Bombay High Court
Umesh Kaduba Gawali And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 August, 2024
1 1criappln3284.24
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
1 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3284 OF 2024
IN APEAL/485/2024
UMESH KADUBA GAWALI AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
...
Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Ghanekar Nilesh S.
APP for Respondents/State : Mr. K.K.Naik
...
CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J.
DATE : 28th AUGUST, 2024.
PER COURT :
1. Heard the parties.
2. This application is for suspension of substantive
sentence imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Vaijapur, District Aurangabad in Session Case No. 36 of 2017,
for the offences punishable under Sections 304 (II) read with 34
of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer Rigorous
Imprisonment for 7 years and to fine of rs. 2,000/- each, in
default to suffer S.I. for three months.
3. The learned Advocate for the appellant argued that
the appellants were on bail during the trial and they have
2 1criappln3284.24
undergone 4 months and 7 days imprisonment during the trial.
Thereafter, from the date of judgment i.e. from 21.02.2024,
they are again in the custody. Thus, they have sufferred more
than 10 months imprisonment as of now. There is no direct
evidence to connect the applicants to the incident, except that
these applicants are identified by the deceased. There is no
other material to connect them with the alleged incident. Even
the evidence of PW-3 did not specify the role of any of these
applicants. As such there is no recovery of weapon from them.
He further submits that infact from the evidence of PW-3 it is
clear that applicant No. 3 was present in the hospital, which
clearly shows that it was these applicants who have infact
brought the deceased to the hospital. It is further clear that
there was a mob gathered and that mob was beating the
deceased. There is no one made accused from the above mob,
who were gathered except these three applicants, against whom
the offence came to be registered.
4. If the applicants alleged to have beaten and
assaulted the deceased, they would certainly not have brought
the deceased to hospital. Bringing the deceased to the hospital
by the these applicants itself shows that they are innocent. In
3 1criappln3284.24
view of the same, the learned Advocate for the applicants prays
for suspension of substantive sentence.
5. The applicants have already deposited the fine
amount.
6. Learned APP vehemently opposed the application
stating that the offences are serious one. One person has lost
his life in the incident. The deceased has identified all these
persons/applicants and there is material against them to
connect them to the alleged incident. He thus, opposed the
application.
7. Considering that there is a ground to believe that
these applicants are implicated only because they are identified
by the deceased in the hospital. Secondly, sentence appears to
be of 7 years and the appeal is not likely to be heard in the near
future and the fact that the fine amount is already deposited
and the applicants were on bail during trial. Hence this Court
is inclined to pass following order :
ORDER
(i) The application stands allowed and disposed
off.
4 1criappln3284.24
(ii) The applicants Umesh s/o Kaduba Gawali,
Tarachand s/o Balchand Gawali and Arjun s/o
Bhavrao Gawali are released on bail. The
substantive sentence imposed on the applicants by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vaijapur, in
Session Case No. 36 of 2017 for the offences
punishable under Sections 304 (II) read with 34 of
the Indian Penal Code stand suspended.
(iii) The applicants shall be released on bail on
furnishing their PR bonds in the sum of Rs.
15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Thousand Only) each & on
furnishing a solvent surety in the like amount on
following condition :
(a) The applicants shall report the concerned
Police Station on first Sunday of every
month till disposal of appeal.
( KISHORE C. SANT )
JUDGE
mahajansb/
