11.APPA.527.2026 1/5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO. 527 OF 2026 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 357 OF 2026 Devidas Pralhad Rathod (In Jail) Vs. State of Maharashtra, thr. PSO, PS Ner, Tah. Ner, Dist. Yavatmal ______________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders. Mr. P.K. Dahat, Advocate (Appointed) for the Appellant. Mr. Amit Chutke, APP for the Respondent/State. ------------------------------- CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND R AJ D. WAKODE , JJ. DATE : 18.08.2026 By this application, the appellant is seeking suspension of sentence and his release on bail. The appellant is convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, by the judgment dated 22.05.2026. 2. The appellant/accused is the husband of the deceased. As per the prosecution case, he was working at a brick kiln situated in the agricultural field of Shekhar Malani. There were disputes between the appellant and his wife. On account of the said dispute, the appellant assaulted the deceased on her head with the spade, thereby causing her death. On the basis of the report lodged in that regard, the police registered the crime. 3. The learned Trial Court recorded the evidence and, upon appreciating the same, held that the prosecution had succeeded in proving the guilt of the appellant/accused for having caused 11.APPA.527.2026 2/5 the homicidal death of the deceased. Accordingly, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the present appeal is preferred by the appellant along with an application seeking suspension of sentence and his release on bail. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, who invited our attention to the evidence of various witnesses and submitted that the evidence of the witnesses shows that none of them had seen the present appellant at the spot of the incident. He submitted that there is no material evidence against the present appellant; despite the same, the present appellant is convicted by the learned Trial Court. It is submitted that the appellant has an arguable case in the present appeal and, therefore, he may be released on bail by suspending the sentence. 6. Learned APP strongly opposed the said contention and submitted that the evidence of the eyewitnesses sufficiently establishes the guilt of the accused. Moreover, the accused and the deceased were residing together in the said house, and it was for the accused to explain the circumstances in view of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, which he has failed to do. Therefore, the judgment of the learned Trial Court is legal and proper. At this stage, there is no case for releasing the present appellant on bail by suspending the sentence. Re-appreciation of the evidence is not permissible at this stage and, therefore, the application deserves to be rejected. 11.APPA.527.2026 3/5 7. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the evidence on record, it reveals that the present appellant, along with the deceased, who was his wife, was residing in the agricultural field where a brick kiln was situated, and he was working there as a labourer. There were other labourers also working at the brick kiln in the said agricultural field. 8. The evidence of PW-2 – Pravin Rathod, who is a neighbour, shows that at about 9:30 p.m., he heard the commotion raised by the deceased. Therefore, he came out and saw the accused holding a spade in his hand. The evidence of Mahadev Shrawan Rangari, who acted as a panch witness, also supports the prosecution case. The other eyewitnesses have also supported the prosecution case. 9. The medical evidence of Dr. Sanjay Jadhao shows that he examined the deceased and found that she had sustained injuries on her forehead as well as on the parietal region of her head, caused by a hard and blunt object. The cause of death was opined to be the injuries sustained by the deceased on her head, which were sufficient in the ordinary course to cause her death. 10. Admittedly, re-appreciation of the evidence at this stage is not permissible. What is required to be looked into is whether the appellant has an arguable case and whether there is any likelihood of his acquittal if the appeal is finally heard. 11. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, it is admitted that the deceased and the accused were residing together. The deceased was found dead, and the accused was 11.APPA.527.2026 4/5 seen holding a spade in his hand. His blood-stained clothes were also recovered during the course of investigation. On the basis of the direct as well as circumstantial evidence, the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant. 12. At this stage, the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Omprakash Sahni Vs. Jai Shankar Chaudhary & Anr., in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1331-1332 of 2023, decided on 02.05.2023, are relevant, wherein it is observed in paragraph 33 as under: “33. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principles of law, the endeavour on the part of the Court, therefore, should be to see as to whether the case presented by the prosecution and accepted by the Trial Court can be said to be a case in which, ultimately the convict stands for fair chances of acquittal. If the answer to the above said question is to be in the affirmative, as a necessary corollary, we shall have to say that, if ultimately the convict appears to be entitled to have an acquittal at the hands of this Court, he should not be kept behind the bars for a pretty long time till the conclusion of the appeal, which usually take very long for decision and disposal. However, while undertaking the exercise to ascertain whether the convict has fair chances of acquittal, what is to be looked into is something palpable. To put it in other words, something which is very apparent or gross on the face of the record, on the basis of which, the Court can arrive at a prima facie satisfaction that the conviction may not be sustainable. The Appellate Court should not reappreciate the evidence at the stage of Section 389 of the CrPC and try to pick up few lacunas or loopholes here or there in the case of the prosecution. Such would not be a correct approach.” 13. Considering the aforesaid observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the present case, considering the evidence in the nature of eyewitnesses and circumstantial evidence, at this 11.APPA.527.2026 5/5 stage, we are not satisfied that there is any arguable case for the appellant to show that he has any chance of acquittal. In view of that, the application, being devoid of merits, is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, the application is rejected. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 357 OF 2026 14. Heard. 15. ADMIT. 16. Learned APP waives notice for the respondent/State. 17. Call for the record and proceedings. 18. The Office is directed to expedite the preparation of the paper book, considering that the appellant is in jail. The appeal be listed after preparation of the paper book. (RAJ D. WAKODE, J.) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) Vijaykumar Signed by: Mr. Vijay Kumar Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 19/08/2026 18:41:18