RAVINDRA ADHAR SONWANE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pending criminal appeal no.143 of 2020 preferred against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in Sessions Case no 64 of 2017 dated 24.12.2019 convicting both the accused for having committed the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fne of Rs.7,000/- each, and in default to suffer S.I. for two months, the applicant/accused no.2 has preferred this application for suspension of the substantive part of the sentence and for bail.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant/original accused no.2 submits that, the incident had taken place about 10.00 p.m. on Jalgaon Square. Deceased was the cousin of PW 1 and PW 2. Deceased was working as a driver on one Transport Vehicle, and on that day, he was driving his vehicle for the destination of Pachora to deliver Bisleri Bottles. Consequently, before reaching Pachora, deceased had made a phone call to PW 1 and PW 2 informing them that he would come to the house. As per the prosecution story, thus, PW 1 and PW 2, who were the cousin of the deceased, went to Jalgaon Square to receive the deceased. Deceased had come there while driving his delivery van and on reaching there and after meeting PW 1 and PW 2 he went to the side of the road for urinary purposes. However, while returning towards the vehicle, he dashed against the accused no.1. The present applicant/accused no.2 was also there alongwith accused no.1. Thus, quarrel had taken place between them. As per prosecution story, the present applicant/accused no.2 has caught hold the deceased from his backside and accused no.1 had given blow of knife on the abdomen of the deceased, so also on the back of the deceased, when deceased tried to escape and run towards his vehicle.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, the incident had taken place without any premeditation. It has taken place as of sudden. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that, in this backdrop, there cannot be any common intention on the part of the applicant/accused no.2 to commit the murder of the deceased. The learned counsel submits that, even there is no evidence indicating that the applicant/accused no.2 had instigated the accused no.1 nor any evidence to indicate that the applicant/accused no.2 had knowledge that the accused no.1 was having knife with him and he is likely to assault the deceased. Learned counsel submits that, PW 2, who is also the cousin, claims to have accompanied PW 1 at the relevant time, has not supported the prosecution case, however, in cross-examination, he has given certain admissions, but again in his cross-examination by the accused, he has denied to witness the incident of actual assault. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, though the applicant was not on bail during the trial, however, considering the evidence as against him and since his role is restricted to the extent as stated by PW 1, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.