(1) 25.appa.261.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO.261 OF 2026 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.164 OF 2026 Jaggu Magaram Pawar and others Vs. The State of Maharashtra through Police Station, Ner, District Yavatmal and another -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Sudhir H. Tayade, Advocate for applicants/appellants. Ms. H. N. Jaipurkar, APP for respondent No.1. Ms. Neerja G. Chaubey, Advocate (appointed) for respondent No.2. CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ. DATED : 18/08/2026 1. By this application, the applicants/appellants are seeking suspension of sentence and releasing them on bail. 2. The applicants/appellants are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. The appellants are also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year. As per the prosecution’s case, the accused are residents of Zombadi Pardhibeda, Taluka Ner, District Yavatmal, whereas the informant Dinesh Rathod and deceased Gokul Rathod were the residents of village Zombadi. The deceased was the nephew of the informant. It is 2026:BHC-NAG:10761-DB (2) 25.appa.261.2026 alleged that on the day of incident i.e. on 06.10.2022, at around 03.00 p.m., the deceased carried the cattles of his employer Vitthal Naik and his own she-goats for grazing at the barren agricultural land of his employer. It was raining at the relevant time. Around 05.30 p.m., the cattles entered into the land of the accused No.1, which was situated nearby, therefore, the accused No.3 caught hold the deceased, whereas the accused No.1 assaulted the deceased with a stone and the accused No.2 assaulted him with a stick. The deceased has sustained as many as 13 injuries on his person and succumbed to the death. As per the chargesheet, accused No.1 is Jaggu Magaram Pawar, accused No.2 is Akash Jaggu Pawar and accused No.3 is Smt. Puneshahi Jaggu Pawar. As per the allegation of the prosecution, the accused Nos.1 to 3, in furtherance of their common intention, as the cattles were entered into the field of the accused No.1, assaulted the deceased and caused him injuries and after the incident to screen themselves from the punishment, attempted to set the deceased on fire, therefore, the deceased has sustained burn injuries also. On the basis of the said report, police have registered the crime against the present accused persons. 3. To prove the charge against the accused persons, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses. After appreciating the evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion that there is a direct evidence in the nature of the evidence of PW-2, who is the eye witness to this incident and the prosecution has proved the charge against the accused with the help of direct as well as medical evidence and thereby convicted the appellants/accused as aforestated. (3) 25.appa.261.2026 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the present appeal is preferred by the appellants on the ground that on the general and vague allegations, the accused/appellants are convicted by the trial Court. There is no evidence against the present appellants to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The omissions, contradictions, variances and loopholes in the prosecution’s case were not considered by the trial Court while convicting the present appellants. Thus, the appellants have an arguable case in the present appeal and, therefore, they be released on bail by suspending the execution of the sentence. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellants/applicants, who reiterated the said contentions. He has taken us through the entire evidence on record and submitted that the evidence of PW-2 is not trustworthy, not reliable and, therefore, it requires to be discarded. He also invited our attention towards the other evidence of the witnesses and submitted that even it is accepted that the PW-2 is an eye witness, his evidence is not corroborated by the other circumstantial evidence and, therefore, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charges. However, the appeal would take its own time for final decision. In the meanwhile, if the accused persons are kept behind bar and resultantly, if they are acquitted after hearing of the appeal, it would be against the interest of justice and, therefore, the application deserves to be allowed. He submitted that at this stage, though reappreciation of the evidence is not required, however, considering the nature of the evidence, which is adduced by the prosecution is not (4) 25.appa.261.2026 sufficient to convict the present appellants. Considering all these grounds, the application deserves to be allowed. 6. Per contra, learned APP and learned counsel for the original complainant i.e. respondent No.2, strongly opposed the said contention and submitted that considering the evidence in the nature of the direct evidence i.e. the evidence of PW-2 Umesh Rathod, who has witnessed the alleged incident corroborated by the medical evidence. The medical evidence i.e. the evidence of PW-8 Dr. Prakash Premchand Chimnani shows that there were total 14 injuries on the person of the deceased corresponding with the internal injuries. They have submitted that it is not merely an assault on the deceased, but the accused persons have dragged the dead body of the deceased and thereafter attempted to burn the said dead body, which is a brutal act on the part of the present appellants and, therefore, the application deserves to be rejected. 7. On hearing both sides and on perusal of the entire evidence on record, admittedly, at this stage, reappreciation of the evidence is not required. What is to be considered is whether at this stage, the appellants have made out any arguable case to release them on bail by suspending the execution of the sentence. We have taken through the entire evidence on record, especially the evidence of PW-2, who is the eye witness to this incident. He has specifically narrated the specific role of the appellants. As per his evidence, it was the accused Nos.1 to 3 who have assaulted him, whereas the accused No.3 caught hold the deceased. Besides the PW-2, (5) 25.appa.261.2026 there is no other eye witness to the said incident. PW-9 is the panch witness, who acted as a panch on the spot panchanama. Thus, the entire prosecution case is rested on the solitary eye witness i.e. the PW-2, who has not entirely supported the prosecution case. The scientific evidence is also not supporting to the prosecution case. There is no dispute that the injuries are found on the person of the deceased and some burn injuries are also found on the person of the deceased. But considering that PW-2, who is the direct witness and except PW-2, there are no other eye witnesses to the incident. Therefore, at this stage, it has to be seen whether the appellant has any arguable case. Learned counsel for the appellants has already pointed out that as far as PW-2 is concerned, who is the sole eye witness has not supported the prosecution case. PW-2 has admitted during cross- examination that his statement was not recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, he has disowned his statement, which was recorded before the Judicial Magistrate. Thus, at this stage, what is to be seen is whether the appellants have made out a case for acquittal. Considering that the only evidence available with the prosecution is the PW-2, who allegedly eye witness and has not supported the prosecution case. The recovery of the weapon is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, wherein no blood stains are found as per the recovery panchanama. The spot panchanama also nowhere discloses any blood stains at the spot of incident. Admittedly, there was raining and that may be the reason for not having the blood stains at the spot of incident. But, considering the fact that the sole eye witness itself has not supported the (6) 25.appa.261.2026 prosecution case, and, therefore, the appellants have a case on arguable points in the present appeal. 8. At this stage, the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Omprakash Sahni vs. Jai Shankar Chaudhary and another Etc. in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1331-1332 of 2023 decided on 2nd May of 2023 are relevant wherein it is observed that “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.” (7) 25.appa.261.2026 9. In view of the above observations, if the facts of the present case are taken into consideration, admittedly, only witness available with the prosecution is the PW-2, who has not supported the prosecution case and, therefore, at this stage, we have satisfied that the appellants are having arguable case in the present appeal and, therefore, the application for suspension of sentence deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, we proceed to pass following order: ORDER (i) Application is allowed. (ii) The appellants shall be released on bail on executing PR bond of Rs.25,000/- each with one solvent surety in the like amount. (iii) The execution of sentence passed in Sessions Case No.16/2023, is hereby suspended till disposal of the appeal. (iv) The appellants shall furnish two names of their relatives along with the address proof before the trial Court. (v) The appellants shall attend the trial Court i.e. Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal at Yavatmal on 5th day of every month till disposal of the appeal. (vi) The appellants shall not leave the jurisdiction of Yavatmal district without prior permission of this Court. 10. The fees of the appointed counsel be quantified as per the rules. (8) 25.appa.261.2026 11. The application stands disposed of. (RAJ D. WAKODE, J) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J) Sarkate Signed by: Mr. A.R. Sarkate Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 19/08/2026 18:31:02