1 5 appa524.26.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION APPA NO.524/2026 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.111/2025 Bisan s/o Raghunath Shinde and ors ..vs.. State of Mah., thr.PSO Walgaon, Amravati, District Amravati Applicant : Krishna @ Kisana Shankar @ Nana Bhosale Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court' s or Judge' s Order Coram, appearances, Court' s Orders or directions and Registrar' s order Shri M.V.Rai, Counsel for Applicant/Appellant. Shri A.M.Madiwale, APP for the Respondent/State. CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE & RAJ D.WAKODE, JJ. DATED : 08th SEPTEMBER, 2026. 1. Heard learned counsel Shri M.V.Rai for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri A.M.Madiwale for the respondent/State. 2. By this application, applicant Krishna @ Kisana Shankar @ Nana Bhosale, who is original accused No.1, seeks suspension of sentence and releasing him on bail. 3. By judgment and order dated 15.10.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Sessions Trial No.169/2022, the applicant was convicted for offence under Section 302 read with 34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine Rs.5000/-, in default to undergo RI for six months. 2 5 appa524.26.odt 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant along with other co-accused is alleged to have committed murder of deceased. As far as allegations of the prosecution are concerned, it states that it was the present applicant who gave blow by means of “knife” on the chest and other parts of the body of the deceased and the deceased succumbed to injuries. He submits that the entire case of the prosecution is relied upon evidence of PW4. PW4 is the wife of the deceased who has not stated as to role of the present applicant, i.e. original accused No.1 while lodging the FIR. PW4 has improved the said version and the said omission was brought on record during evidence and the trial court has convicted the applicant on the basis of the said evidence which is suffering from infirmities. He submits that as there is no material on record to show that it was the present applicant, i.e. original accused No.1, who has assaulted the deceased by means of “knife” and, therefore, the applicant is having many arguable points in the appeal. In view of that, execution of the sentence be suspended and he be released on bail. 5. Per contra, learned APP for the Sated has strongly opposed the said contentions and submitted that in furtherance of common intention, the death of the deceased is caused by the applicant. 3 5 appa524.26.odt He invites our attention towards order passed by this court in Criminal Application No.205/2025 by which other two accused are released on bail by suspending the sentence. He submits that evidence of PW4, who is the wife of the deceased, is corroborated by circumstantial evidence, i.e. recovery of the “Knife” at the instance of the accused and other circumstantial evidence on the basis of which the applicant is convicted. He also points out that the omission pointed by learned counsel for the applicant is not put to the investigating officer and, therefore, it is not proved omission and, therefore, it cannot be taken into consideration. He submits that considering fact that re-appreciation of the evidence is not permissible, at the stage of considering applications for suspension of sentence, what is to be seen is, whether there is any material to show that the applicant is having any chances of success in the present appeal which learned counsel for the applicant fails to point out and, therefore, the application deserves to be rejected. 6. On hearing both sides and perusing the evidence of PW4 and PW3, who are medical officers, it shows that the death of the deceased is homicidal one. Role attributed to the applicant by eyewitnesses is of giving blow by means of “knife”. Learned counsel for the applicant pointed out that the role of applicant is in the nature of omission as the said omission is not proved by learned counsel for the accused before the trial court. Moreover, 4 5 appa524.26.odt additional evidence is in the nature of circumstantial, i.e. recovery of weapon at the instance of the applicant. 7. Thus, considering re-appreciation of the evidence is not permissible at this stage, considering applications for suspension of sentence, the evidence showing involvement of the applicant is sufficient and, therefore, at this stage, we are not of view that the applicant has succeeded in showing that the applicant is having any chances of success in the present appeal. 8. At this stage, we are inclined to consider observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Omprakash Sahni vs. Jai Shankar Chaudhari and anr, reported in (2023) 6 SCC 123, wherein, after considering catena of decisions, in paragraph No.33, observed as follows: “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 5 5 appa524.26.odt 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 Code of Criminal Procedure 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.” 9. Thus, in the case in hand, the entire evidence of the prosecution is relied upon evidence of PW4 and considering the omission, admittedly, attracts role of the applicant, substantiated by recovery of the weapon at his instance, the application for suspension of sentence deserves to be rejected and the same is rejected. 10. The R&P in the matter is already received. 11. Office to prepare Paper-Book and list the appeal for final disposal after preparation of the paper book. 12. Application stands disposed of. [JUDGE] [JUDGE] !! BrWankhede !! Signed by: Mr. B. R. Wankhede Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 09/09/2026 18:29:52