied upon the evidence of PW1-Shivshankar, PW5-Sanjana
and PW6-Dinesh, who are the eye witness. He submitted that
apart from the eye witness, PW1-Shivshankar himself is an
injured witness. He, therefore, submitted that the learned
Judge of the Court below has found that their evidence is
trustworthy and passed judgment in accordance with law.
7. PW9 is Dr. Ashish Jaishankar Chindhalore. His
evidence would show that on 17.11.2016 two injured were
brought to the Sub-District Hospital, Tumsar, District
3 4 appa431.21.odt
Bhandara. They were Laxmi Selorkar and Shivshankar
Selokar. On examination he found following injuries on the
person of Shivshankar Selorkar:
"(i) Lacerated would on his left shoulder of size 2 x2
cm, fresh in nature.
(ii) Incised wound with dislocation, query fracture left
side of his shoulder, which was in oval shape
and/direction, having sharp margins two in numbers
of size 3 x 2 cm each, fresh in nature.
(iii) Incised wound of back side of his neck of size 5 x
1 x 1 x 1 c.m. in deep,fresh in nature and
(iv) left ear, totally crushed, fresh in nature"
8. He also found following injuries on the body of
Laxmibai Seolkar :
"(i) Incised wound over left fronto paretal region in
oval shape, sharp margin, vertical direction of size 8 x
2 x 2.05 c.m. deep, fresh in nature.
(ii) Incised wound left side of face below left eye,
oval shape, sharp margin, vertical in direction of size
6 x 2 x 2 c.m. deep, fresh in nature and
(iii) Fracture and incised wound over left fore-arm of
size 5 x 2 21 c.m in deep, fresh in nature"
4 4 appa431.21.odt
9. Laxmibai died due to injuries and post mortem
conducted was by PW10-Dr. Pradip Kartarchand Anand. He
found following injuries:
"(i) Incised wound on left cheek of size 3 x 1/2
(half) inch, deep upto oral cavity
(ii) Incised wound on left parietal region of size 3 x
1/2 (half), with facture skull bone and
(iii) Incised wound near left wrist joint of size 1 x
half x half inch"
He(PW10) proved the post mortem report
(Exh.58)
10. The first information report is lodged by injured
witness Shivshankar himself. The appellant is his real
brother. He has vividly described the assault on him and his
wife deceased Laxmibai. Prosecution has also examined
Sanjana, a child witness, who is a granddaughter of deceased
and injured. At this stage, insofar as appreciation of these
prosecution witnesses, in our view, does not require a very
detailed comment since it will prejudice to the appellant at
the time of final hearing. Suffice it to say, her evidence
would show that at the relevant time she was sleeping along
with granddaughter and at that time she noticed the
5 4 appa431.21.odt
appellant to whom she described as father of Lokya,
assaulting on her grandmother and grandfather. PW6-
Diensh's evidence, who is neighbour also corroborates the
evidence of Shivshankar and Sanjana.
11. In view of the fact that there are three eye
witnesses, who have unequivocally stated the role of the
present applicant as an assailant who has assaulted on
Shivshankar (PW1) and Laxmibai (the deceased), in our
view, this is not a case wherein the Court should exercise its
powers to suspend the substantive jail sentence and grant
bail. Resultantly, we pass the following order:
ORDER
i. The application is rejected.
ii. Shri Prashant H. Khobragade, who is appointed to
represent the applicant through High Court Legal Services
Sub-Committee, Nagpur is entitled for his professional
charges for drafting and arguing this application and we
quantify it at ₹3,500/-.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wagh
Signed By:SURESH RAOSAHEB
WAGH
Personal Assistant
to the Hon'ble Judge
Signing Date:12.04.2022 17:02
