SURESH VISHWANATH SHINDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application, the appellant/convicted accused is praying for stay to the order of conviction and sentence as well as for grant of bail and suspension of sentence. He is convicted of the offence punishable under Section 304 (Part II) of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years apart from direction to pay fine of Rs.15,000/- and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 2 years.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/convicted accused. He drew my attention to the report of non-cognizable case given by Manda Zumbar Shinde on 23 rd September 2018 and argued that the entire prosecution case is inconsistent and contradictory and the learned trial court has disbelieved evidence of the prosecution so far as other accused persons are concerned, and therefore, it ought not to have convicted the appellant/convicted accused on the basis of same evidence. It is argued that out of sentence of 5 years, the appellant/convicted accused has already undergone sentence of about ten months and as the appellant/convicted accused is found to be suffering from diabetes and therefore he needs to be released on bail.

(3.) The learned APP argued that there cannot be stay to the conviction as no such case is made out. By drawing my attention to paragraph 36 of the impugned judgment and order, the learned APP argued that the learned trial court has given undue benefit to the appellant/convicted accused by converting the offence to one punishable under Section 304 (Part II) of the Indian Penal Code when the Charge was for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.