(1) Cri. Application No.304-26 .odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.304 OF 2026 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.291 OF 2026 Sandip @ Sonya s/o Bhagwan Choudhari, Age : 26 years, Occu.: Agril., R/o.: Dhagpimpri, Tq. Paranda, District : Osmanabad ….. APPLICANT (Original Accused) VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Through : Police Station Inspector, City Police Station, Paranda Tq. Paranda, District : Dharashiv …. RESPONDENT …. Advocate for the applicant : Mr. Satej S. Jadhav A.P.P. for Respondent/State : Ms. D. S. Jape …. CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ. RESERVED ON : 07/08/2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 27/08/2026 ORDER:- 1. Heard rival submissions. 2. By this application, the applicant, who is the original accused in Sessions Case No.3 of 2024, is seeking suspension of his substantive sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the learned 2026:BHC-AUG:39604-DB (2) Cri. Application No.304-26 .odt Additional Sessions Judge, Paranda, District Dharashiv (hereinafter referred to as “the learned trial Judge”), during the pendency of the appeal and his release on bail. 3. As per the prosecution case, on 30/10/2023, Aishwarya Ananta Madne (PW-9), daughter of the informant Ananta Bhau Madne (PW-2), had gone to the Mahadeo Temple for a religious function in village Dhagpimpri in the evening along with her uncle, Vitthal Bhau Madane, i.e. the brother of the informant and the deceased in the present case. It is alleged that about ten years prior to the incident, the deceased Vitthal had kidnapped the sister of the applicant-accused. At the relevant time, the deceased had come to village Dhagpimpri to attend the proceedings arising out of the aforesaid incident, which were pending before the Paranda Court. After attending the function, Aishwarya went to the house of her friend, Karuna Kamble (PW-1). At about 8.00 to 8.30 p.m., she called the informant and informed him that when the deceased Vitthal had come to the house of Karuna Kamble to take her, the applicant-accused came there carrying an axe and assaulted Vitthal on his head and neck with the said axe and thereafter fled from the spot. Upon receiving the information, the informant came to the spot. Vitthal was taken to the hospital, where he was declared dead. Accordingly, on the basis of the report lodged by the informant, a crime was registered against the applicant. After conducting the (3) Cri. Application No.304-26 .odt trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Paranda, District Dharashiv, by judgment dated 30/09/2025, convicted the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that though the eyewitness, Aishwarya (PW-9), has deposed in consonance with the prosecution case, but the other eyewitness, Karuna (PW-9), who is her friend, has not supported the case of the prosecution. According to Karuna (PW-9), she and Aishwarya were at the temple itself and returned to the house at about 10.00 p.m. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, it is difficult to believe that Aishwarya had witnessed the incident. Moreover, Aishwarya (PW-9) has stated that when the informant arrived at the spot, the deceased narrated the incident to him before he was taken to the hospital. However, no such statement finds place in the evidence of the informant. He further pointed out that the Investigating Officer has admitted that no electric pole was shown in the spot panchanama and therefore, it was highly difficult for Aishwarya (PW-9) to clearly witness the incident. According to the learned counsel, no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution. Therefore, considering that the applicant has been behind bars for about three years, he may be released on bail. 5. On the contrary, the learned APP strongly opposed the (4) Cri. Application No.304-26 .odt submissions made on behalf of the applicant. According to her, though the incident had taken place at night, but there was sufficient light at the spot, as the light from the house of Karuna was available. According to her, though Karuna has not supported the prosecution case, but Aishwarya (PW-9) was the most natural witness and there is no reason to disbelieve her testimony. Thus, she prayed for rejection of the application. 6. It is significant to note that the prosecution claims that Karuna (PW-1) and Aishwarya (PW-9) had witnessed the incident. Though Karuna (PW-1) did not support the prosecution case, but she at least admitted that Aishwarya (PW-9) had used her mobile phone to call her father. Moreover, Aishwarya (PW-9) appears to be a natural witness and she has narrated the incident in consonance with the prosecution case. Her evidence is also corroborated by the medical evidence. The doctor who had examined the deceased has stated that there were eight injuries, including three vital injuries, along with a fracture of the skull and hematoma, which resulted into the death of Vitthal. Not much importance can be given to the hostility of witness Karuna (PW-1), because she must be having her own reason for not supporting the prosecution case. It is also significant to note that the applicant-accused was not released on bail during the trial. Therefore, considering the prima facie material available against the applicant-accused, we are not inclined to suspend his substantive (5) Cri. Application No.304-26 .odt sentence of imprisonment and release him on bail during the pendency of the appeal. 7. Accordingly, the application stands rejected. ( VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV ) ( SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE ) JUDGE JUDGE VS Maind/