Bombay High Court
Ali. Mohd. Subrati Khan vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 February, 2022
Bench: S.S. Shinde, N. R. Borkar
Digitally signed
LAXMIKANT by LAXMIKANT
GOPAL
GOPAL CHANDAN
CHANDAN Date: 2022.02.09 cri.IA-118.22.odt
12:01:53 +0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL INTERIM APPLICATION NO.118 OF 2022
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.784 OF 2015
Ali Mohd. Subrati Khan : Applicant.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra : Respondent.
Ms. Anjali Patil for the Applicant/Appelant.
Mr. Y M Nakhwa, APP for the Respondent/State.
CORAM : S. S. SHINDE,
N. R. BORKAR, JJ
Reserved on : 31st JANUARY 2022
Pronounced on : 09th February 2022
P. C.
1 This is an Interim Application filed by the Applicant, who is
original Accused No.2, for suspension of sentence and bail during the pendency
of Criminal Appeal No.784 of 2015, which has been filed by him against his
conviction.
2 The Applicant/Appellant is convicted for the offence punishable
under Section 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer
imprisonment for life and, he is also convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 506-II of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R. I. for seven
years. The Applicant was arrested on 08/12/2013 and since then he is in jail.
lgc 1 of 5
cri.IA-118.22.odt
3 The learned counsel appearing for the Applicant submits that, the
evidence of Prosecutrix suffers from omissions, contradictions and,
improvements. In support of the said contention, she invites our attention to
the deposition of P.W. No.1. The learned counsel also invites our attention to
the deposition of other prosecution witnesses and submitted that there is every
chance of acquittal of Applicant/Appellant, and therefore, he may be enlarged
on bail. She further submits that, on medical ground also the Application
deserves to be allowed. She invites our attention to the medical papers
received from Jail Authority so also the grounds taken in the Application for
suspension of sentence and bail, and humbly prays that the Application may be
allowed.
4 Per contra, the learned APP appearing for the Respondent/State,
invites attention of this Court to the findings recorded by the Trial Court, the
notes of evidence, and in particular the Chemical Analysis Report and submits
that, the Applicant/Appellant has committed serious offence not individual in
nature but against the Society, and therefore, the Application may be rejected.
5 We have given due consideration to the rival submissions, notes of
evidence so also the medical papers and, we are of the opinion that the
Application does not deserve consideration for the brief discussion appearing
herein below.
lgc 2 of 5
cri.IA-118.22.odt
Firstly, the offences committed by the Applicant with Co-Accused
are very serious in nature and have great impact upon the Society. Secondly,
the evidence brought on record by the prosecution is clinching showing clear
involvement of the Accused in commission of serious offences. Thirdly, there is
reliable evidence of the prosecution witnesses including prosecutrix and expert
witnesses. Fourthly, the crime was registered with promptitude and, the
Accused were apprehended on the same day. Therefore, possibility of
concoction of witnesses is ruled out.
6 Importantly, the Trial Court, upon appreciation of prosecution
evidence, and in particular Chemical Analysis Report, in Paragraph-27 of the
the impugned judgment held as under :-
"27 In Exhibit - 10 comparative charge of examination of
the samples seized, in which articles at No.2 to 7 are the
clothes of victim. Articles Nos.8 & 9 are the clothes of
accused no.2, Articles no.10, 11 and 12 are the clothes
of accused no.1, is given. In the same Articles no. 5 and
6 i.e. nicker and paijama of the victim are found with
semen stain. The `ABO' group of semen of Article -5 is
`B' which is of the accused no.2. The same is also found
at Article - 8 i.e. pants of accused no.2. The semen is
found on A. Considering the chemical analysis report
the blood group of accused no. 2 is clearly found on the
clothes of the victim, detected in semen. However, there
lgc 3 of 5
cri.IA-118.22.odt
is no clear report in respect of the presence of blood
group `O' i.e. of accused No.1."
7 We have seen the medical paper sent by Jail Authority. It clearly
reveals that proper treatment is being given to the Applicant/Appellant.
However, we direct the Jail Authority to once again take the
Applicant/Appellant in government hospital for complete check up within one
week from today, and give him the best treatment as per medical advise of
expert.
8 We do not wish to elaborate further reasons on merits, since the
Appeal filed by the Applicant/Appellant is pending for final hearing. For the
aforesaid reasons we are not inclined to entertain the Application, hence the
same stands rejected.
9 The aforesaid observations are made only for the purpose of
adjudication of the present Application.
10 We direct the Registry to list the aforesaid Criminal Appeal No.784
of 2015 along with Criminal Appeal No.110 of 2016 for hearing on 08 th March
2022.
11 The concerned Jail Authority shall send a report of compliance of
lgc 4 of 5
cri.IA-118.22.odt
directions contained in Paragraph 7 herein above on or before 25 th February
2022 to the learned APP appearing for the Respondent/State and also to the
Criminal Branch of the Registry of this Court.
[N. R. BORKAR, J] [S. S. SHINDE , J]
lgc 5 of 5
