Bombay High Court
Rameshwar S/O. Bhagwan Sonawane vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 February, 2022
Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Sandipkumar Chandrabhan More
{1}
crappln349319.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3493 OF 2019 IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 31 OF 2022
Rameshwar s/o Bhagwan Sonawane Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra Respondent
Mr. S. G. Bobade, advocate for the applicant.
Mr. S. S. Dande, APP for the Respondent.
CORAM : V.K.JADHAV AND
SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ.
DATE : 22nd February, 2022.
PC :
1 Heard Mr. Bobade, learned Counsel for the applicant
and Mr. Dande, learned A. P. P. for the Respondent-State.
2 The applicant i.e. original accused in Sessions Case
No. 148/2015 has fled this application for suspension of his
substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, in the aforesaid case vide
judgment and order dated 05.12.2018, during pendency of
Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2022.
{2}
crappln349319.odt
3 Learned Counsel for the applicant-accused submits
that the learned trial Court has convicted the applicant-accused
merely on the basis of suspicion and there is no direct evidence
against him. He further pointed out that the learned trial Court
has relied too much on the evidence of P. W. 3 i.e. minor son of
deceased Rohini, who had, in fact, categorically stated that on the
day of the incident i.e. on 14.04.2015, there was no quarrel
between the applicant and deceased Rohini after 1.00 p.m., except
the quarrel took place in the morning. Learned Counsel for the
applicant submits that the applicant, in the absence of any direct
evidence against him, needs to be released on bail after suspension
of his substantive sentence of imprisonment, during the pendency
of this appeal.
4 On the contrary, learned A. P. P. has strongly opposed
the application on the ground that there is strong circumstantial
evidence against the present applicant as regards commission of
murder of deceased Rohini. Further, the trial Court has
categorically mentioned the circumstances against the applicant
which indicate his guilt, such as motive to commit murder of the
deceased, recovery of incriminating articles from the spot of the
{3}
crappln349319.odt
incident, last seen together theory and death of deceased being
found homicidal. As such, learned A. P. P. prays for dismissal of
the application.
5 Admittedly, based on the circumstances, as pointed
out by the learned A. P. P. herein above, the learned trial Court has
convicted the applicant for the murder of wife of his brother.
Further, P. W. 3, who is the minor son of deceased Rohini, has
specifcally stated in his examination-in-chief that on the day of
the incident, the applicant had tried to set her mother on fre, but
somehow she had extinguished the same. P. W. 3 has further
stated that on the day of the incident at about 1.00 p. m,, his
father left house for his work. There was again quarrel between
the applicant and his mother. Thereafter when he went out of the
house for playing, he saw that the applicant had locked the door of
the house and went out hurriedly after some time. It is the case of
the prosecution that in the night, when husband of Rohii returned,
he found lock to the door of his house. He, therefore, could not
enter the house and when on the next day morning, he broke
opened the said lock, he found Rohini in dead condition with
various injuries on her person.
{4}
crappln349319.odt
6 Further, the medical evidence on record in the form of
post mortem report, clearly indicates that Rohini died due to
smothering and there were in all 22 injuries found on her person.
Moreover, some incriminating articles, such as shirt buttons, etc.,
were found on the spot of incident indicating presence of the
applicant there. Thus, though there is no direct ocular evidence
against the applicant, however, the aforesaid circumstances clearly
indicate guilt of the applicant-accused. During trial, the applicant
was under trial prisoner and was not released on bail.
7 Considering the prima facie involvement of the
applicant in the commission of crime, we are not inclined to
suspend his substantive sentence and to release him on bail,
during pendency of Criminal Appeal.
8 Hence, we pass the following order:
(i) Criminal Application is hereby dismissed.
(SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE) (V.K.JADHAV)
JUDGE JUDGE
adb
