Cri-Apln-1927-2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1927 OF 2026 IN APEAL/376/2026 Syed Azim Syed Aref, Age: 24 years, Occ: Labour R/o: Near Balak Mandir, School, Aurangabad … APPLICANT VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Jafar Khan s/o Javed Khan Age: 35 years, Occ: Labour, R/o. Hayat Heights, Manzoorpura, Aurangabad … RESPONDENTS .… Mr. Nilesh S. Ghanekar, Advocate for Applicant Ms Chaitali Chaudhari - Kutti, APP for Respondent No.1 - State Ms Deepali S. Patil - Yenegure, Advocate (Appointed) for Respondent No.2 .… CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. RESERVED ON PRONOUNCED ON : : 21 September, 2026 22 September, 2026 O R D E R :- 1. Present application is for suspension of sentence and grant of bail as a result of conviction recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No. 21 of 2024 convicting applicant for offence under Sections 326, 323 of I.P.C. 1 of 4 2026:BHC-AUG:42921 (( 2 )) Cri-Apln-1927-2026 2. Learned Counsel apprise the Court about the prosecution case in trial Court and would submit that there is false implication due to rivalry in the backdrop of some financial transaction and their admission to that extent in the cross. He would submit that case of prosecution is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. According to him, there is scene of procurance is not proved by prosecution. That, medical expert quotes distinct place than that was deposed by complainant. That, spot according to prosecution is distinct than the one which has been deposed by injured complainant. According to him, even there was no blood stains at the scene of occurrence. He pointed out that even independent witness has not supported the prosecution. He would submit that though background of the incidence was parking vehicle, he would submit that from prosecution evidence itself emerging that vehicle could not reach at the spot. According to him, there are several major lacunas in the prosecution case, but the same are not correctly appreciated by the trial Court which needs to be raised in appeal and they are being grounds in the appeal, relief of suspension of sentence and grant of bail is urged for. 3. While opposing the relief, learned APP pointed out that minor account, like parking vehicle, there is use of deadly weapon of 2 of 4 (( 3 )) Cri-Apln-1927-2026 knife. That, injured complainant has lost his one eye completely. There is recovery of knife. As sole testimony of injured complainant was inspiring confidence, according to her, learned trial Court committed no error in convicting the applicant. Learned counsel for complainant also opposed on similar grounds i.e. sole testimony of injured complainant inspiring confidence and there is to be recovery of knife of the incidence. 4. Perused the papers. Case of prosecution seems to be rested on evidence as many as eight witnesses. Crucial evidence is of injured and medical expert. In his testimony, PW-1 deposed that, on 31.10.2023, when he was near Balak Mandir School in front of a dairy, he was questioned by accused for parking vehicle and the quarrel followed assault wherein there was use of knife which was alleged hit on the left eye as well as back. Medical Expert PW-5 has been examined by prosecution. This expert had identified knife and deposed about injury to be possible by the same. Therefore, here there is injured witness account finding support from medical evidence. Recovery of knife is said to be proved from the accused. Injured is said to be left permanently partially brief having lost one 3 of 4 (( 4 )) Cri-Apln-1927-2026 eye. Therefore, taking the nature of accusations which are proved, this Court does not find it a fit case to consider the same. Hence, following order:- O R D E R (i) Criminal application is rejected. (ii) Fees of learned counsel Ms. Deepali S. Patil - Yenegure, appointed for respondent No.2, be paid by the High Court Legal Services Sub-Comittee, Aurangabad, as per Rules. [ ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. ] SMS 4 of 4