Bombay High Court
Sahil @ Guddu Afsar Shaikh vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 November, 2022
Bench: R. G. Avachat, R. M. Joshi
903.Appln.2225.2022.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2225 OF 2022
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 623 OF 2022
Sahil @ Guddu Afsar Shaikh ...Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
...
Mr. Satej S. Jadhav, Advocate for the Applicant/Appellant.
Mr. R.V. Dasalkar, APP for Respondent-State.
...
CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT &
R.M. JOSHI, JJ
DATE : NOVEMBER 22, 2022.
ORDER (PER R.M. JOSHI, J)
1. Applicant/convicted accused by this Application is seeking
suspension of substantive sentence of life imprisonment recorded against
him by the judgment dated 16th April, 2022 passed in Sessions Case no. 132
of 2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian
Penal Code, 1860, during pendency of appeal.
2. Learned Advocate for the Applicant submitted that there is no
evidence in order to show that it was the Applicant who has committed
murder of the deceased. According to him, evidence of Suhana - PW 6 at
the most indicates that there was relationship between her and deceased
and her evidence to the effect she having seen accused taking bath at 02.00
am on 10.10.2015, is not conclusive proof that offence in question being
committed by the accused. It is submitted that last seen theory does not
903.Appln.2225.2022.doc
assume importance as accused and deceased were friends with no dispute or
quarrel between them. It is, therefore, submitted that Applicant has bright
chances of success in the present Appeal and hence, during the pendency of
Appeal he may be enlarged on bail.
3. Learned APP opposed contentions by submitting that there is
evidence of accused being seen in the company of deceased and thereafter
deceased was not seen alive by anyone else. It is submitted that affair
between the wife of accused and deceased was sufficient motive for accused
to kill deceased. According to him, learned trial Court after considering
evidence on record has rightly concluded about proof of guilt of the accused
and hence, it is not a fit case where substantive sentence can be suspended.
4. Prima facie perusal of material on record shows that on
10.10.2015 deceased, who is a cleaner on a truck, came to the village and
met accused at his pan shop at 02.30 pm and was also found there at 08.00
pm. This indicates that deceased was frequent visitor to shop of accused and
his presence there was not unusual. Suhana - PW 6, wife of the accused,
though admitted her affair with the deceased and also deposed about she
having seen accused taking bath at 02.00 am., this evidence does not take
case of prosecution further beyond creating suspicion against accused. It is
admitted by witnesses that accused and deceased were friends with no
incident of quarrel having occurred between them. At this stage, there
903.Appln.2225.2022.doc
appears substance in the contention of the learned Advocate for the
Applicant that at the most evidence on record would indicate strong
suspicion against accused which cannot take place of proof.
5. Considering the pendency of the Appeals, this Appeal is not
likely to see day of light in near future and hence, on the basis of prima
facie appreciation of evidence on record, this Court finds it fit to suspend
sentence pending appeal. We are, therefore, inclined to allow the
application as under:-
ORDER
(i) Criminal application is allowed in terms of prayer clause 'B'.
(ii) Pending the appeal, the substantive sentence of imprisonment
imposed by the trial Court is suspended. The applicant be
released on bail on his executing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.
15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) with one surety in the
like amount.
(iii) Bail before the trial Court.
(R.M. JOSHI, J.) (R.G. AVACHAT, J.)
Malani
